However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On February 28, 2018, the Defendant posted a false statement on the Defendant’s home located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Seoul-si, to the effect that “S7 Soviet Do Do Do ju Do Do Do Do Do Lalg Do sell Do Do chip” and sent money to the victim C who reported and contacted this.

However, even if the defendant receives money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to send the goods as the promise.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 230,000 won from the victim to the bank account of the name of the Defendant for the same day as the price for the goods from the victim.

2. On June 18, 2018, the Defendant access from the above Defendant’s home to the NAFK Kaf, and sold “SK Telecom 5 data telephones.”

A notice to the effect that “” was made, and the victim D who reported it was made a false statement to the effect that he/she would send coophones at the face of the transfer of money.

However, even if the defendant receives money from the injured party, he did not have any intention or ability to send coophones according to the promise.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 22,00 won from the victim to the Kakao Bank account under the name of the Defendant for the same day as the price for the goods from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements D and C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of bank transactions, details of account transfer, and details of text conversations;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, Articles 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The fact that there are two criminal records of the same kind of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following favorable circumstances) and the fact that there is a relatively recent risk of repeating a crime is a relatively recent crime, etc. that is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine for the accused.