If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

On July 6, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud, etc. in the Sungnam Branch of Suwon District Court on September 22, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 22, 2017. On November 22, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on November 22, 2019, and is still pending in the appellate trial as of November 26,

On December 7, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C through the Internet “B” camera, thereby selling the game money amounting to KRW 44 million.

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to sell the game item.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 40,00 from the victim with the national bank account (E) in the name of the Defendant, a transfer of KRW 40,00 as the price for the game item.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. C’s statement;

1. A detailed statement of account transfer and data to close a text message;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of criminal records, investigation reports (report on confirmation before disposition, results of confirmation, and date of release), and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine for the crime;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing of the provisional payment order is not a minor but is shown in the attitude of recognizing and opposing the Defendant’s mistake. The fact that the first head sentence sentenced in 2016, which was the crime of 2016, was the crime of fraud and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive, and therefore, the fairness in the case where the judgment was rendered cannot be considered at the same time. In addition, the trial process and records of this case are shown.