Defendant

A fails to pay the above fine.

Defendant

A was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Busan District Court on July 19, 2018 and two years of suspended execution, and the above judgment was finalized on February 8, 2019, and on January 31, 2020, the Jeju District Court sentenced imprisonment for six months as a crime of fraud at the Jeju District Court, and the above judgment was finalized on July 3, 2020.

From the victim C’s ships, the Defendants conspiredd to take the Defendant by deceiving the Defendant as if he were to work as a seafarer. From May 2018 to May 2018, the Defendants made a false statement that “E located in Do, Ma, Ma, Ma, from June 2018 to October 2018, the Defendant changed the victim’s head of the agency (Defendant A) and the crew (Defendant B) to work as the head of the agency and the crew (Defendant B).”

However, even if the Defendants received the advance payment from the injured party, they did not have the intention or ability to work as a seafarer on the ship of the injured party.

The Defendants, as such, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 8 million from the Busan Bank account in the name of the F on May 2018 from the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the Defendants as to the investigation report of the police statement C by each of the Defendants (the contents of the statement with the complainant)

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiries, such as criminal history, and the text of the judgment;

1. The Defendants: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) of the same Act; and Article 347 of the same Act

1. Defendant A who handles concurrent crimes: After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1);

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The negative circumstances are that even though the reason for sentencing Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) had a record of criminal punishment several times for Defendant A’s same kind of crime, the Defendants again committed the instant crime.

However, the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant by paying the amount of damage, the defendant appears to have an attitude against his or her wrong recognition, and the relationship between each crime of fraud and ex post facto concurrent crimes which have become final and conclusive.