If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Around August 10, 2019, the Defendant posted a false statement to the B Kafin stating that “where a place is unknown, S 10E shall be sold in KRW 1.1 million” on the B Kafin, the Defendant reported the fact that “the Defendant would send the money to the victim C who contacted the payment, on the one hand.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to send goods even if he received the payment from the victim because he did not actually think that he will receive the money from the victim as if he sold the mobile phone.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 110,000 won from the victim to the account of community credit cooperatives (D) in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (report on attachment of details of A Criminal Account);

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Korea Criminal Procedure Act, deceiving the victim as if he/she had sold valuable goods against a good victim.

The crime of fraud in this case was committed merely with intent to purchase goods without intent to assume a special economic risk, and was committed with fraud against the victim, and was committed with intent to sell goods at the time of payment of money to the purchaser, and was committed by abusing the characteristics of Internet transactions that cannot be clearly confirmed whether the purchaser actually exists at the time of payment of money, and thus, the crime is not more likely to be committed in light of the fact that it is necessary to actively punish such fraud in order to revitalize the Internet transactions.

The defendant has committed the crime of this case even though he had the same criminal record, and has compensated for the damage of the victim.