1. On August 14, 2015, the Defendant posted a false statement to the effect that “the sales of the Libers” in the Internet “Alley” room in the PC room located in the Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, the Defendant sent money to the victim BT who reported and contacted the above article first, as if the Defendant sent the Libers.

However, in fact, the defendant had the idea of deceiving the victim to receive money only, and even if he received the price for the goods from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to send the drone.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was transferred KRW 390,00 from the victim’s personal compromise account under the name of the Defendant.

2. On August 19, 2015, the Defendant posted a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant sells Ampid 2” PC in the Internet “China” page in the PC room located in the Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, and then sent money to the victim BU who reported and contacted the above article first, as if the Defendant sent money to the victim BU who had contacted.

However, the defendant had had no intention or ability to send 2 a parity to the victim even if he/she had the victim deceivings the victim to receive the money only, and even if he/she received the price for the goods from the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 300,000 won from the victim’s personal compromise account under the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect BV;

1. Each written statement of BT and BU;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a detailed statement of transactions and the result of account transfer;

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

1. There are unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, could have been punished for the same kind of crime, and that there was no agreement with the victims or no recovery from damage.

On the other hand, the defendant reflects his mistake.