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

On April 5, 2012, the Defendant was released on September 30, 2013, and the parole period expired on January 9, 2014 while he was sentenced to two years of habitual criminal fraud at the method of flooding.

On May 14, 2014, the Defendant called from the Defendant’s office located in B at Naju-si, to the phone number listed in “C” at the Defendant’s office located in B, and sought to see the victim D, who was aware of the phone number “G”, “I want to enter the Defendant’s office and unmarried, so I would like to see the Defendant’s office and unmarried, so I would like to see, but there is no difference.

The purpose was to make a false statement to the effect that she would transfer the vehicle fee to the knife where she lives.

In fact, the Defendant had no intent or ability to use the money remitted from the victim for the personal purpose, even if he/she received the money from the victim, even if he/she did not have the intent to use the money as the money for inducing the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 100,000 from the victim to the national bank account (E) in the name of the Defendant. From around that time to July 30, 2014, the Defendant acquired the total amount of KRW 5,570,000 through 32 times, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made in the police statement protocol with D;

1. Each entry of the details of transactions by account and a copy of the pocket book;

1. Previous convictions: Application of respective Acts and subordinate statutes in which inquiries, such as criminal history, replys to inquiries and personal expropriations are made;

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The punishment of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Criminal Procedure Act”) is inappropriate and the amount of fraud is not so big.

There are seven criminal records for the defendant, and the criminal law is similar.

However, it is a previous offense of a fine, except the judgment.

Defendant.