The defendant, who opened a mobile phone with the aged or the disabled, had the aged or the disabled open a mobile phone by paying a small amount of money and having him pay his fee, and had the latter open a mobile phone, and had the latter gain profits from selling the mobile phone.

On December 15, 2015, the Defendant approach the victim C who was suffering from mental illness in the vicinity of the Busan Metropolitan City, Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City on December 15, 2015, and is 20,000 won if the victim opens one cell phone.

Fees and the value of machinery shall be paid in full.

“A false representation was made.”

However, at the time of fact, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the charges and machinery values on behalf of the victim only when he had sold the mobile phone that the victim opened.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim as above and let the victim open a mobile phone of 6S (16G) mobile phone of 869,000 won in the name of the victim in Busan Metropolitan City D located in Busan Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, and acquired the above mobile phone from the seller of the mobile phone after receiving the above mobile phone from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness C and G;

1. Part of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each statement protocol with respect to C and G;

1. A complaint, a new service contract, and a statement of charges;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (a witness H statement and a diagnosis report filed by the complainant);

1. Article 347(1) of the relevant criminal law regarding the criminal facts, the reason for sentencing of sentence of imprisonment [the scope of recommendation] In the basic area (from June to one year and six months) of category 1 (the period of less than 100 million won) of the general fraud [the decision of sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] is that the defendant has four times the criminal records of identical fraud crimes (one time of suspended execution and three times of fine). Two times of the defendant's above fraud records are similar to the case in this case, which are subject to each fine in 2015, and are good contents of the crime in this case, such as fraud against the victim who fell short of mental capacity.