On January 30, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and six months, and one year and six months for a short term, and on September 2, 2016, at the Daegu District Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul District Court") (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul District Court") (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul District Court") sentenced one year and six months to imprisonment for fraud, and completed the execution of the sentence on October 1, 2017.

On October 26, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Daegu District Court (2018 High Court Decision 3417, etc.) and was finally decided on November 3, 2018.

On January 18, 2018, the Defendant, using a mobile phone in Busan Metropolitan City, the residence of which is around 20:11, pursuant to C202, access to the Internet “openter” website and purchase cultural merchandise coupons.

The phrase “in the event of notifying the victim D of the number of cultural gift certificates equivalent to KRW 20,00,000,” and the victim D who reported and contacted this letter, read “in the event of informing the victim of the number of fin numbers of cultural gift certificates equivalent to KRW 20,00,000,

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to inform the victim of the price of the goods even if he received a Fin number from the injured party.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received from the victim the number of 20,000 won in total from the market value of the same day, and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written complaints and statements of D;

1. Details of dialogues on each spot, each internal investigation report, and data on a reply to the opening of each spot;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Review of criminal records, personal confinement status, criminal history and other inquiry results, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes significantly true to this court;

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

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code to treat concurrent crimes: (a) the fact that the Defendant’s reason for sentencing under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Code does not repeat the crime while recognizing and reflecting his mistake; (b) the degree of damage is relatively minor; and (c) the instant crime constitutes a repeated crime and a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Code; (d) details of the crime, method of the crime, and method of the crime.