However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On August 13, 2017, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s residence located in Busan Shipping Daegu C, posted an article on the victim D’s NAV’s “SER purchase” on the part of NAV, a medium-sized Kafin, and made a false statement to the effect that “on remittance of money, you will send the goods.”

However, even if the defendant receives money, he send a DNA personal correspondence to the victim.

there was no intention or ability to act.

The Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above, received 35,000 won from the victim’s account under the name of the Defendant on the same day from the victim; and (b) from around that time to around October 1 of the same year, the Defendant received a total of KRW 475,000 from the victims four times in total as indicated in the separate crime list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Each petition and statement prepared in D, B, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to increase deposits without passbooks, written confirmation of the details of service use, internal investigation reports (Attachment of data requested to provide communications data), and internal investigation reports (Attachment of data submitted to the provision of financial transaction information);

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

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following sentencing shall be taken into consideration in favor of the people in mind):

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Articles 32(1)3 and 32(2) and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits to Dismiss Application for Compensation (the scope of compensation liability against the applicant for compensation is not clear, and thus, it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in the criminal procedure of this case) has repeatedly committed the crime by deceiving four victims via the Internet. The crime is bad in nature, the defendant was not agreed with the victims until now, and the defendant was punished for the same crime.