A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

[criminal history] Defendant A was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Busan District Court on July 15, 2015, and on October 6, 2015, Defendant A completed the execution of the said sentence in the case of the three North Korean Dos of the North Korean Dos on September 7, 2016, by having been sentenced to imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the same court on October 6, 2015.

Defendant

B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months for a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Busan District Court on October 13, 2014. On February 10, 2015, the period of the suspended sentence was determined on May 14, 2015 by being sentenced to six months of imprisonment and a fine of 200,000 won for night residence intrusion and larceny at the Changwon District Court on February 10, 2015, and the sentence of the suspended sentence was invalidated on May 14, 2015. On July 15, 2015, the Busan District Court sentenced six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the Busan District Court on July 15, 2015.

[Criminal facts] 2017 Highest 1140

1. The Defendants’ joint crime committed on January 201, 201 to sell mobile phones on the Internet and the medium-sized goods trading sites such as the Republic of Korea.

It is necessary to put up a posted article and then report the posted article to the victims who have contacted with them to sell heavy cell phoness.

The public offering was made to make a false representation and receive the price of goods.

According to the above public offering, the Defendants are connected to the Internet gallon by using Defendant A’s mobile phone at a gallon in the remote area not exceeding the city of Changwon on February 2, 2017.

“At the time of remitting money, the victim E who written up a sign and reported and contacted the book “ will send a cell phone of 5 gallon and a cell phone with gallon.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the Defendants did not own the above-mentioned mobile phone and even if they received money from the injured party, they did not have the intention or ability to send the above-mentioned and the above-mentioned mobile phone to the door-to-door service.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim, thereby deceiving the victim.