[criminal records] On November 16, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months at the Daejeon District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[2] On November 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) connected the Defendant’s residence in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon; (b) posted an article on the Internet’s website to sell Aphone 6s mobile phones; and (c) sent the above mobile phone to D who reported and contacted the fact that the Defendant deposited the mobile phone price.

“Falsely false.”

However, the Defendant did not have the above mobile phone, and around 13.5 million won from July 2016, the Defendant was unable to repay the loan obligation, and thus, even if he received the payment from the injured party, he did not intend to sell the above mobile phone to the injured party or did not have any capacity to sell it.

Defendant was delivered 40,000 won to the Nonghyup Bank account (Account Number E) in the name of Defendant on November 24, 2016 from the victim by deceiving the victim as above and deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written complaints and statements of the draftD;

1. Evidential documents;

1. Previous convictions: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, investigation report (the confirmation of identical criminal records and ex post concurrent crimes of the suspect), and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 39 (1) of the Exemption of Punishment Act (excluding punishment against the defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the fact that the crime in this case is committed while confessioning the crime in this case; (b) the damage is recovered by paying the full amount of the money obtained by deception to the victim; and (c) the fact that the judgment in this case becomes final and conclusive in the concurrent crimes relationship between fraud and the latter Article 37 of