[criminal history] On December 11, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Western District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Daegu Prison on June 21, 2016.

"2017 Highest 721"

1. The Defendant, at around 14:00 on August 22, 2016, purchases electronic tobacco from the “D” electronic tobacco store located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon, to the victim E.

In that sense, because the inner part of the wall was lost, 50,000 won will be lent at the next expense to the house and immediately transfer the account to the account.

“A false statement” was made.

However, in fact, the defendant did not intend to purchase electronic tobacco from the injured party, and even if he received the above money, he thought that he would use it as living expenses, such as expenses for the payment, and he did not have the intention or ability to repay again to the injured party

From March 5, 2017 to March 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victims as such; (b) by deceiving the victims in a total of 35 times from the time when the victims were delivered 50,000 won in cash from the victims; and (c) received a total of 2,643,000 won from the victims.

2. A thief: (a) around September 26, 2016, the Defendant: (b) received from the victim G in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F a 400,000 Won of the market value of the H’s ownership as if he/she would purchase a glaf in the store, and (c) received from the victim, as he/she would have purchased a glaf in the store, he/she would withdraw money from the bank; and (d) took a glaf with the above glaf with the above glaf, and escaped from that time until February 26, 2017, he/she stolen the property worth KRW 18,690,000 in total by the same method, such as the second glaf Table 2 attached hereto.

3. On March 5, 2017, the Defendant, on the 15:00 on a Gun platform located in 550, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu, found a new bank check that the victim I lost.

Defendant 1 did not take necessary procedures, such as returning the above acquired property to the victim.