When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On March 24, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “650,000 won will be sent to the department store store store in advance,” using a mobile phone to the victim B at an irregular place in Gwangju or lower level.

However, at the time, the Defendant requested the victim to transmit the gift certificates photographs and merchandise coupons that he/she was unable to sell by seeking department stores, etc., on the Internet.

Because of the fact that there was no intention or ability to ask for and deliver merchandise coupons to the department store even if the money is paid from the injured party.

Nevertheless, on March 25, 2017, the Defendant was delivered KRW 650,000 to the account of the National Bank in the name of C used by the Defendant (D) around March 25, 2017 by deceiving the victim as above and deceiving the victim.

In addition, on March 27, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would purchase and offer a third head of the Home Packer gift certificate” to the victim, although there is no intention or ability to seek merchandise coupons as above, and received KRW 120,000 from the damaged party to the above account of the National Bank in the name of C on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim and receiving the property, acquired the property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. A remittance statement;

1. Application of the statutes on the details of text conversations;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

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. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order / [The defendant asserts that there is a different opinion on the discount rate of merchandise coupons between the victim and the non-payment of merchandise coupons, but according to each evidence of the judgment, including the content of text dialogue, the defendant is only aware of the fact that the defendant did not pay merchandise coupons to the victim immediately upon remittance.