On October 8, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement that “If you send 1.70,000 won to the victim, you will send 2 diskettess to the Defendant door-to-door 170,000 won to the Defendant’s home-to-door 2017 PHF 2017 PHF 2017 PPP 201” prepared by the victim C by accessing the Internet NAV to the Defendant’s home-to-house.

However, since the defendant did not have the above tweet, even if he received money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to sell it.

The Defendant received KRW 170,00 from the injured party to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant on the same day, and received total of KRW 2,627,00 from September 13, 2017 to October 25, 2017, total of KRW 14 times from each victims, such as the list of crimes in attached Form.

Accordingly, the defendant was informed of the victims to receive property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, and P respective statements;

1. Details of reports on cyber crimes and transactions of each passbook;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Evidence List 32);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act for the aggravated concurrent crimes [the scope of recommending punishment] is that each crime committed against an unspecified or multiple victims or repeatedly for a considerable amount of time (one year to two years and six months) in the aggravated area (a special aggravated person] [the decision of sentence] in the case where each crime is committed against an unspecified or multiple victims, or repeatedly for a considerable amount of time (the decision of sentence] deceiving the other party as if the goods were sold to an unspecified number of unspecified persons on the Internet, which is significant in light of the relevant criminal law and repeatability, the victims were not compensated for or did not agree on compensation for damages, and there is a power of being sentenced to a fine twice due to a crime under the same Act.