An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Around January 2013, the Defendant issued a false statement to the victim B at the Sungsung-gun D Distribution Center located in Jeonsung-gun, 2013, stating that “Around April 2013, the Defendant may receive monthly delivery charges of KRW 2.7 million if he/she takes over a corporate vehicle of Young-gun, a corporation in charge of the delivery of the said company, and takes over and delivers delivery of the said vehicle. The monthly delivery charges of KRW 30 million are required for the delivery of the delivery vehicle, and that it would be possible to deposit the vehicle into the account in the name of E, a field of Young-gun, a corporation, to take over the vehicle on his/her face.

However, at the time, there was no plan to increase the delivery vehicle in Young-ro Co., Ltd., and even if there was a plan to increase the vehicle, the defendant was not at a location to have the defendant take over it, and the victim was planning to have the defendant transfer the money to E, and thus, there was no intention to use the money as the purchase price for the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, had the victim pay KRW 22 million on February 15, 2013, and KRW 5 million on May 20, 2013 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of E, thereby releasing the victim from liability equivalent to KRW 27 million on the aggregate amount of KRW 27 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement No. B

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Articles 32 (1) and 26 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits for Compensation Orders (illegal as an application for compensation, following the conclusion of pleadings);

1. The scope of recommendation types, general fraud categories (less than KRW 100,000) and the basic area (from June to June); and

2. The first offender who had no criminal record, or the crime of this case was intelligent and led and the defendant did not recover from damage even though the defendant had given considerable period of time, and other reasons.