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

On February 3, 2014, the Defendant would be an employee from the Fju point operated by the Cheongju-si E in a substantial area of Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, to the victim D as a prepaid.

“False speech” was made.

However, even if the defendant received the advance payment from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to work at the above main point.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received three copies of the check from the victim himself/herself on February 5, 2014 under the name of the pre-paid gold.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. G certification;

1. A detailed statement of transactions of passbook;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a certificate of borrowing money;

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. The basic area (from June to June) of the sentencing criteria [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the basic area (from June to June) of the type No. 1 of the general fraud (the scope of the recommended punishment is less than KRW 100 million) (the person who has no special sentencing seal);

2. The sentence shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following circumstances following the determination of sentence and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, sex, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime.

The fact that the victim did not agree with the victim and did not recover the damage, that there was a history of punishment for the same kind of crime, that there was a long-term location despite being aware of the fact that the prosecution was instituted, and that it is against the fact that the amount of damage is relatively insignificant.