On November 2018, the Defendant stated that “Around the course of cleaning at the camping site, the Defendant would be able to collect money from the victim’s “in the course of working as a cleaning employee in the foreign gambling site,” and that “I would like to collect money from the victim’s purchase of equipment (PC, soft, and server) to deduct information from the above gambling site (PC, soft, and server) at the above gambling site.”

However, in fact, the defendant thought that he will use the money received from the victim for the cost of living, and even if he did not know the way to manipulate the winning rate of the gambling site, he did not have any intention or ability to get the victim to pay money by purchasing equipment such as computer for manipulating the winning rate of the gambling site.

At around 10:30 on November 5, 2018, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, obtained 41.8 million won from the front corridor of the FF Bank toilet located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, for the purchase of equipment from the victim, and acquired it by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A complaint;

1. Investigation reports ( Results of replies of written consent to financial transaction information);

1. Application of the response statutes of financial institutions;

1. On the other hand, the relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and the selection of punishment appear to be a confession and reflection of the reasons for sentencing (elective of imprisonment). On the other hand, even though a person was punished by a fine of the same kind and different types of crimes (3 million won) and a long-term imprisonment (4 and 2 years and 6 months), the person committed the instant crime without any deep-depth reflection, and the crime committed with the content of deceiving illegal acts highly likely to be subject to criticism, such as “the manipulation of the gambling site winning”, the nature of the crime is not good, the damage was not recovered, and the victim did not receive a letter from the victim. In addition, the Defendant’s age, character, career, family relationship, health status, and the crime.