On August 21, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud in the support for the development of the Suwon method, and completed the execution of the sentence in the original prison on March 1, 2016.

On March 11, 2016, from around 03:30 to December 13:00 of the same month, the Defendant was provided with the “D” of the victim’s operation from around 03:30 on March 11, 2016 to around 13:00 of the same month. The Defendant, despite having no intent or ability to pay the price in a normal manner even if he/she used a room and ordered food, was given the same attitude that he/she would pay the price in a normal manner to E who is an employee.

From March 14, 2015, the Defendant provided three victims with computer-use services and food equivalent to KRW 88,700 in total in the room operated by three victims, such as the list of offenses, from March 14, 2015 to March 12, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victims, acquired property benefits by receiving property benefits.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement of F, E, and G;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: A written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) the application of the relevant statute as a result of search of prisoners;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud) and the choice of imprisonment for the crime;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act, as the punishment for concurrent crimes;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Scope of the recommended punishment] General frauds of category 1 (less than KRW 100 million) and the aggravated area (one year to two years and six months) (person subject to special aggravation) of the same type of repeated crime;

2. In light of the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed and the victims did not agree or have not recovered from damage even though the defendant had been sentenced to punishment more than twice for the same crime, even though the period of repeated crime has not yet passed since the defendant was sentenced to punishment, a severe punishment against the defendant is inevitable. However, the defendant himself/herself.