A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] The Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for one year at the Seoul Western District Court on August 22, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 30, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

On October 201, the Defendant stated that “A victim E, who was introduced from Sogyang-gu C building in order to supply KRW 12,000,000 to November 30, 201, 300,000 out of 12,000,000,000 if she had been placed in iron.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not intend to use the payment from the victim as living expenses, etc., and did not have 12,000 pieces, and there was no other way to procure it. Therefore, even if the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the victim, there was no intention or ability to supply KRW 30 million.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received from the victim at the end of the foregoing false statement KRW 3 million around November 3 of the same year, and KRW 7 million around the 15th of the same month, respectively, in one bank account (Account Number:F) in the name of the Defendant, respectively.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Contracts for the purchase of part-time services;

1. Transfer certificate and receipt;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (report attached to judgments) and Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The fact that the majority of the records of the same kind of reasoning for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act are disadvantageous, or that the amount of damage in this case does not seem to be a very large amount, that the defendant is against the defendant and has a majority of his dependents, and that it seems that about 2.5 million won was paid to the victim as part of the damage.