beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for four months.
However, with respect to Defendant A, it shall be for a period of two years.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
【Defendant A’s past record of crime was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on January 28, 2016, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 29th day of the same month. Defendant B was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the same court on January 28, 2016 and two years of suspended execution.
2.5. A person for whom the above judgment has become final and conclusive.
[Criminal Facts]
1. Defendant A
A. A. On July 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the “E” mobile phone agency of the victim’s operation “E” in Cheongdong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) the Defendant sent the victim the two cell phone units to be used by our husband and wife to the wife’s name; (c) so, the Defendant would pay the victim well.
“The identification card necessary for the opening of the above mobile phone and the family relation certificate were presented to the purport of the expression.
However, in fact, the Defendant did not have been delegated by the wife, and if a mobile phone is opened, the Defendant thought that he would immediately dispose of the mobile phone and prepare money, and did not have the intention or ability to pay the cost of the terminal or the telecommunications fee, etc., so such remarks were false.
Therefore, the Defendant, as seen above, had the victim enticed, and received the amount equivalent to KRW 1,59,400 in total (G, H) and KRW 1,59,400 from the victim, namely, at the 799,700, the shipment price of Samsung Telecommunication Operator’s Samsung Tallon, which is equivalent to KRW 79,700, respectively, from the victim.
(2) On July 27, 2014, the Defendant, at the same place, wanting to open two cell phoness to be used for business purposes at this time to the victim, and would pay the face value well.
“ ................”
However, in fact, if the defendant did not have been delegated by the wife and the mobile phone opened, he did not think of the money by disposing of the terminal immediately and did not have the intention or ability to pay the terminal price or the telecommunications fee, so the above words were false.
Therefore, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it.