Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On October 12, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court) and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 31, 2012.

1. On November 18, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement that “Around November 18, 2010, the Defendant would pay KRW 550,000 to employees in the office of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim B (State) C, and would use and return the said office rent for one month if he/she lends the said machine to employees in the foregoing office.”

However, at the time, the Defendant had no special property under the name of the Defendant, and there was an economic difficult situation, such as the Defendant’s failure to pay KRW 70 million for the debt worth KRW 2 million on one month’s income to interest, and even for a broadcast camera, he thought to be secured by the obligee, and there was no intention or ability to return it from time to time even if the Defendant leased it from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the employees of the victimized company, obtained the Kamera (UAR-Z5N) for broadcasting of the amount of KRW 3 million at the market price from the victim and obtained the HAR-Z5N.

2. On November 25, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement that “If an employee of the victimized company lends an effective machine for broadcasting at the same place, he/she will pay 280,000 won per month rent and return it immediately after using it.”

However, at the time, the Defendant was in an economically difficult situation as above, and the effect mechanism for broadcasting was thought to be secured by the Defendant’s creditor as well as the above broadcast camera, so there was no intention or ability to return it from the victim even if it was leased by the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, deceiving the employees of the victimized company, and thereby, acquired the market effect mechanism (a model name: AG-MX70) from the victim to receive the market effect mechanism (a model name).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (Voluntary Selection)