Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant

B The above fine shall not be paid.

Punishment of the crime

On July 22, 2016, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and four months due to fraud, etc. at the Jung-gu District Court Senior District Court Goyang on July 2, 2016, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Jung-gu prison on May 6, 2017.

On August 21, 2017, Defendant A, at around 2017, 2614, had been accommodated with the victim F of the sexual traffic of female-friendly job offering in the influence room located in the Singu-dong, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, and had access to the Internet NAV and the website of the country, and had access to the message board “chilling the settlement of the mobile phone small amount” on the bulletin board, and had the victim's cell phone (G) put the so-called "profed tin for settlement of small amount."

Accordingly, Defendant A, who posted the above writing, sent the victim's mobile phone number, the victim's date of birth, and the certification number transmitted to the above mobile phone, notified the victim's mobile phone number to enter it in the Internet site No. 99,000 won, and had the victim settle the above mobile phone number, etc. at around 11 times, as in the list of crimes in the attached Form No. 1, the defendant A received approximately 55,000 won from the person who was in the name of the victim, and acquired property profits by receiving approximately 869,850 won in total from the bank account in the name of the defendant A, namely, from the person who was in the name of the defendant in the name of the above.

On June 8, 2017, Defendant A made a false statement to send money to the victim I who reported and contacted the above article by posting a gallon gallon on a cell phone used by Defendant A in the Seo-gu Daejeon H and 304, Seo-gu, Daejeon, to sell gallon S3 on the Internet, a cell phone used by Defendant A, and then sent money to the victim I.

However, in fact, Defendant A did not possess S3 and did not have an intent to sell the goods even if he received the price from the injured party.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.