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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 4, 2016, the Defendant attempted to commit fraud: (a) called “D and the victim E, who is a traffic accident officer of the victim (State)C at around 22:00, the Defendant called to the effect that “at around 19:37, at around 19:37, the Defendant got off the Defendant’s phone at around 1120, c, which had been driven by E on the road near the Changdong Station; and (b) the Defendant, who was in charge of the medical expenses, would cause insurance treatment.”

In fact, however, there was no shocking of the defendant in the vicinity of the Changdong Station around December 19:37, 2016 on the 11120 vehicles driven by the victim E.

The Defendant, as above, attempted to receive money under the name of medical treatment by deceiving D and E, but the victims refused to do so.

2. On December 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at around 19:37, the Defendant: (b) expected the body in front of the bus No. 1120 on the ground that the victim E driving a bus No. 1120 on the front side of the public parking lot located in the Dong-dong, Dobong-gu Seoul, Dobong-gu, Dobong-gu, 65-6, Seoul; (c) obstructed the operation of the bus by force between about 10 minutes and ten minutes; and (d) obstructed the operation of the bus by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and D;

1. A written statement of the occurrence of traffic accidents by defendants;

1. Application of the bus booms and video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Articles 352, 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the attempted fraud), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the obstruction of business) and each fine [in the event that the other party used a means of deception to omit the other party in mistake to receive property or to acquire property benefits, but the other party failed to achieve its purpose because it did not fall into mistake, this constitutes an attempted crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do2539, Mar. 22, 198). In this case, DD where telephone conversations with the Defendant was made against the other party, and E did not believe the Defendant’s speech from the beginning.

Even if there is no obstacle to recognizing the attempted fraud

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code of Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes;