A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 22, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Chuncheon District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on September 18, 2014.

The part of the facts charged was corrected to the extent that it does not interfere with the defendant's exercise of his/her right of defense.

The defendant is an employee of entertainment establishments, and the victim is a person who is a relative with the victim.

1. On January 2015, the Defendant called the victim C (22 3, South Korea) at a place where it is impossible to know the horse’s place, and made a false statement “The mother now borrowed money because the mother’s body needs to pay back to the hospital expenses.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was transferred KRW 3 million from the victim to the bank account (D) in the name of the Defendant.

2. On February 25, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim, stating that “The mother will additionally enter hospital expenses and will repay money again,” on the part of the victim in the French-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul-si”).

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 1.5 million won from the victim, namely, in cash.

3. On February 2015, the Defendant: (a) called the victim on the fourth floor of the building that was not infinite-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si; and (b) called the victim on the fourth floor of the building that was not infinite-si; and (c) transferred the Handphone, which he/she had, to the borrower, to the lender.

It is expected that the lender will pay the mobile phone value to the lender later and find a mobile phone again.

“...”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the mobile phone value to the lender later and find a mobile phone again.

The defendant deceivings the victim and is under his control.