A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

At around 12:00 on March 18, 201, the Defendant told the victim C at the Daegu Northern-gu D Office that “The purchase of a new type of shot machine was made at the customer’s office at which the shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot-type shot.

However, in fact, since there remain 50,130,000 won of the principal of the above type of death penalty, if the defendant is not able to pay the principal of the above type of death penalty, the defendant should deliver the type of death penalty to E, which is the owner of ownership.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without notifying the victim of the above points, by deceiving the victim as if he would transfer the full ownership of the above-out period to the victim, received KRW 10 million on the same day as the purchase price for the above-out period, KRW 10 million on the 19th day of the same month, KRW 20 million on the 21th day of the same month, and KRW 46.2 million on the 21th day of the same month, from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint (including attached documents);

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that he did not deceive the victim, on the ground that he was aware in advance of the purchase of a part of the victim’s abortion at the time of selling the singular organ, and that he did not deceive the victim of the purchase of the singular organ at the time of selling the singular organ.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, that is, the victim did not say that the defendant purchased the sacrife with the sacrife in the investigative agency, and there is no problem in the ownership of the sacrife.