A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On December 23, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court. On December 24, 2015, the Defendant was provisionally released on December 24, 2015 during the execution of the sentence in Anyang Prison, and the parole period expired on February 24, 2016.

1. On November 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) during a conversation between the Victim K (V, 26 years of age) and the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) that came to know while holding the Internet shopping mall near the exit No. 10, Seoul JJ Station; (b) around November 23, 2016, the Defendant was wanting to do so.

The victim of the defect is a person who imports high-priced clothes in the United States and supplies them to domestic sellers.

B. It is intended to deliver high-priced items with money to B.

The profit will be able to be earned.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the defendant was merely intended to use money for personal purposes, such as living expenses, and did not have the intent or ability to import and deliver clothing in the United States.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, received KRW 9 million as the purchase price for clothes on November 24, 2016, KRW 1,000,000 as the same name on November 25, 2016, KRW 7.1 million as the purchase price for clothing on December 9, 2016, and KRW 1,320,000 for customs clearance and delivery expenses on January 26, 2017, under the pretext of customs clearance and delivery expenses on April 23, 2017, KRW 1,942,00 won in total five times, including KRW 1,000,000,00 for delivery charges on April 23, 2017.

2. On August 15, 2017, at the home of the Defendant of the 1st floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu L1, the Defendant, as seen in the foregoing paragraph 1, deceiving the said victim, received the money for purchasing clothes, etc., and used it for personal purposes, such as living expenses, etc., and was demanded to return the said victim continuously from the said damage. While the Defendant was requested to return, the Defendant sent the Defendant and the victim’s sexually related video via the Kakao Stockholm text message, it would be no longer sufficient for the Defendant to transmit the said

“.....”