Defendants 2017 Highest 2187, 2018 Highest 441 Highest 2018 Highest 647, 2018 Highest 1248 Highest 2018 Highest 2018, Highest 359 Highest 2018

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On October 30, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment due to fraud, etc. at a means of flooding, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 16, 2015, and completed the execution of the sentence at a detention house in the Suwon on January 26, 2016.

On January 28, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution due to fraud, etc. at the method of flooding, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 5, 2016.

[2] On April 30, 2017, the Defendant, “2017 Highest 2187,” posted a statement that he/she had access to the smartphone fluor in the Gu C to sell bicycles (26 fluor 24 part-time fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor flu

“.....”

However, as the defendant did not have a bicycle for sale, he did not have the intention or ability to send a bicycle even if he received the above amount from the injured party.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and caused the damage to the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of the defendant from the victim to the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of the defendant, the amount of KRW 100,000 on April 30, 2017, and the same year.

5. 10.225,00 won in total and 325,000 won.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired pecuniary benefits from the victim.

"2018 Highest 359"

1. On January 17, 2017, the criminal defendant imported refined in Japan and distributed them to the victims E in the coffee shop located in the Gu-gu Seoul in Ansan-si around January 17, 2017

If the investment of KRW 15 million is made, the profits will be paid in 750,000 per week, and the principal will be paid in installments for four months from the second month.

The phrase “the victim entered into a contract for the same business with the victim for the importation and distribution of the alleged fish.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not engage in an act of importing and distributing the language, and was thought to use the defendant's previous obligation to repay the money that he received from the injured party, so even if he received an investment from the injured party, he shall receive the investment according to the promise.