A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 2013, 2013, the Defendant employed G (n, 18 years of age) from the FPC’s “FPC” for Defendant’s operation in Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu as a part-time student.

On March 13, 2013, the Defendant asked H to take part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the PC, and asked H to deliver them. On March 13, 2013, H sent the part of the part of the part of the part of the PC, which had been received by the Defendant in advance, as if the Defendant were to enter the said PC as a guest and carried out the game, and then sent the part of the part of the part of the PC with the cash amount of 50,000 won to the seat of the PC guest.

G retired from the above PC on the day, while having left the said PC, H left the said PC, and 50,000 won was consumed for personal use.

Around 09:00 on March 14, 2013, the Defendant confirmed the fact that G brought on the wall as above, and told G that “I would like to see how I would see how I would have been able to bring on the wall, and how I would have been able to see what I would like to see,” and acted as I would like to receive the USB containing the scene of the crime of G from the police to the Seoul Guro Police Station.

Defendant continued to talk with G and to the “J” of the Defendant’s operation of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, the Defendant expressed to the effect that he should pay the agreed amount to the lost customer.

Around March 15, 2013, the Defendant called with the victim K, a third party of G, which became aware of the aforementioned facts, and the fact that the PC customer lost the PC customer’s wall, as seen above, and the Defendant left the wall containing some money in the PC room, and even though there is no reason to deem the Defendant separately from the PC customer, the Defendant made a false statement that it is necessary to conclude that the PC would have reached an agreement with the customer on the wall that he would bring to K, even though there is no reason to deem otherwise with the PC customer.

The defendant is from K.