A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On June 10, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for robbery and one year and six months at the Seoul Central District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence at the original prison on September 22, 2012. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) at the Seoul Central District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2015.

Criminal facts

The Defendant, around August 14, 2013, contacted the “F” operated by the victim E in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, by using his mobile phone (C) in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, and wants to open two mobile phones to the victim.

After resolving the unpaid charges, two cell phone openings are scheduled to be followed by the mobile phone opening procedures, and two cell phone openings are sent first.

B. If a person fails to settle the unpaid fee, he/she would return the mobile phone.

However, even if the defendant was delivered two mobile phones, he did not have the intention or ability to normally proceed with the opening of the mobile phone, and even if he did not pay the unpaid fee, he did not intend to return the mobile phone to the victim.

On August 21, 2013, the Defendant received two mobile phones A 870S mobile phones from the victim, i.e., the sum of the market prices of KRW 1,658,800.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the witness G in the second public trial records;

1. Legal statement of witness E, H and I;

1. Inquiry by registration/mail;

1. A new service contract;

1. Previous convictions in the ruling of a written permission to request the provision of communication confirmation data: Criminal history inquiry, investigation report (personal identification and acceptance status, defendant's legal statement) (the defendant used at the time;

Since there was no fact that the instant portable phone was made with a victim or a door-to-door engineer after the loss of the G’s personal phone (J), it is alleged that the Defendant did not receive the instant portable phone. However, according to the above evidence, the Defendant was above.