Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On February 7, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Chuncheon District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 23, 2018.

On September 2, 2017, the Defendant, at the PC room in the Blue-si, Blue-si, Blue-si, Blue-si, 2017, connected to “Ne-si, Blue-si, Blue-si,” a trading site on the Internet, sells three copies of C.

“A notice stating the content,” and falsely stating that “A victim D who reported and contacted this, deposited KRW 165,00 and sent the above postage stamp on its face.”

However, the defendant was not holding the above postage stamps, and even if the victim remitted the price, he did not have the intention or ability to sell the above postage stamps.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 165,000 won through the corporate bank account (Account Number:F) in the name of E on the same day from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A petition, a receipt for remittance of account, a text message photograph, and a output from a second country;

1. Before judgment: Application of an investigation report (verification of a judgment, etc. pending in a trial), the text of Chuncheon District Court Decision 2018No184, 184, and the results of search of integrated cases (final and conclusive judgment) and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347 of the choice of punishment;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant has a record of fines and imprisonment for the same kind of crime, and that the defendant is a criminal committed during the same repeated crime period, and that the defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant seems to have committed a crime, and the amount of damage is not a large amount, and the crime of fraud in the judgment is in the relationship of each crime of fraud and ex post facto concurrent crimes.