beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. The criminal defendant, who was a peter, acquired the prepaid money and acquired it to flee to the Thailand, and then did not have the ability to pay an employee with the intent to work or prepaid money even if he received the prepaid money from the Multilater, and the defendant, as a multilater, did not engage in multilateral business, as if he had a claim for prepaid money, and the above E, etc., conspired to acquire money by deceiving money on four occasions, by holding a forged resident registration certificate to the Multilateral business owner, and by acquiring money, the sum of KRW 18 million.
Around July 14, 2003, the Defendant: (a) discovered the victim G in Pyeongtaek-si H along with F in the “I”; (b) made a false statement to the effect that F would work as a principal employee of the victim’s prepaid payment to the victim; (c) received KRW 3 million from the victim; (d) the Defendant was waiting in the vicinity of the bank; and (e) received money from the victim.
B. On July 16, 2003, the Defendant: (a) sought from the victim J’s “L”; (b) obtained KRW 3 million from the victim by false words to the effect that the victim would work as an employee on the part of an employee on the part of the employer; and (c) Defendant and E received money from the victim while waiting in the vicinity of the above multiple banks; and (d) received money from the victim, the Defendant and E received money from the victim.
C. On July 26, 2003, the fraud 1 E and F with the victim M were found to be a "O" operated by the victim M in Gyeonggi-si N, Gyeonggi-si. A, the victim made a false statement to the effect that "If the victim paid prepaid money to the Pda in Yacheon, he would work together with the employee because he did not perform the work in question, he would work together with the employee." The defendant, who was in contact, was called Qua as the owner of Pda.