A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On August 9, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and two years and six months for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on September 29, 2016, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 29, 2016.

[2] The Defendant: (a) around November 2012, at the B hotel located in Mapo-gu Seoul in Mapo-gu in Seoul, jointly operated the “D Lestop” in the original state of Gangwon-do; (b) D is a company of a prine, and (c) intended to provide a store to the minimum level; and (d) it is necessary to provide a boom for the business expansion.

“False speech was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, in fact, the defendant received money from the injured party in excess of his/her obligation and planned to prevent other debts from returning, but did not have any intent or ability to operate Lestop or to use it as expenses.

The Defendant received KRW 2 million from the injured party on November 30, 2012, in total, 25 times from around 200 to around 24 March 2014, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including the remittance of KRW 2 million from the injured party on the pretext of business expenses.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Investigation report (verification and adjustment of the account number used by the person under investigation);

1. A detailed statement of deposit transactions;

1. Previous convictions: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (prior convictions and confirmation of concurrent crimes)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the treatment of concurrent crimes: Provided, That the first sentence of Article 37 (1);

1. The reason for sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes does not have any record of being punished prior to the instant case, and circumstances, such as the circumstance that the instant crime could have been tried simultaneously with the judgment that became final and conclusive, and the damage caused by the instant crime is heavy, and the damage is the same.