A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On May 29, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury at the Ulsan District Court, and on October 31, 2014, the judgment became final and conclusive.

On February 7, 2014, at around 18:00, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, stating, “I will purchase Nompt North Korea within three days.”

However, the facts showed that the Defendant had no intention or ability to purchase the Nowon-do from the beginning.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received cash of KRW 700,000 from the victim for the purchase of Nowon-gu in the same place, and acquired it by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc., inquiry report, case search, and application of statutes of each judgment;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the order of provisional payment is a crime that could have been tried together with the crime of injury for which judgment became final and conclusive. However, in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had been punished several times for the same crime, and the content of the letter of statement of the defendant sent back to the victim (the 7th page of the Investigation Record), the defendant's deception by deceiving the victim in a pro-friendly relationship, thereby preventing the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime are not good. The victim submitted the written agreement and the written application after the closing of argument of this case, and sought the defendant's preference to the defendant, but the fine under the summary order is excessive in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case.