A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a graduate student and Cuniversity D researcher in the course of a doctoral degree in the Korean University.

On April 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) connected the Internet at the home in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, where the Defendant living in Seongbuk-gu, sent a letter to demand repair expenses for the difference in the Gcar (H) of the Victim F; and (b) requested repair of the difference with the Victim F.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price even if the Defendant received the difference from the victim because of the lack of money, and from March 2, 2018, the Defendant ordered the Defendant to order the payment of the price on behalf of the goods as if I paid the price directly.

The Defendant received, from around August 14, 2017, services or goods equivalent to KRW 156,819,000, in total, from around 146 times as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes, from that time until March 27, 2018, including that the Defendant received the difference of acceptance from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits by deceiving the victim and received property.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness F and I's respective legal statements (no part of the facts charged that the defendant misrepresented the professor of the Korean History at B University shall be admitted with the witness F's legal statement);

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A protocol of suspect examination of the police officer regarding I;

1. Application of the F of each police protocol of statement to the F;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. The crime of this case as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act is alleged to have been committed due to the mental illness of the defendant, but the materials cited by the defense counsel are alone.