A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant operated E mobile phone agency in the vicinity of the D University located in Seoul from June 1, 2010 to November 201 of the same year. The Defendant opened the Gangnam-gu Seoul F building and E mobile phone agency from January 2014 to January 31, 2014, and opened the E mobile phone agency from the Gangnam-gu Seoul F building and the E mobile phone agency from February 6, 2014 to the end of July 2014, and operated the said I store by establishing H, a mobile phone and telecommunications equipment retail company in the name of the Defendant Dong G, around February 6, 2014, and operated the said I store from around August 1, 2014 to his agency record.

1. Fraud to K of a victim;

A. On January 2014, the Defendant would lend KRW 50,000 per month to the victim K who works together at the above store upon the Defendant’s recommendation at the Gangnam-gu Seoul F building, the Defendant’s agency located in subparagraph 102, and KRW 500,000 per month to the victim K who leased the money to be used as the store deposit.

The borrowed money shall be included in E as a security deposit, and it shall be refunded at the time of the closure of the agency.

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any particular property at the time of opening the above I Burial, and was unable to operate a mobile phone agency in his own name because of a large number of debts in arrears with the bank and the lending business. The Defendant thought that the store deposit is substituted by the performance guarantee insurance that was concluded with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance under the name of his father, and therefore, the

As above, the Defendant stated that the indictment submitted by the Prosecutor around February 4, 2014 as a security deposit for the mobile phone agency from the victim by deceiving the victim as above, and on February 28, 2014, “round February 28, 2015.” However, according to the records, it appears that it was a clerical error in “ around February 28, 2014.” Thus, to the extent that it does not cause any disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense, this part is corrected and recognized ex officio as above.

20 million won, respectively.