Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On May 17, 2017, at the defendant's house located in Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, B and 202, the defendant made a rental contract with C on the part of D's husband's driver's license pictures, credit card numbers, card numbers, company name, address, etc., contact D's employees in charge of D's sales agent business contact D's telephone with D's husband, and D's her husband, and for use with D's credit card to pay sirens by paying sirens with D's credit card, and concluded a rental contract with D as to 7,780,50 won within the market price.

However, in fact, D was not the husband of the defendant and did not have consented to the Arenma's pact contract.

As seen above, the Defendant was delivered one of the above Defendant’s house to the injured company that believed that the said siren contract was true by deceiving the victim company.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and C;

1. A complaint letter, a written agreement on the escape of a siren, a written confirmation on the installation of a siren from the massage, or a photograph of a massage installed in the suspect's residence A;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (referring to a witness DNA telephone call and contact point C contact point);

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and reflects the facts charged, and that the massage's return to the victim company is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime again even during the period of suspension of execution due to the same fraud, and the fact that the means and methods of the instant crime are not good is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

(b) other.