A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The defendant shall pay 360,000 won to the applicant for compensation. The above compensation order shall be issued.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On April 7, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act at the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch, and the sentence was finalized on September 20, 2016.

[Criminal facts] 2016 Highest 429

1. On September 2015, 2015, the Defendant purchased gallon Nos. 4 by accessing “ballon” by smartphones at a place where it is not possible to identify a place where the Defendant would purchase gallon Nos. 4

“If money is paid to the victim by making a report on the content of “” and making contact with the victim, sending thallon 4

“States” was discussed as “States.”

The Defendant received KRW 100,000 from the victim who believed this, to the Agricultural Cooperative Deposit Account in the name of No. E on September 4, 2015, and received KRW 1,430,000 from seven victims in total on seven occasions, as shown in the List of Crimes from June 3, 2015 to October 4, 2015.

However, even if the defendant received money from the victims, he shall normally send to the victims the goods originally promised to receive the money.

there was no intention or ability to act.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victims, received property from the victims.

2. On September 2, 2015, the Defendant stated that “Around September 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on the part of the victim F (16) who was sent to a mobile phone for the purpose of the mobile phone exchange through the Internet website bulletin board around the 1st page of the Busan subway Line No. Busan subway No. 2 located in Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu, the Defendant provided that “Around the main page of the Hando G4 smartphone, the inside of which would put it to another person, and then I wish to am for a mobile phone No. 6 smartphone.”

The Defendant was immediately given 820,000 won G4 smartphones in its place to the victim who believed this.

However, at the time, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to normally reduce 61 mobile phones to the victim even if he received the above G4 smartphone from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant is the victim.