A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 12, 2018, Defendant 2018, Defendant 155, entered the “E” bank of the victim D’s “E” in Scambling C around 19:57 on February 12, 2018, and, as if she would purchase gold ging, the victim ging the ging, and the victim ginged the ging on the part of the victim, and then escaped with the ging of KRW 2.460,00 at the market price of the victim’s possession by using the ging of the ging of the ging of the ging of the ging of the ging of the ging of the ging of the victim.

2. Highest 2018 363

A. On November 15, 2017, the Defendant against the Victim F was to return to the Victim F the small amount settlement amount prior to the settlement date on which the instant mobile game was settled, and to add 50,000 won to the Victim F on the pretext of the veterinary cost.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to settle the amount even if the defendant had the victim substitute for the settlement of the amount of the mobile phone.

Nevertheless, the Defendant had the victim pay a total of 170,00 won over 16 times from November 15, 2017 to December 21, 2017 by having the victim pay a small amount of money with the victim’s mobile phone by having the victim transmit the certification number transmitted to him/her and make him/her pay the victim’s mobile phone, as shown in attached Table 1.

B. On November 29, 2017, the criminal defendant against the victim G would return the small amount of settlement before the settlement date of the mobile phone in lieu of the mobile phone small amount settlement to the victim G on or around November 29, 2017, and raise money under the pretext of receiving money.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to settle the amount even if the defendant had the victim substitute for the settlement of the amount of the mobile phone.

Nevertheless, the defendant, however, has the victim transmit the certification number which is transmitted to his/her mobile phone to him/her, and is the mobile phone of the victim.