A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On July 9, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 24, 2009.

1. The Defendant, which was organized on June 4, 2007, concluded on June 4, 2007, that “If the Defendant received the fraternity at maturity by opening a total of 28 old accounts with a maturity of 50 million won (seven-day number accounts) with the victim D on June 4, 2007, the Defendant provided that “if he received the fraternity at maturity, he may escape the time limit of 27 million won or at a maturity of 50 million won, he may obtain a high-income of 23 million won or more at a maturity of 280,000 won.”

However, at the time of fact, it was intended that the members of the other successful bidder, who operated by the defendant, used the payment for the purpose of paying the payment of the payment of the payment. Around that time, there is no intention or ability to pay the payment of the payment normally to the members of the other successful bidder E even if the new successful bidder is organized, because it is difficult to operate the successful bidder normally due to the fact that the other successful bidder E is a member of the other successful bidder.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 2 million won from the victim who was in his/her position as an advance payment, and received 52 million won over 26 times from around that time to December 10, 207, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

2. On November 5, 2007, the Defendant, organized on November 5, 2007, concluded that “If the full term payment is subscribed to the three and two accounts of 100 million won, the maximum amount will be paid in 40 million won each in the order of priority in the time-to-day day” to the victim at the same place.

However, due to the reasons stated in Paragraph 1, there was no intention or ability to pay the amount normally to the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 6 million won from the victim under the pretext of a deposit in the same place, and 6 million won under the same name around December 5, 2007, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1..