A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 2017, the Defendant: (a) was unable to determine whether the victim B (son, 20 years of age) was able to engage in property transactions with Grade 2 intellectual disorder; and (b) was in mind to allow the victim to settle the small amount of the mobile phone using the fact that there is a mental or physical disorder; or (c) let the victim enter the mobile phone in the name of the victim to acquire property profits.

1. Around June 2017, the Defendant: (a) made a false statement to the victim that “The Defendant would make a settlement of small amounts of mobile phones and play the same as the said money.”

However, in fact, the defendant was thought to use it for the personal interest of the defendant, such as receiving a small amount of settlement using the victim's mobile phone, and did not have any intention or ability to play it for the victim.

Nevertheless, on June 8, 2017, the Defendant paid a small amount of money equivalent to 200,000 won using the victim’s mobile phone, and then acquired property benefits equivalent to 1,986,770 won in total under the pretext of the victim’s mobile phone for 30 times in total, including taking property benefits by resale after receiving 150,000 won for the said merchandise coupon from other persons, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.

2. On June 2017, the Defendant subscribed to a mobile phone: (a) made a false statement to the victim at an insular place (hereinafter referred to as “the victim, who received cash from the mobile phone after joining the mobile phone; and (b) sold it.”

However, as stated in Paragraph 1, the defendant thought that he will use it for his personal purpose even if he bought a mobile phone in the name of the victim, as well as did not have any intention or ability to sell it to the victim after joining the mobile phone for the victim.

Nevertheless, on June 13, 2017, the defendant has only one mobile phone (D) in the name of the victim.