A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 15, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and three years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on January 23, 2014 and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 23, 2014.

Criminal facts

On January 201, the Defendant concluded that “If the business of an expressway rest area is located and the amount of KRW 120,000,000 is invested, the Defendant would pay the principal and the profits to the victim B at KRW 6,000,000,000 per month.”

However, there was no intention or ability to pay the above profits even if the defendant received money from the victim for the purpose of investment funds because there was no relation with the business of the expressway resting.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 120 million in total from the victim on March 21, 201 and KRW 60 million on March 22, 201, and acquired it by deceiving the victim through the bank account in the name of C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Written complaint;

1. Copies of a specification of transactions and a photograph of text conversations;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (report on previous records of disposition, results of confirmation, and confirmation of the date of release);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act for concurrent crimes was that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime was not agreed with the victim. The victim wishes to punish the defendant. However, the victim wishes to punish the defendant. However, the crime of this case is decided as above on the ground that the above punishment was determined for more than the above reasons, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the punishment where the judgment was rendered concurrently in relation to latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39 of the Criminal Act, the age of the defendant, the number of crimes, and the motive for the crime.