A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Justice] On September 16, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. in the Changwon District Court’s territorial branch on September 16, 201 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 23, 2012.

【Criminal Facts】

In the absence of any particular property or occupation, the Defendant joined several successful bidders from around May 2008 and operated the money to be paid for each month as a total of KRW 100 million. In order to raise the money to be paid for each month, the Defendant was able to receive the money through a return-free form, such as joining a new system of successful bidders, which is organized again, and receiving the money and paying the money, etc., and, even if subscribed to the successful bidder operated by the victim E at the time, did not have the intent or ability to pay the money normally, he was admitted to the successful bidder and acquired the money by receiving the money from the next successful bidder.

On May 26, 2009, the Defendant was issued KRW 408,946,00 in total six times in total, as shown in the annexed List of Offenses, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant was admitted to the 100 million fake successful bid price system operated by the victim as if he would normally pay the deposit amount; and (b) was delivered KRW 45,328,00 with the successful bid price on December 28, 2009 by the Defendant, as if he would normally pay the deposit amount; and (c) the Defendant was granted KRW 45,328,00 in total on August 13, 2010.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim to take the property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the substitute part);

1. Each police statement of E (including the cross-examination part);

1. Six copies of each letter and each book;

1. Before judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (a copy of judgment attached);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

2. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

3. Of concurrent offenders, the facts that the amount of damage is not good for the reasons of sentencing Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and the amount of damage is also reasonable, and that the amount of damage is not recovered from any particular damage, are more favorable than others.