Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On October 17, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to three and eight years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the District Court, which became final and conclusive on October 25, 2013.

On April 2013, the defendant issued a request from the victim C to lend a passenger car at the meeting room of the government prison located in the Gosan-dong at the time of the Government, and stated that "the defendant will lend a passenger car to the victim with money as a parking fee, management fee, and repair cost for the passenger car."

However, the defendant did not have any ability or intent to lend a car to the victim even if he did not receive money from the victim because there is no car which is actually managed due to the detention of the defendant in the prison.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received from the victim the delivery of KRW 1 million to the Defendant’s provisional holding account on July 26, 2013, KRW 500,000 around August 14, 2013, and KRW 700,000 on August 29, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of C;

1. Reporting on investigation (verification of details of usage of suspect damage amount);

1. A report on investigation (D relative investigation);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, previous records, previous records, results of confirmation, and application of statutes of the judgment; and

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (including fraud point and inclusive) and the selection of a fine concerning the crime;

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant has been punished several times with the previous department, and among them, it is inevitable that the defendant again committed the crime of this case while he was tried for the same kind of crime even though he was sentenced to the previous sentence.

However, at the same time as the ruling of fraud, which is in ex post concurrent crimes, equality in the case of judgment, the victim withdraws the complaint, and the defendant is the defendant in this court.