1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 11, 2016, the Defendant posted a notice on his own house located in Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu C, stating that “The Defendant sells so-called Soviet smartphones 6 in the Internet gallon bulletin board” on the Internet gallon, using a mobile phone around January 11, 2016, and made a false statement as if the Defendant would deposit money to the victim D who reported and contacted with it, and sent S6 cellular phone when the normal gallon-rithal gallon was sent.

However, in fact, the mobile phone in which the defendant intends to sell has already been broken and it was impossible to operate normally.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 320,000 won from the Saemaul Treasury account (F) in the name of E as the price for the goods on the same day from the victim.

2. On January 27, 2016, the Defendant posted a letter of “sale of smartphones on the Internet gallon bulletin board” at one’s own house located in Busan Shipping Daegu C around January 27, 2016, and made a false statement as if he would deposit money to the victim G who contacted with the Defendant and send a mobile phone at the normal gallon block.

However, in fact, the mobile phone in which the defendant intends to sell has already been broken and it was impossible to operate normally.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 170,000 won from the Saemaul Treasury account (F) in the name of E as the price for the goods on the same day from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness D and G’s respective legal statements [the fact that the victims were unable to use all the phone calls purchased from the Defendant, the victims demanded refund, etc., and the Defendant did not receive contact, the victims paid half of each amount of money after the victims reported to the police station, and the Defendant did not directly confirm whether the phone calls were normally operated before sending the phone.

The defendant has shown that he had the same power.