Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

Around July 2018, the Defendant stated that the victim C operation in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, would be engaged in brand shopping mall work, including the homepage of the Lin-si, the Lin-si, the Lin-si, and the Lin-si, the Lin-si, the Lin-si.

However, in fact, the defendant was planned to use the Internet gambling fund or an agreement to the victims of other fraud with money from the victim, and there was no intention or ability to create the Internet homepage for the victims.

Around July 24, 2018, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained 1.5 million won from the victim to the deposit account in the name of a national bank account in the name of the Defendant, and acquired by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning police statements to E;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that a crime of fraud is not established, since the Defendant had the intent to create an Internet homepage for the victim, although there was an ability to do so, due to other contractual cases, the instant contract was detained in the situation where the proposal of the instant contract is delayed.

In light of the fact that: (a) the Defendant had already failed to perform the instant contract in 2016 and 2017; (b) the Defendant was required to pay funds under the agreement on gambling and the said executory contract at the time of the instant contract; and (c) there was no progress during a period of up to one month and ten (10) days from the time when the instant contract is bound after the conclusion of the contract; and (d) whether the Defendant had the ability to perform the instant contract in technical aspect, apart from whether or not the Defendant had the capacity to perform the instant contract in the foregoing situation.