A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

around March 12, 2016, the Defendant entered the alcohol house to the victim F, who was found in the D hotel underground entertainment week E in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around March 12, 2016.

At present, a person who causes 30 million won or more at a entertainment place. If he/she has repaid any debt, he/she shall be able to obtain a business visa from Australia, and he/she shall be able to obtain a business visa from Australia, and he/she shall obtain a house from Australia and live together with the party.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the way or ability to allow the victim to obtain the visa from the head of Australia, and even though he did not have the legal system with G, he did not live with the victim, and was thought to be used as the male-friendly and overseas travel cost and living cost.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as mentioned above, received the money from the above victim to the bank account opened in the name of the Defendant on the 14th of the same month from the above victim and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The basic area (from June to June 1) of types 1 (less than KRW 100 million) shall be the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria; and

2. The fact that the victim’s decision-making damage was not completely recovered and that it would not be easy to recover full damage in the future in light of the Defendant’s economic situation is disadvantageous; however, the Defendant is a primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment; it reflects the Defendant’s criminal conduct; circumstances leading up to avoiding contact with the victim after the commission of the crime; and the Defendant’s deposit.