A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On August 22, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Busan District Court, which became final and conclusive on December 30, 2014.

[Criminal Facts] Around October 12, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim, “D” office operated by the victim C in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, that is, “F president, the vice president of the E-company, who is the vice president of the E-company. In this case, the Defendant would give the victim a flick employment (the victim’s children). The Defendant was also aware of other flick-gu employment.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any relationship with the vice president of the E company and did not have any intention or ability to have the victims employed the E company.

Ultimately, as above, the Defendant received 500,000 won in cash from the victim under the pretext of employment solicitation, etc., from the victim, and acquired it through deception from May 26, 2013. From that time, the Defendant belongs to the victim through the above method 21 times, such as the list of crimes in the attached Form from May 26, 2013. The Defendant received 7,700,000 won in total under the pretext of employment solicitation, etc. from the victim, and acquired it through

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partial police officers of the accused;

1. Statement of each police statement regarding C;

1. A written complaint;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of the Act and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (including reports No. 37 and judgments attached thereto);

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The grounds for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the instant crime does not apply to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

It is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant that the defendant commits a crime in this case, which is not in compliance with the law, under the pretext of the entrustment of employment, even though having the same criminal history.

In addition, the case where a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code has been adjudicated at the same time, and the circumstances and means of the crime of this case are equal and equitable.