A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

At around 09:30 on January 27, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement that “E” in the precious metal shop located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu, Seoul, would sell one set of Damond 2.27kis to the victims. However, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to sell the said Damond.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was issued a multi-mond amounting to 30,460,000 won at the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

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

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Determination as to the defendant and defense counsel's assertion in the complaint and statement of transactions

1. The Defendant asserted that the Montreal was trying to sell the instant multimond and lost it.

It shall not be accepted by deceiving the victim without the intention or ability to sell from the beginning.

2. However, in light of the following facts recognized by the foregoing evidence, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, without the intention or ability to sell the instant multimond, belonged to and received the instant multimond.

① According to the statement made by the victim at an investigative agency, the victim sought to sell the instant multimond because there are two or more persons who find a two or more fingers.

However, the Defendant did not give specific answers to whom he had sold the instant multimond.

② The instant Damond is an expensive thing with a market value exceeding 30 million won.

This was put in the two-wheeled upper half of the train and laid off off on the top of the train without taking any measures to prevent any theft or loss.

It is difficult to believe in light of the empirical rule that any measure, such as reporting theft or loss, is not taken even if it is known that such measure is lost or stolen.

(3) The defendant has lost his Montreal in this case, and the circumstances thereof are followed.