A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.

Punishment of the crime

On February 6, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 1, 2014.

On October 23, 2013, the Defendant told the victim E to the effect that “I would like to make an investment in developing smartphone display (GRT) with respect to resource transactions,” the Defendant would pay dividends not later than 300,000 paid-in members, and would make monthly settlement of accounts of 0.5 dollars per member, even if GRT is known, the principal will be guaranteed.”

However, in fact, at the time, the defendant was not a person with bad credit standing, and was not a person with bad credit standing, and was liable for debts equivalent to 500 million won, and was unable to receive other investments, and thus, there was no need to procure the cost of development and operation of a petcing development and operation that is estimated to be approximately 500 million won. Therefore, even if the defendant received an investment from the victim, there was

Around October 25, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 25 million won from the victim to the national bank account in the name of D under the pretext of investment money and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the accused in the examination protocol of suspect;

1. Some statements concerning the suspect examination protocol of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. e-mail copies, receipts, and GRT Investment Agreements;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of criminal records and investigation reports (report on the results of confirmation before and after disposition, and attachment of judgment);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Determination in consideration of the fact that the punishment of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act is not recovered from damage caused by concurrent crimes, and the circumstances, etc. that could have been tried as in the final and conclusive judgment;