Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who works as a dyer for bail and became aware of the victim C and the golf club around spring in 2011.

On October 201, 201, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant sold the sales wastes to the victim C while selling them from the precious metal store operated by the Defendant, Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, 605, on the basis of the precious metal store, the Defendant sold them to the victim C, and the metal weight is two half of which is one half of the half value, which is KRW 70,000 won.”

However, in fact, the defendant was merely the victim's gold content(14k).

Ultimately, the Defendant, as seen above, was accused of the victim and received KRW 700,000 from the victim on October 18, 201 as the purchase price for the sold wastes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal testimony of the witness C;

1. Part of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant (the part of the defendant's statement that "the defendant was walked to wal at the time of this case" and the part of Eul's statement that "at the time of the defendant's interrogation of the defendant was not attached with the price list)

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the result of appraisal entrustment to the Korea Predivers and Appraisal Board;

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of a fine (the degree of deception of this case and the fact that there are considerable values for the sales wastes of this case)

1. The deception as a requirement for fraud for conviction under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in the wide sense of property transactions, causing errors to the people. Generally, the mere exaggeration in the promotion of goods, advertisement, and false accompanying acts are not sufficient to the extent possible to be acceptable in light of the general commercial practices and the good faith principle. However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant, while selling the instant arms to the victim, has run away in the middle of the above arms.