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

The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

On June 28, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 6, 2012 by the Jeju District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 6, 2012.

On September 201, 201, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C by telephone from the “E” unmanned car page located in Jeju-si, “E”, “In this case, there is a technology for making the knife and the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to operate chain stores even if he was able to do so by the injured party.

On November 7, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 5,000,000 from the damaged party, including the remittance of KRW 5,000,00 from the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number G) in the name of F, and received KRW 60,000 from around that time to May 14, 2012, and acquired KRW 60,000 in total from the damaged party, such as the list of crimes in the attached list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Some of the records of the examination of the suspect to the defendant by the prosecution (including the C substitute part of the examination);

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A complaint, copy of the details of passbook transactions, etc. and a statement of transactions;

1. A report on investigation (related to inquiry into the details of payment of punishment for a suspect) and a detailed statement of inquiries about each punishment;

1. Previous conviction: Judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion in reply to inquiry, such as criminal history

1. The alleged defendant did not receive money from the injured party under the name of a chain store investment, but did not receive money from the injured party. At the time, the defendant invested first in the facility costs of the carpet operated by the defendant, obtained the victim's prior consent to open the handbook later and actually used the money that the injured party received from the injured party for the above carpet facility costs. Unlike expected, the defendant did not open the handbook store on the wind that does not yield profit in the operation of the above car page.

Therefore, it is true.