A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 15, 2011, at a place where a specific location is unknown, the Defendant stated that “the head of the Gu and the mother are the head of the Gu and the head of the Gu before the port union in the port union. To enter the port union, KRW 50 million is necessary, and the head of the Gu and the head of the Gu will talk with the chairperson of the port union in the port union through the head of the Gu and the head of the Gu and the head of the Gu and the head of the Gu will have the victim be employed in the port union.”

However, the Defendant was thought to use the money as a living cost even if he did not receive a certain monthly income. At the time, the Defendant attempted to work through his mother D, but did not have been employed, so there was no intention or ability to deliver the money to the Defendant to have him find a job in the port union.

Nevertheless, on April 15, 201, the Defendant deceiving the victim as above and was under its control from the victim to the bank account (E) under the name of the Defendant, which was borrowed in advance on condition of job placement, and the written indictment is “victim’s job placement fee”. However, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is the name of the victim’s job placement loan for himself/herself, not the victim, from the investigative agency, and the victim is also money lent to the Defendant for employment from the investigative agency to the time of testimony from this court.

However, according to the consistent statements since the investigation agency, it is reasonable to view that the victim was not solely lent for the employment of the defendant, but later, the defendant was given a prior loan on the condition that the defendant would arrange the employment of the victim.

Such fact-finding is somewhat different from the facts charged in the indictment, but it is judged that the basic facts are identical and the investigation of evidence is sufficiently conducted, such as the defendant's assertion and examination of witness, and it is not likely to cause substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense.