A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 2, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and two years and six months at the Busan District Court for fraud, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 12, 2012.

On May 23, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay gambling money to the victim by the 15th day of the following month from the E-factory office operated by the victim D in Kimhae-si, through F.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had a debt of approximately KRW 400 million at that time, and some of the gamblings supplied by the victim had the intent to deliver to other creditors by payment in kind. Therefore, even if it was supplied by the victim, there was no intention or ability to sell it in another place and pay the price.

Nevertheless, on May 23, 201, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) supplied 11,850,000 gambs equivalent to KRW 15,000 from Yan-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu; (c) on May 26, 201, 5,00 gambs equivalent to KRW 5,950,000 from Yan-gun-gun; and (d) on May 31, 2011, 200 gambs equivalent to KRW 12,53,000 from Yan-gun; and (e) supplied hambs equivalent to KRW 12,53,000 from Yan-si, Seocheon-gu

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Investigation report (Evidence No. 10-12, which is submitted by the prosecutor);

1. Previouss: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the defendant's legal statement, the failure to take the disposition, and a report on the result of confirmation (Attachment of judgment);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The first head of the criminal fact is that the defendant did not make any effort to recover damage, and that the amount of damage was not completely recovered, in the case where the defendant did not make any specific effort to recover damage, because the fact that the punishment of concurrent crimes is different from the punishment of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act [the circumstances favorable to the defendant] that the defendant led to confession and reflects the fact that the defendant committed a crime at the same time is committed, and that the amount of damage exceeds 30 million won in total.