In the case of crimes Nos. 1, 2, 3-b, and 5 in the judgment of the defendant, three months of imprisonment, and in the case of crimes No. 3-A, 4, and 6 in the judgment of the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On February 6, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment without prison labor and two years of suspended execution on February 14, 2015 by the Gwangju District Court for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

[Criminal facts]

1. [Attachment 2015 Ma3383] Fraud (the amount obtained by deception 1,875,500 won) Defendant is called to the victim C who was known to the general public on April 21, 2014 and was working in a mobile phone agency and needs to be opened to the public.

Along with the opening of a mobile phone, it was found that the user fee is paid and the end of the mobile phone would not cause damage to the width.

However, since the defendant had purchased a mobile phone in the name of the victim due to insufficient living expenses, etc. and intended to prepare money by immediately selling it, even if he received an opening of the mobile phone from the victim and received it, he did not have an intention or ability to pay the price normally.

The Defendant, as above, received each of the phone 1, which is equivalent to 929,500 won at the market price from the injured party on the same day from the injured party, and acquired each of the phone 1, which is equivalent to 946,000 won at the market price on April 23, 2014.

2. [2015 Mada3394] Fraud (the amount obtained by deception 5,578,660 won) Defendant: (a) had access to the Internet page by a private teaching institute-friendly tool on December 11, 2014; (b) had access to the victim D who was aware of it as a private teaching institute-friendly device after having access to the Internet page; (c) had a different result from his/her performance on the part of the Handphone; (d) had opened the cell phone in the four-month unit; and (e) had a two-month unit fee on the part of the State by opening the cell phone in the four-month name; and (e) has terminated three months after the opening of the cell phone.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay charges or mobile phone bills in lieu of mobile communications by lending the victim's name to the victim. In fact, the defendant purchased the latest mobile phone in the victim's name and received it from the victim and then was planned to acquire property profits by selling it.

The defendant as above.