beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.
Reasons
Criminal facts
1. On December 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) connected with “B” (on December 20, 2013) by smartphones; (b) stated that “A victim C wishes to buy a medium gallon 3 smartphone”; and (c) stated that the victim would bring a smartphone to the victim’s house using the Kakaox message “on the advance payment, would bring the smartphone up to the next day’s house.”
However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to sell smartphones.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 400,000 won from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative (D) account of the Defendant on the same day.
2. On December 24, 2013, the Defendant sent a letter to the effect that “E” (hereinafter “E”) is connected with smartphones, and the victim F would buy a middle gallon 3 smartphones.” The Defendant said that the victim F would buy a middle gallon 3 smartphone 3 smartphones, Defendant’s resident registration certificate certificate, Defendant’s resident registration certificate certificate, and agricultural bank’s photograph with the head of the Tong.”
However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to sell smartphones.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 200,000 won from the victim to the above account on the same day.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
2. Application of C and F’s written laws and regulations
1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;
2. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
3. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse.
4. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had the past record of having been punished for fraud similar to the instant case, the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime is an element for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant.
On the other hand, the defendant.