beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant, on August 13, 2015, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for occupational embezzlement, etc. from the Daegu District Court Port Branch on August 13, 2015, and completed the execution of the above punishment on October 22, 2015.
[Criminal facts]
1. Fraud;
A. On March 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) filed an application for change of a mobile phone device with a new smartphone (Aphone 6S) in the south-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul on the part of the Defendant related to the purchase price of the Gu-type smartphone; (b) on March 11, 2016, the Defendant said that the victim C who filed an application for change of a mobile phone device with a new smartphone (Aphone 6S) may sell the Gu-type smartphone (Aphone 6) used to 2.50,000 won; and (c) on the part of the Gu-type smartphone, the Defendant would pay the Gu-type smartphone in lieu of 2.50,000 won.
However, even if the defendant receives the old smartphone from the injured party, he was able to dispose of it and use it as his daily living expenses, etc., but he did not have the intent or ability to pay the victim's new smartphone in lieu of the victim's new smartphone payment.
Nevertheless, the defendant, as mentioned above, was issued by the injured party with old-type smartphone at the market price of 250,000 won.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property from the victim by deceiving the victim.
2) The Defendant, through the solicitation of new purchase of smartphones, told the said victim C at the above date, time, and place to the effect that “The Defendant changed the gallon (S7) in the name of the said victim C by opening the gallon (e.g., g. lusium) under four (2) weeks thereafter, and will not impose any burden on him/her.”
However, the defendant was aware that he could not cancel the opening of smartphones unless there is a reason such as the deterioration of smartphones itself after opening smartphones, and there was no intention or ability to exempt the victim from the payment of smartphones through the cancellation of the opening.
Nevertheless, the defendant's above statements are false and belong thereto.