A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant 560,000 won, C 740,000 won, and D 580.

Punishment of the crime

【200 Highest 552】

1. On July 8, 2019, the Defendant committed the crime of July 8, 2019: (a) sold 450,000 won (hereinafter “LG Handphone”) to the injured F of the victim on the street in front of the shuttle bus terminal at Changwon-si, Changwon-si, to sell one unit of “LG Handphone” to the injured F of the victim at KRW 450,000; (b) around July 15, 2019, the husband’s payment date;

7.2. The transfer of the remainder 250,000 won to the account of the Victim F.

However, even if the above mobile phone was received, the Defendant was expected to resell it and consume it as a cost of living, and there was no intent or ability to pay the mobile phone price as agreed upon. The Defendant received from the victim F one mobile phone of LG’s market value of KRW 450,000 from the victim F. This Defendant received property from the victim F. On November 14, 2019, the Defendant, on November 14, 2019, by deceiving the victim F, received property from the victim. On November 14, 2019, the Defendant, at the “H office” located at the window G at Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Seoul, selling Aphone XS 256 Ga one to KRW 780,00,00, selling it to the victim I for two weeks.

However, even if the Defendant received the aforementioned mobile phone, he was expected to resell it and consume it as a cost of living, and there was no intent or ability to pay the mobile phone price according to the promise. The Defendant received from the victim I one cell phone of “XS 256 Gaphone” at the market price of KRW 780,000 in that place. Accordingly, the Defendant was urged the victim I to receive property by deceiving the victim I [20 high group 740] around June 25, 2019 [20 high group 740], the Defendant made a false statement to the victim K within “L” within “L” for the victim K operation of the victim K located at the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, 200 won.”

However, even if the defendant received the above mobile phone, he was scheduled to resell it and consume it as a cost of living, and there was no intention or ability to pay the mobile phone price as the promise.

The defendant belongs to this.