A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be returned to the victim B.

Punishment of the crime

At around 12:10 on November 24, 2018, the Defendant: (a) committed as if he had paid a stable; (b) received answer money from a mixed State; and (c) intruded a structure managed by another person; and (d) did not receive a congratulatory money; (b) even though he did not receive a food ticket or answer money, he did not receive it, he did so to E, the receiver of the new ditch, and (c) received four food tickets from the above E; and (d) after diving, the Defendant returned the food ticket to the victim B, who is a mixed State, by means of cash bags; and (d) obtained the food ticket from the above E, even though he did not receive a food ticket or answer money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning each CCTV course photograph;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (influence of structure, choice of imprisonment), and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud or choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendant’s reasons for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Return Criminal Procedure Act reflects in depth the error.

The amount of money acquired by deception is not limited to the degree of damage of KRW 40,000, but it seems that it will be seized to the investigation agency to return the whole amount

A family with a family member to be supported can also be considered as a favorable situation.

However, since the defendant, such as opening a variety of weddings in advance, e.g., in advance a place where the crime was committed and carried out to a customer only for the purpose of committing the crime, by deceiving the money under the name of the answer case, the nature of the crime is not good and the possibility of criticism is not small in light of the situation and method.

In addition, the defendant has been under the same law.