A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On January 30, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the attempted special larceny at the Seoul High Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 23, 2015.

On April 13, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, stating that “E, who is a ship, in Japan, has a 3.5 knmond class, and 20 million won, will bring the Montreal against it within 2 hours in the face of the week.”

However, the Defendant did not have committed fraud by multiple 3.5 Capitals from E, and even if the unpaid amount of national taxes exceeds 350 million won at the time, there was no intention or ability to bring about the Montreal Dole to bring about 3.5 Capitals by multiple 3.5 Capitals even if he received money from the injured party.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, and by taking two half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the pawnban as security from the damaged party, obtained the delivery of KRW 20 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Part of the statement made D in the second examination protocol of the suspect against the accused in the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to D;

1. A petition for complaint and accompanying documents;

1. A written statement;

1. Previous convictions as stated in the judgment: A criminal investigation report (crime before the judgment becomes final and conclusive), a written judgment (No. 2014 senior assistance 167), and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes after inquiry;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is deemed to have taken the victim by deceiving the victim as above even though the defendant had had the same criminal record, and the crime is not less severe than the nature of the crime.

However, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the fact that the judgment of the court is to be judged concurrently with the above crime, the fact that the defendant's age, health, occupation, sex behavior, family relationship, and the circumstances before and after the crime should be considered, and the sentencing conditions as shown in the records are the same as the order.