The defendant shall be sentenced to 1-A, 2-6 of the judgment of the court, 1-B, 7-8 of the judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On May 2, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspension of the execution of four months of imprisonment for fraud in the Gwangju District Court Branch Branch on May 30, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 30, 2014. In the same support on April 17, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution and three million won of fine for the same crime, etc. and was sentenced on April 25, 2015, and said judgment became final and conclusive on April 25, 2015.

1. Fraud against the victim C;

A. On November 2014, the Defendant: (a) concluded that the Defendant would pay KRW 2.5 million by the end of December 2014, 2014 to the victim C (15 M&C) at the start of a ship located in the Eup acceptance village in the South Haan-Annan-gun, Haan-gun, an Eup/Myeon; and (b) the victim C (32 tax).

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any particular property, and there was a debt of 100 million won or more, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the price as agreed, even if he did not bring an engine from the damaged person.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received from the injured party one of the engines, namely, from the market price of 2.5 million won.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

B. On May 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) concluded that the Defendant would transfer the right to permit coastal fisheries upon paying KRW 155 million to the said victim C at the front of the protective observation station located in Sinpo-si in Sinpo-si, Nampo-si; and (b) concluded that the Defendant would transfer the right to permit coastal fisheries.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any particular property, and there was a debt of KRW 100 million or more, and repaid another debt (hereinafter “one-time suspension from returning”), and there was no fact of seeking permission for complex coastal fishery business. Therefore, even if the Defendant received the purchase price from the injured party, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to transfer the fishery business permit to the injured party as agreed upon.

Nevertheless, the defendant's identity is the same as the victim's name on the same day.