A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 3, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for attempted habitual fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court) and completed the execution of the sentence on March 16, 2012.

The Defendant, while making soup, committed soup, received money from the vehicle under the pretext of agreement and received money for raising living expenses, by pretending that some of the vehicle was damaged by traffic accidents, while living expenses are in short of living expenses.

On September 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 03:50 on September 5, 2013, at the crosswalk near Gangnam-gu Seoul, the Defendant: (b) was unable to inform the victim of the same fact by having the victim D drive a rocketing taxi in order to pass the crosswalk in a green state; (c) caused a traffic accident by some of the above cab; and (d) sought 300,000 won as the traffic accident agreement amount to the victim; (c) however, (d) the Defendant tried to obtain money from the victim by demanding the victim to demand money by causing a traffic accident over several occasions; and (d) failed to bring the victim into an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the police on D;

1. Images of black stay images;

1. Previous records: Application of each Act or subordinate statute entered in the inquiry report, such as criminal records, and the personal identification number and acceptance status;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 352 and 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act of aggravated repeated crimes provides that the amount which the defendant attempted to obtain by deception is three hundred thousand won or more, and the crime of this case is committed in the attempted crime, the victim does not want the punishment against the defendant, and the defendant is led to the confession of the crime, and there are no circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant not only has a history of punishment for imprisonment for the same kind of crime, but also has the same kind of crime as the first head of the ruling.