A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was aware that there is a friendly victim B (son, 24 years old) with this intellectual disability, and tried to acquire money by borrowing money in the name of the victim.

1. Fraud;

A. On January 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) the fact in the D agency located in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju; (b) did not have the intent or ability to pay the fee even if he/she gets a handphone opened in the name of the victim; or (c) did not have the intent or ability to return the handphone; (d) the Defendant made the victim “on the face of a handphone opening in the name of four, he/she shall pay the fee and return the handphone; and (e) made the victim open the Aphone 6S mobile phone; and (e) deducted the core chips.

5. From 20 to 700,000, he/she sold the above mobile phone to a 20-nameless mobile phone operator and charged 1,536,090 won to the victim from her opening to February 2, 2018.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 2,236,090.

B. On December 26, 2016, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the principle even if he/she received a loan in the name of the lending company in the name of the victim.” The Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “I would pay the principal and interest every month upon consent from the KIKO Savings Bank to the loan of KRW 15,000,000 in the name of the victim,” and then had the victim obtain a loan of KRW 15,00,000 from the said bank to the Gwangju Bank account in the name of the Defendant.”

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim, thereby acquiring the above 15,000,000 won.

(c)

On February 10, 2017, the Defendant concluded that the H agency located in Gwangju Northern-gu G would pay the fee or return the Handphone, even if he/she received the Handphone opened in the name of the victim, and the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to return the Handphone. The Defendant concluded that “The Defendant would pay the Handphone in the name of the victim at the location of opening the Handphone, and return the Handphone.”