1. The Defendants shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

2. The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants, F, and G posted a notice to the effect that the Internet page “to accept the cell phone amount free of charge,” and then offered the said article to receive the cell phone from the victim who reported and contacted, and then to sell the said cell phone to the mobile phone distributor. Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant D, who are in charge of planning the above crime, are in charge of posting a letter and communicating with the victim, and Defendant C and F are in charge of selling the cell phone amount received from the victim to the mobile phone distributor.

around 13:00 on June 7, 2016, the Defendants, F, and G posted a false statement to the effect that “I” in the “I” coffee shop located in Busan Eastdong-gu, Busan, but did not have any intent or ability to accept the mobile phone even if they received a mobile phone, and despite that G sold a mobile phone which was requested to repair and was thought to acquire the price, G would accept the mobile phone free of charge.” However, G made a false statement to the effect that “I will return the mobile phone amount after accepting the mobile phone amount.”

G was delivered one gallon in the front of the L Gameland located in the Busan-gu, Busan-do, at around 15:00 on the same day from the injured party, at the gallon of the market value of the injured party, at around 800,000 won.

As a result, Defendants and G received the victim's property by deceiving the victim in collusion.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Three-time protocol concerning the interrogation of the police suspect against F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officer in G;

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to J

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for a crime;

2. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the attraction of a workhouse.

3. The grounds for the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “Juvenile Protection Act”) are that both the Defendants were subject to juvenile protective disposition.