A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 15, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E, “A/S Center located in Seo-gu in Gwangju, Seo-gu, Gwangju, stating that “The Defendant would make a mobile phone refund at the face of the main cell phone. It shall be 100,000 won per 1,000 won.”

However, in fact, it is not possible to refund the main cell phone in the company regulations, and even if the main cell phone is delivered from the victim, there is no intention or ability to refund it.

The Defendant received from the victim the 16 mobile phone totaling KRW 14,937,00 from the above date to the early December 2012.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on witness E’s legal statement;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347 of the choice of punishment (generally, choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel regarding the issue of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is unable to refund a mobile phone as the company's audit started while on duty at the service center. The auditor discovered the mobile phone from the audit to not refund the mobile phone and left the cell phone, and argued that he/she had an intention or ability to refund the mobile phone. However, if the normal procedure for refunding the mobile phone is not a serious defect, it is possible to refund the mobile phone where it is accepted in the service center basically three times, and it is not repaired even if it is not repaired. The defendant provided that the customer would take the two-time procedure after he/she receives the repair on his/her behalf. As such, it is very difficult for the defendant, who is an employee of the service center, to vicariously refund the mobile phone, because it is very difficult for the defendant to do so, and the defendant did not receive the mobile phone on his/her behalf, and the defendant did not receive it on his/her behalf until now.