Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On October 17, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for fraud at the Changwon District Court's Jinwon District Court's Jinju branch on July 30, 2007, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on August 15, 2007. On February 11, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to two months of imprisonment and one year and two months of imprisonment at the Changwon District Court's Jinwon District Court's Jinwon District Court's Jinwon District Court's Jinwon District Court's ruling became final and conclusive on April 14, 201.

Around April 29, 2009, the Defendant, within “E” of the Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Seongbuk-gu Operation D Victim Operation “E”, made a false statement to the victim that “at least 60 tons of scrap metal occurs every month from the F the inside and outside of the city.” On the condition that the entire amount of scrap metal generated is supplied to E, payment of KRW 50 million in advance shall be made.”

However, since the establishment of the F on March 2008, the defendant did not possess the equipment and facilities of the factory and did not pay the personnel expenses of the employees because of the failure to secure the customer, there was no intention or ability to deliver the scrap metal to the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 50 million won in advance from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of G on the same day from the victim, and acquired it by deceit.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint and a goods contract;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records and the application of four copies of written judgments;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Although the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is identical to or has majority of the same criminal records and is not good for recidivism during the period of repeated crime, the victim and the victim have agreed smoothly with the victim, and the sentencing data recorded in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment, where the judgment was rendered together with the final conviction.