The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

Punishment of the crime

On April 18, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year sentence of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the method of flood control, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 26, 2013. On December 12, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year sentence of suspension of execution on September 12, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2015. On September 22, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a four-month sentence of imprisonment for a crime of fraud from the method of flood control on September 22, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 10, 2017.

On September 22, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. and one year and two months of imprisonment with prison labor, etc. on October 10, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 10, 2017 (No. 2017No. 4195 of Suwon District Court). The part in relation to the instant crime and a group of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act are limited to the part sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor.

In addition, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months of imprisonment for fraud on December 15, 2017 at the Suwon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2017 Height 4218) and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 23, 2017. However, separately, Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for one year of imprisonment for fraud from the Suwon District Court on April 18, 2013 to the Suwon District Court on April 26, 2013 (No. 2013No. 1071) and the instant judgment became final and conclusive on April 26, 2013 (No. 2013 Suwon District Court Decision 201Do469 decided March 27, 2014). Accordingly, there is no room to apply Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act to the instant crime to the victim’s living together with the victim on February 1, 2011 (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do469 decided March 27, 2014).

However, in fact, the defendant did not normally proceed with the business promoted with no particular property, and there was no intention or ability to pay the vehicle price.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim and is at the time of the damage.