A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that 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

1. On April 2014, when the Defendant became aware of D while working as a restaurant at Australia, the Defendant became aware of E, the victim, who was residing in the Jinhae-si, Changwon-si, who was living in the above D’s house located in the city of the government of Gyeonggi-do on the premise of marriage.

From February 2, 2015, the Defendant was living together in the home of a female who promised to marry as seen above, and was able to marry with the victim by hiding the circumstances such as economic difficulties. On May 2, 2015, the Defendant was able to conceal the victim’s marriage even after having gone through marriage at the above D and Do government. On May 2, 2015, the Defendant was able to obtain money from the victim who believed to be married to himself/herself, by using the horses as if he/she would continue to marry with the victim. On the other hand, the Defendant was able to obtain money from the victim who believed to be married to him/her.

On June 10, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement that “The father in the U.S. shall return to the father in the U.S., and shall repay money to the victim for seven months if he/she borrowed money because he/she did not have the right of recourse.”

However, the defendant was adopted at a family without father, and even if he borrowed money from the victim due to excessive debt, he did not have the intent and ability to pay it.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 3.5 million won from the victim’s bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant.

B. On June 23, 2015, the Defendant: “Around June 23, 2015, the Defendant sent a phone call to the victim E and gave a false speech to the victim “a money is lent so that he/she can claim a lodging outside of the country because he/she has no money to ask for a lodging.”

However, in fact, the defendant was living in the dwelling of the defendant in the government at the time, and there was no fact between Australia, so it was not necessary to pay accommodation charges, and at the time the defendant was liable.