A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

The defendant is an applicant for compensation, who is an applicant for compensation, KRW 7,286,00.

Punishment of the crime

On November 3, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud at the Suwon District Court on August 11, 2009, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 10, 2012. On February 18, 2012, the Defendant, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud in the same court on February 10, 2012, operated the Defendant’s house of “J” in Ansan-si Member I while operating H.

When the Defendant failed to work for a business and needed money by undergoing an investigation and a trial due to fraud, the Defendant was able to obtain money from the people who found in the J, by means of a frighting that if the Defendant did not follow the Defendant’s words, the Defendant would have frighten the house or his consciousness, and would have frightened the Defendant to commit a indecent act by pretending to commit a indecent act in the face value, etc.

1. Fraud against victim F;

A. From August 2010, the Defendant told the victim F, who was known to him from around August 201, that “When I want not to commit a sudden death, I would like to see that I would see it next to that of the victim within three years, I would not see any other idea, and if I would not hear the horses of the Defendant, I would like to have a big harm.” On February 23, 2011, I would like to conclude that if I would like to see the horses of the Defendant, I would like to see that “I would like to see I would like to see I would like to stop it,” and that I would like to say that “I would like to see I would like to see I would like to see I would have a big harm.”

However, it was known that there was no harm or harm caused by the Defendant’s speech, and there was no intention or ability to prevent such harm or harm by attempting.

According to the facts charged, the defendant did not have an intention to receive the above money, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize it, so this court recognizes only the facts constituting the crime as the main sentence.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it.