beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2015.09.04 2015고단1150

사기등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Seized evidence1 through 6 shall be confiscated from the accused.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 22, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on November 22, 2012 and completed the execution of the sentence in the Gwangju Prison on October 23, 2014.

The Defendant searched a well-known restaurant via the Internet, and then phoneed to an unspecified number of restaurant operators, with the intention of deceiving money under the name of medical treatment by making a false statement, such as “hering to drink food among packaging,” etc.

1. On November 2, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E, who operates the “D” located in the Bupyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocheon-gu, Gyeonggi-do, by phoneing to the victim E, who was using the “D” located in the Sincheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Gyeonggi-do, and “I wish to report if you will not compensate for medical expenses.”

However, there was no fact that the defendant purchased Kim Horse from the victim, and there was no fact that the defendant's family members had been damaged by drinking Kim Horse.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 100,000 from the victim’s single bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant.

From that time to July 21, 2015, the Defendant, as shown in the attached list of crimes (1) from that time, by deceiving 152 victims over a total of 153 times, and by remitting KRW 47,618,680.

2. On November 21, 2014, the Defendant attempted to commit fraud by phone call to the victim I operating a “H restaurant” located in Daegu Jung-gu G at an influent place, and falsely concluding that “The Defendant purchased a sugar from a party company to drink, thereby damaging fluoring, thereby damaging fluoring, and claiming compensation for medical expenses.”

However, there was no fact that the defendant purchased sugar from the victim, and there was no damage to sugar by the defendant.

The defendant, as above, intends to take money from the victim as the name of medical treatment.