Around July 2007, the Defendant became aware of the victim D (the age of 47 as at the time of suicide and death in South, November 14, 201) at C, a host agency website, around 2007, and had an inappropriate number of years with the victim several times.

피고인은 2008. 12.경 피해자에게 발신자표시제한으로 전화를 걸어 피해자에게 '내 가족들이 당신과 만났다는 사실을 알게 되어 집이 발칵 뒤집혔다. 언니가 경찰에 신고하겠다고 하여 가출했다. 라고 피해자와의 부적절한 관계가 경찰 조사 등으로 외부에 알려질 수 있다는 취지로 말하면서 피고인의 모텔비와 생활비를 송금해줄 것을 요구하였고, 그때부터 2011. 11. 2.까지 피해자에게 생활비, 허위의 일본 체류비용이나 각종 치료비를 요구하고 피해자가 이에 응하지 않거나 연락을 회피할 경우 피해자에게 '오 빠 제발 저 자해하는 꼴 보고 싶으세요, 이제 지긋지긋 해요 정말! 오빠 32만엔 보내 주셔야 합니다. 환율계산 하셔서 수수료 포함해서 보내주셔야 합니다, 자궁 들어내고 나면 여자는 안 아픈 데가 없는 거랍니다, D 오빠 안 부쳐주시면 안됩니다. 돌게 하지 마세요, 정말 폭발하기 직전이니까, 전화 피하면 결국 집으로 받을 때까지 전화하겠습 니다.'라는 등의 문자를 피해자가 돈을 보내줄 때까지 하루에 수십 차례까지 보내거나 피해자의 휴대전화로 수십 통의 전화를 하기도 하고, 피해자가 근무하는 은행으로 전화를 걸기도 하였다.

The Defendant habitually threatened the victim and received KRW 531,80,000 on December 16, 2008, from the drinking victim, the amount of KRW 100,000 on December 16, 2008, from which he received a total of KRW 418 times on November 2, 201, as indicated in the separate list of crimes, from the Defendant received a total of KRW 531,805,200, as indicated in the separate list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. D's note;

1. Results of analysis of digital evidence (d mobile phones of the victim), details of sending text messages of suspect A and victim D, and details of telephone calls;

1. Certificates of the results of transactions of current deposits (Korean bank) and statements of transactions of current deposits (SC bank);

1. Habituality: The recognition of dampness walls in light of the fact that a defendant committed a crime has continued to have been committed for a period of three years or longer and that 500 million won or more has been delivered to the victim on at least four occasions;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

In general, determination of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion under Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 351 of the Criminal Act and Article 350 (1) of the Criminal

1. The assertion;

The defendant does not receive money by threatening the victim, but the victim voluntarily pays money to the defendant while the relationship between the defendant and the victim continues.

2. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, even if the Defendant and the victim were in an internal relationship with the Defendant, even if they continued to have been in the same relationship as the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant showed the same attitude to inform the victim’s family or the victim’s workplace of the relationship with the victim if the victim did not send money to the victim. In order to prevent the remainder where the Defendant’s wife and the victim, who had two children, knew of the relationship with the Defendant to his family or the workplace, were to be known to the family or the workplace, as stated in the facts of the crime, and the Defendant also can be recognized to have received money from the victim at least as stated in its reasoning, while recognizing the aforementioned circumstances of the victim at least dolusium, and thus, the Defendant

A. The statement of the victim left the victim, which was called from the defendant on December 2008 by the restriction on the dispatch of the victim. The contents of the defendant's family was known about the relation between the defendant and the victim and reported to the police, and the defendant's family was thought to have known about the relation between the defendant and the victim, and the defendant had no choice but to pay the money to the defendant continuously from that time to that time in order to escape from the situation, considering that the relation between the defendant and the victim was last known, and the defendant had been lost at home and the workplace, but the family has no choice but to choose that the defendant died at that time. In light of the form of the victim's death and the time it was done, it is highly probable that the defendant prepared the truth in light of the form of the victim's death and the time it was done, and the defendant was also aware of the fact that the defendant was called to the victim by the restriction on the transmission of the victim's name and the time when the defendant demanded money to the victim was substituted by the defendant's statement and the contents of the above statement.

나. 복원된 피해자와 피고인 간의 문자메시지 내용(2010. 9. 15. ~ 2011. 11. 14. 중 일부 기간에 대하여 피고인 발신 문자메시지 1402건, 피해자 발신 문자메시지 43건이 복원되어 있다)을 보면, 피해자가 피고인에게 보낸 문자메시지의 대부분은 돈을 보내달라는 내용으로서, 피고인은 한국에 있으면서도 일본에 있는 것처럼 가장하면서 구체적인 여러 정황들을 꾸며내어 병원비나 생활비 등을 보내줄 것을 집요하게 요구하였고, (하루에 10건 이상 보낸 적이 많고 30건 이상 보낸 경우도 있다), 특히 피해자가 2011. 11. 2. 이후 돈을 보내지 않자 2011. 11. 9.에는 '한국에서 일본으로 조사가 나오기 전에 오사카에서 오빠 쪽으로 사람들 찾아가지 싶어요. 은행에부터 찾아가서 오빠에 대해서 다 알아낼 사람들인데'라는 내용의 문자메시지를, 2011. 11. 11.에는 ‘오빠 집 전화번호 알지만 차마 전화는 못 드리겠어요....'라는 내용의 문자메시지를, 다음날에는 '전화 피하면 결국 집으로 받을 때까지 전화하겠습니다' 라는 내용의 문자메시지를 보냈으며, 피고인은 2011. 11. 14. 자살하였다. 그런데 피해자가 피고인 또는 피고인의 지인(실제로는 피고인이 꾸며낸 인물로 보인다)에게 보낸 문자는 위와 같이 43건에 불과하고, 그 내용을 보면 복원된 첫 문자메시지인 ‘진짜 돌아버리겠네!! 없는 걸 자꾸 이야기하면 어디서 돈이 떨어지나? 병원비 간신히 마련했더니 간병비 보내라 방값 보내라... 돈 없다고 그렇게 말하는데도 씨도 안먹히고 어쩌라는 건데'라는 내용의 2010. 9. 7.자 문자메시지를 비롯하여 ‘그만해라... 돈 가진거 하나도 없으니까... 내 집이 어떻게 지금 난장판이 되어 있는지까지 말하고 싶지 않다...’, ‘...이제 먹고 죽을래도 돈 없으니까 알아서 해라... 안 그래도 괴로워 죽겠는데 어디 사무실로 전화하노... 내 길거리에 쫓겨나는거 이제 시간 문제다..', '...제가 이미 파산한 상태라고 보시면 됩니다...’, ‘저는 저뿐 아니라 제 일가족 6명이 만신창이고 죽지 못해 살고 있어요.... 제게 그런 말 하지 마세요... 일이백이 없어 죽을 생각해보셨나요...’ 등 거의 전부가 피해자의 곤궁한 사정을 호소하는 내용이다. 또한 2011,4.1. ~ 2011.11.14. 사이의 피고인과 피해자 간의 통화내역을 보면 피고인이 피해자에게 전화를 건 횟수가 매우 많고 2011. 9.부터 피해자가 자살하기 전까지는 피해자와 통화하기 위하여 피해자가 근무하는 우리은행으로 수차례 전화하기도 하였는데, 이에 비하여 피해자가 피고인에게 전화를 건 내역은 없고, 여기에 더하여 피해자는 휴대전화에 피고인의 전화번호를 '원수'라는 이름으로 저장하고 있다.

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to see that the Defendant and the victim have continued the relationship or internal relationship as claimed by the victim. While the Defendant fully aware that the victim was economically in a very difficult situation, it appears that the Defendant had expressed the same attitude to inform the victim of the relationship with the Defendant to his family and the workplace.

C. Around the time of July 1, 2010, the victim was 16,80,000 won per annum from the New Cooperatives with 70% interest rate of 10,000 won per annum, 80,000 won per annum from the Agricultural Cooperatives on July 27, 2010, 44,120,000 won per annum, and 17.64% per annum from the SC Bank on November 23, 2010 with 0.3% interest rate of 0% per annum from the above 10,000 won per annum, 4,413,000 won per annum from the SC Bank on January 24, 201, the victim was 10,000 won per annum 20,000 won per annum from the 21.3% interest rate per annum 20,524,000 won per annum, and 10,005,000 won per annum on apartment savings.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant requested money on the basis of an inappropriate relationship with the victim, and received a large amount of money exceeding KRW 500 million from the victim for three years. The victim was unable to meet his/her liability, and the victim left his/her wife and two children to choose suicide. However, the defendant seems to have failed to clearly and definitely recognize the economic situation of the victim. In light of the fact that the defendant returned money on the part of the letter sent to the victim at the victim's request or at the victim's request, it appears that the defendant thought that his/her relationship with the victim or similar relation is maintained, and there is no criminal record other than a fine due to drinking driving, and there is no other criminal record other than a fine due to a drunk driving, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as per the order, taking into account the sentencing conditions prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the punishment conditions.

Judge Cho Jong-jin

Judges Kang Jin-jin