Law Firm E, Attorneys F, G, H

On November 2015, 200, the Defendant was introduced to the victim J.J. that he had a lot of interest in fostering underground funds from I, a police officer of the first 2015, 11, that he had been able to mobilize KRW 500,000,000, and after December 2015, the Defendant said that “The Defendant was the owner of a warehouse where our style is in custody of underground funds and, even though he had a certain share in the warehouse, he could not remove underground funds from the special classr who is in custody of the warehouse because he could not take out of the warehouse because he could not give monthly pay KRW 1,000,000,000 to the security guards from the special classr who are keeping the warehouse.”

However, the Defendant did not know whether the above underground funds exist, and did not know the existence thereof, and did not hold a certain share in the above warehouse. Even if the Defendant received money from the victim for the purpose other than the project to foster underground funds, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the principal of the investment promised to the victim and a large amount of profit, even if he did not receive money from the victim for the purpose other than the project to foster underground funds.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained 80 million won in total from 80 million won in face value at the coffee shop around December 21, 2015 from the victim, and obtained 80 million won in face value.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement against K.K, L, and I;

1. A copy of each prosecutor's statement to J and K;

1. Materials printed from Internet press reports, printed materials of text messages sent by A, printed materials of text messages, each telephone recording, suspect A mobile phone rental text messages;

1. A copy of investigation report (to submit a cash loan contract related to the issuance of cashier's checks equivalent to K 80 million won, to verify a presentation for payment of checks equivalent to 800 million won granted to A), a criminal investigation report (to file media reports, etc. of fraud related to the training of underground funds, to file media reports, etc. of incident related to the training of underground funds, J, printing out text messages sent to A from a suspect's cell phone, and sending text messages to victims) and reporting on the preparation

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument

1. Summary of the assertion

On the other hand, the defendant believed, without doubt, that the "ware storage is in fact in custody of non-funds, foreign currencies, gold bars, etc." from M, and that it is possible to raise large amounts of funds through the "project to train underground funds" or the "project to train specific goods", and M has the authority to do so. The defendant did not know that the victim was aware of the fact that he did not have any authority to do so from M at the time when he received money from the victim, and did not know that he did not have any authority to do so, nor did he had any authority to do so to do so. Thus, even if it was found that there was no substance or no authority to do so to do so to do so, the defendant did not know that he did not know that there was no authority to do so to do so to do so to do so to do so.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the court legitimately adopted and investigated evidence, ① the defendant actually exists in a warehouse with ‘non-funds, foreign currency, gold ingots, etc.' kept by the victim, and so-called ‘projects for fostering underground funds' or ‘days related to specific goods', it is possible for the defendant to raise large amount of funds through ‘the fact that there is no objective and reliable evidence supporting this, and this is merely an act of using long funds (i.e., investigation records) 340-390, ② the defendant also has no authority to directly do so on the part of the victim (i.e., 917 pages). It is hard for the defendant to prove that there is no authority to directly use the goods or specified goods belonging to the warehouse, and (ii) it is hard for the defendant to obtain from the victim that ‘the victim would have been under the direction of the public official of the Republic of Korea, including the fact that there is 80 billion won or less, or that there is no authority or ability to raise funds from the victim under the name of the victim.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years - thirty years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment for 3 years, 6 years

3. Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment; and

The crime of this case is not likely to be a crime by deceiving the victim under the pretext of the cost of raising underground funds and by deceiving the victim. The method of deception is secret and most damages have not been recovered. In light of this, it is inevitable to punish the defendant with strict penalties corresponding to his responsibility.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, there was no record of punishment for the same criminal record or severe punishment, and the defendant's total amount of damage, such as N-5, the defendant, M, and presentation of one of the eight cashier's checks, the face value of which is KRW 00 million issued by the victim to the bank, seems not to be attributed to the defendant's profit, and the fact that the victim received KRW 200 million from 0,000 from 0, and two million won from 200,000 from the defendant's side, respectively, shall be considered as favorable to the defendant, and the punishment shall be determined as per the order, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character

Judge Jin-hun

Judges Park Jong-chul