beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2021.02.05 2020고단1864

사기등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The name in the name of "20 Highest 1864" means that the victim assumes the lending company and the financial institution by misrepresenting the victim with a telephone to make a substitute loan at low interest.

In addition, the Defendant, under the direction of the above person who was unaware of the amount of direct damage to the financial institution and received the direct damage money from the victim to the third bank account, acquired the money by phishing method, and conspired to distribute the money acquired through phishing method in the order of mutual distribution. The Defendant misrepresented the employees of the financial institution and received the direct damage money from the victim to the third bank account, and then acquired the money through phishing method.

On March 31, 2020, when a person who assumes a false name in B bank C head according to the above public offering calls from the victim D on or around March 31, 2020, “If part of the existing E loans 18 million won is repaid, he/she may open a Masp passbook up to 25 million won.”

“The victim said that there was no money,” and said, the victim said that “the part of the 10 million won was repaid to B bank account”, and that “the 1,000 won was returned to B bank account,” and the name-based person who assumes the E employee from the phone called to the victim, and “the goods used by the e-mail are the goods that were not repaid even if they were not repaid, and there was a decrease in the attempt to repay, thereby violating the Financial Transactions Act.

The term "to suspend the account" means that the victim calls the name infinite who assumes the name infinites of the B bank division to explain the situation, and the name infinites confirmed that the victim was suspended from payment of KRW 10,000,000,000 to the B bank, and the victim made a false statement to the E.

However, in fact, the defendant was not an employee of financial institution, and the victim was thought to receive money from the victim, and the victim was also willing to borrow money.