However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, with respect to Defendants 6, 11, and 12.

An order to provide community service for 80 hours to Defendant 6, Defendant 11, and Defendant 12.

All applications for compensation order filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Defendant 1’s violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act

No person shall transfer or acquire any means of access used to make a transaction request in electronic financial transactions or to secure the authenticity of users and the details of such transaction.

around June 22, 2015, Defendant 1 acquired the means of access to electronic financial transactions, such as a passbook, cash card, OTP security card, and password, connected to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 18 from Nonindicted Incorporated Company 6, around June 22, 2015, Defendant 1 transferred the said passbook, etc. to Nonindicted Party 6 before the ○○○○○○○○○○○, which is near the 333st convenience store in the name of the Non-Party Incorporated Company 18, and from around that time until August 2015, Defendant 1 transferred the means of access connected to the said 13 accounts from Nonindicted Party 6, as described in attached Table 1 of the List of Crimes, from around that time to August 2015.

2. Violation of the Special Act on Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Loss by Defendant 1;

No one shall require any other person to input data or orders in a computer or any other information processing device for the purpose of telecommunications-based financial fraud or input data or orders in a computer or any other information processing device using other person's data acquired.

After securing the account number of loan applicants to receive the remittance of the amount of Bosing, a personal name missing employee secured, and then transferring funds through telephone by acquiring information necessary for Internet banking by deceiving the victim, or allowing the victim to transfer funds directly through Internet banking. The defendant decided to invite cash withdrawal from the above Bosing criminal act, which was known to him/her, (as of December 11, 201, Supreme Court Order 1 year and six months, April 8, 2016, and 7 (as of December 11, 2015, Supreme Court Order 1 year and six months, April 2015, and April 8, 2016), Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 7 (as of December 11, 2015, and as of April 8, 2016, the Defendant received the aforementioned money from the above applicant and sent it to the applicant in order to use the money by dividing profits through cash withdrawal, and the Defendant did so by allowing the applicant to withdraw the money from the Defendant.

On September 5, 2015, at around 11:00, the Defendant called Nonindicted 19 who wishes to borrow a loan and carried out a loan from the bank. In accordance with the above crime plan, Nonindicted 19 secured three account numbers in the name of the bank (number 2 omitted, number 3 omitted of the new bank account number, number 4 omitted), and around September 7, 2015, Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 6 had connected Nonindicted 19 who wish to borrow a loan to the bank, and had the bank carry out a loan from the bank. Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 6 instructed Nonindicted 19 to transfer the loan to Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 6, the account number of the new bank account number of the Defendant (number 2 omitted, number 3 omitted of the bank, number 4 omitted), and gave Nonindicted 19 who was under the name of Nonindicted 19.

A. Violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Loss against the victim Nonindicted 20

Around September 7, 2015, an employee of the Ssingishing’s name made a false statement to the effect that “I would make a refund and loan to the victim Nonindicted 20 at a low interest rate if I transfer money.” On the same day, the victim transferred KRW 19,80,000 to the new bank account with the said Nonindicted 19 using Internet banking at the victim’s home located in the Seo-gu ( Address 1 omitted) Seo-gu, Daejeon around 14:39 on the same day, and KRW 15 million to the Korean bank account with the said Nonindicted 21.

Since then, around 15:06 on the same day, Nonindicted 7 moved to the △△△△△△ branch located in Goyang-si ( Address 2 omitted) along with Nonindicted 19 on the same day, and caused Nonindicted 19 to withdraw KRW 19.8 million deposited as above, and received it, and Nonindicted 6 received the said money from Nonindicted 7 and remitted it to the singinging staff on his name.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 7’s personal scaming staff, the Defendant had another person enter information or orders in the data processing device, such as computer, for the purpose of telecommunications-based financial fraud, and deceiving another person into money.

B. Violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Loss against the victim Nonindicted 22

Around September 11:58, 2015, an employee in the name misscam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scamscam scam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scamscam scam scamscamscamsp.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 7, the Defendant entered information or orders in the information processing device, such as computer, by using other person's information acquired for telecommunications-based financial fraud, and acquired pecuniary profits by inputting illegal orders.

C. Violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Loss against the victim Nonindicted 24

On September 7, 2015, an employee of the Ssinging Singing service calls from the victim Nonindicted 24 to the victim Nonindicted 24, and makes a false statement to the effect that “the investigator of the prosecutor’s office is the investigator of the prosecutor’s office. It was used for the crime after opening the Singing passbook in the name of the party, and confirmed the case received by entering the Internet site of the prosecutor’s office, and input information on the account.” The victim entered the account information at the Internet prosecutor’s site of the above Internet prosecutor’s office that was made by the Organization of Singing in the name of the victim. The singing employee in the name was using the above information of the victim’s account from the date of the same day to the Internet banking account with the victim’s new bank account with the above 12 million won from the victim’s account from the date of the same day, and Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 6 possessed the above 19,000 won to the account under the name of Nonindicted 25. In order to withdraw the above money.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 7, the Defendant entered information or orders in the information processing device, such as computer, by using other person's information acquired for telecommunications-based financial fraud, and acquired pecuniary profits by inputting illegal orders.

D. Violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Loss against the victim Nonindicted 26

At around 13:20 on September 7, 2015, an employee in charge of the name scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scamscamscam scamscamscams scamscamscams scamscamscam scamscamscam scamscamscams scamscamscams scamscamscamscamscam scamscamscams scamscamscam scamscamscam scamscamscam scamscamscamscams

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 7, the Defendant had another person enter information or orders in a data processing device, such as computer, for the purpose of telecommunications-based financial fraud, and deceiving another person into money.

"2016 Highest 2738"

3. Joint criminal conduct by Defendants 1 and 2

(a) Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act;

No person shall transfer or acquire any means of access for electronic financial transactions.

Nevertheless, the Defendants reported that they purchase the passbook on the Internet, sold the passbook, cash card, etc. to the person with no name, and offered them to divide the price.

(1) On October 2014, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired, and around the end of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Macheon-dong, agreed to receive 400,000 won from the person who was named in his name in front of the coffee shop, and transferred the passbook, physical card, one cash card, and one cash card to the person who was named in the name, via Kwikset Service delivery.

(2) On July 2015, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspireded to receive 400,000 won from the person who was named in the coffee shop located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and transferred a passbook (Account Number 6 omitted), a check, a check card, and a cash card, to the person who was named in the name, through Kwikset Service delivery.

(b) Fraud prevention;

As above, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, who received the means of access to the above new bank account with Defendant 2 from Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, misrepresented the victim Nonindicted 3 to make a loan of KRW 10.8% per annum on July 16, 2015 by phoneing to the victim Nonindicted 3 at an infinite place, and by deceiving Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 as if they would have caused the loan to be “10 million won per annum. In order to improve credit worthiness because of low credit rating, cash must be sent to the victim.” From July 16, 2015 to July 17, 2015, Defendant 2 took over KRW 100,000 from the victim under the name of Defendant 2 under the pretext of raising credit rating from the victim, by taking over KRW 100,000 from the victim to the above new bank account under the name of Defendant 2 under the name of Defendant 2, as stated in attached Table 2.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, despite being aware that they would be used in committing the phishing fraud, had been aided and abetted by transferring the said account with Defendant 2’s above phishing bank.

(c) Embezzlement;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired to withdraw and divide money from the new bank account transferred as above.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: (a) in collusion, confirmed that the said new bank account was deposited in KRW 1,00,000 from Nonindicted 3 of the victim’s Nonindicted 3, which was transferred to the person under whose name the account was transferred; (b) on July 16, 2015, around 15:08, Defendant 2 withdrawn KRW 1,00,000 from the new bank terms and conditions located in Songpa-gu Seoul ( Address 4 omitted); and (c) then, the Defendants embezzled the said account by dividing it by installments around that time.

4. Joint principal offenders committed by Defendants 1, 2, and 3

Defendant 1, who was aware of the fact that Defendant 2 was an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, had the victims withdraw money from the account of the victims by misrepresenting the inspection. Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to contact the victim by sending a telephonephone to be used in committing the crime and an identification card stating Nonindicted 27 of the staff of the Financial Supervisory Service. Defendant 2, who was aware of the fact that he was an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, had the victim receive money from the victim and delivered it to Defendant 3. Defendant 3 conspired to observe the surrounding area at the time of Defendant 2’s delivery of the damaged amount to Defendant 2, while Defendant 2 had the victim observe the victim, and Defendant 3 conspired to deliver the damaged amount to the victim of the above organization’s name in sequence.

(a) Fraud against the victim 1;

On September 10, 2015, at around 12:26, 2015, the above organization’s name weakist was made by phone call to one applicant for compensation from the public prosecutor’s office and misrepresenting him to the public prosecutor’s office, and “on the other hand, he would safely keep the money in a bank account and deliver it to the employee of the Financial Supervisory Service.” On the same day, Defendant 2, at around 16:55 of Seocho-gu Seoul, 120 buildings, as the Seocho-gu Seoul, failed to use the identification card of Nonindicted 27 employee of the Financial Supervisory Service and received KRW 25:7 million from the victim, while monitoring around the vicinity of Defendant 3, Defendant 2 received the above damaged amount from Defendant 2 and delivered the remainder of the money excluding part of the fee.

However, in fact, the Defendants and persons in poor name did not work for the investigative agency or the Financial Supervisory Service, and did not intend to return money in custody from the victims.

As a result, the Defendants, in collusion with the false names, acquired 25.7 million won from the victim.

B. Fraud against the victim Nonindicted 9

On September 10, 2015, the Defendants called the victim non-indicted 9 to the public prosecutor of the public prosecutor's office by making phone call to the victim non-indicted 9 on September 13:38, 2015, and falsely pretended to the effect that "When withdrawing money in a bank account and delivering it to the employees of the Financial Supervisory Service, the Defendants will safely keep it." Defendant 2 sent the remainder of money excluding part of the fee to the non-indicted 27 of the Financial Supervisory Service on the front of Yongsan-ro 47-ro 40, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-ro 40, 17:50 on the same day. Defendant 2 got off the identification card of Non-indicted 27 of the employee of the Financial Supervisory Service and got off the victim as the employee of the Financial Supervisory Service. Defendant 3 supervised the surrounding area, and delivered the remainder of money excluding part of the fee to Defendant 2.

However, in fact, the Defendants and persons in poor name did not work for the investigative agency or the Financial Supervisory Service, and did not intend to return money in custody from the victims.

As a result, the Defendants, in collusion with the false names, acquired 25 million won from the victim.

"2016 Highest 2746"

5. Joint principal offenders by Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5

Defendant 1, which came to know through the gambling site on October 2015, intended to take part in the criminal investigation agency and the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service’s misrepresentation of the employee, and came to know in Defendant 5 and society, the Defendant 4, along with Defendant 4, received money from the victim and delivered the said organization with money in accordance with the direction of a person who was not entitled to receive the name of the said organization (one name), and received part of said money from the victim as a fee.

Accordingly, on November 5, 2015, at around 12:30, the names of the above organization: (a) calls from the victim Nonindicted 2 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted 28”) to the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office of Criminal Investigation; (b) Nonindicted 29 investigators; and (c) the Financial Supervisory Service, by misrepresenting the victim Nonindicted 30 director, etc., to “whether there is this day on daily pay.” This person did not appear to have sent the goods upon request of the seller at e-mail; (d) the nominal owner was Nonindicted 2C; and (e) there was no money remaining in the account, and (e) Nonindicted 1 sent the money again to the victim Nonindicted 4 to Nonindicted 5; and (e) there was no money again to the effect that the investigator visited the victim to the effect that he would receive the money again from the victim’s account, and that he would receive the money again to the effect that he would receive the money again from the victim’s account (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted 1”).

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the non-indicted 2 in collusion with the victim and acquired the victim's KRW 14,00,000 from the victim.

6. Defendant 1

No person shall transfer or acquire any means of access used in electronic financial transactions.

On April 2015, the Defendant received KRW 300,00 from Defendant 6, who was aware of the fact on the road near the Han Bank's store located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Songpa-gu, Seoul, to Defendant 6, the head of Han Bank account (Account No. 8 omitted), e-mail card,OTP device, and the mobile storage device in which an authorized certificate was stored, and sold at least 40,000 won to the person who was unaware of the name.

7. Defendant 6

The Defendant transferred the means of access to the one bank account under the name of the Defendant to Defendant 1 at the same time and place as stated in paragraph (6), and received KRW 300,00 from Defendant 1.

"2016 Highest 3150"

8. Joint principal offenders committed by Defendants 1, 3, and 7

On October 2015, Defendant 1: (a) had the intent to participate in an investigation agency and the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service in a criminal organization that misrepresents himself/herself as an employee in the gambling site; (b) had the victim by calls from the victims at the scene of the crime; (c) had Defendant 1 play the role of managing the direct cash recipients and cash delivery books, etc.; and (d) had Defendant 7 introduced Defendant 2, who took the role of receiving money from the victims as if he/she was an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service; and (c) had the victim receive money directly from the victims at the scene of the crime; and (d) Defendant 3 had the victim receive cash from Defendant 7 and conspired in order to have the victim receive money from the victims and deliver it to the victims or Defendant 1.

On September 11, 2015, the person who was unaware of the name refers to the victim Nonindicted Party 10 by phoneing the victim Nonindicted Party 10, and “the head of the Tong was involved in the crime due to the divulgence of personal information. The cash was withdrawn as KRW 50,00 and delivered to the employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, it would be safe to keep it in custody.”

However, facts were plans to commit the above crimes in collusion with the Defendants.

The Defendants conspired with the names of the victims as above, and Defendant 7 sent the victim the amount of damage to Defendant 1 and distributed the amount of damage to Defendant 1 and the amount of money to Defendant 3 who is under surveillance in the vicinity of that time, on September 11, 2015, at the front of the Song-si branch office located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 18:30 on September 11, 2015, the lower court determined that “the victim will safely keep the victim in custody,” and that “the victim was aware of the name of Nonindicted 27, the Financial Supervisory Service’s name on which the name Nonindicted 27 was stated, and then the victim knew the victim with the name of 34 million won.” The Defendants sent the amount of damage to Defendant 3 who was under surveillance in the vicinity of that time.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the person who was not injured in the name of the victim and acquired 34 million won from the victim.

"2016 Highest 3727"

9. Joint principal offenders committed by Defendants 2, 3, and 8

Defendant 2, who was introduced by Defendant 9, who was aware of the fact that Defendant 8 was an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, committed a crime of sponsing under the name of the victim by calls to the victim while misrepresenting the inspection, thereby allowing the victim to withdraw money from the account of the victim. Defendant 8, who was introduced by Defendant 9, who was aware of the fact that Defendant 8 was an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, was the employee of the Financial Supervisory Service. Defendant 8 received money from the victim while doing so. Defendant 3 conspired to commit a crime of sponsing under the name of the organization, such as: (a) Defendant 8, who was monitoring around the victim at the time of drinking; and (b) Defendant 8, who received the damaged amount from Defendant 8, and then delivered it to the

On September 16, 2015, at a place where the location is unknown, Defendant 8 made a false call to the victim Nonindicted 11 in the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office on September 16, 2015, and misrepresented the inspection with the investigator and prosecutor of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office. He/she must prove suspicion. He/she must prove suspicion. After cancelling a deposit and installment savings with a bank, he/she withdraws cash and delivers it to the Financial Supervisory Service’s employees. Defendant 8 took charge of the following: (a) on the same day: (b) Defendant 393-1 under the title of the authority of Suwon-si in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon 1:30 on September 16, 2015; (c) Defendant 300,000 won (excluding Nonparty 33); (d) Defendant 360,000 won (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant 38,000 won) on the same day; and (d) Defendant 8 received part of the fee from the neighboring Defendant 13630,0.

However, in fact, the Defendants and persons in poor name did not work for the investigative agency or the Financial Supervisory Service, and did not intend to return money in custody from the victims.

As a result, the Defendants, in collusion with the false names, acquired 16.3 million won from the victim.

"2016 Highest 4357"

10. Defendant 9

Defendant 2, who was aware of the fact that Defendant 8 was an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, had the victim take money from the account of the victim by misrepresenting the inspection, and had the victim take money from the account of the victim. Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 8, who was aware of the fact that Defendant 8 was an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, to contact the victim. Defendant 8 received money from the victim and delivered it to Defendant 3. Defendant 3 had Defendant 8 observe the surrounding areas at the time of Defendant 8’s delivery of the amount of damage to the victim and delivered the amount of damage to Defendant 8, and Defendant 9 introduced Defendant 8 to Defendant 2, and used the same daily allowance received by Defendant 8, in order to do so.

On September 16, 2015, at a place where the location is unknown, Defendant 8 made phone calls to the victim Nonindicted 11 in the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and misrepresented the investigation with the victim Nonindicted 11 on September 16, 2015, to the effect that, “I have to prove suspicion. I have to prove suspicion. I have to withdraw cash after having promised to pay a deposit and installment savings at a bank. I have to withdraw cash and deliver it to the Financial Supervisory Service employees.” Defendant 8 received some of the fee from the victim’s nearby Defendant 360, 15:30 on the same day after having promised to pay a deposit and installment savings to the bank and then delivered it to the Financial Supervisory Service employees.” Defendant 8 received the money from the victim’s nearby Defendant 1 and 380,000 won from the Financial Supervisory Service, excluding Nonparty 27’s identification card on the employee Nonindicted 27 in front of the ▽▽△△ bus shop and received part of the fee from the victim.

However, there was no intention to return while investigating agency or not working for the Financial Supervisory Service, and the victim did not have any intention to return.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with the victim's name-free boxes, the defendant 2, 3, and 8, acquired 16.3 million won from the victim.

11. Joint principal offenders committed by Defendants 8, 9, and 10

(a) Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act;

No person shall transfer or acquire any means of access for electronic financial transactions.

Nevertheless, the Defendants reported that they purchase the passbook on the Internet, sold the passbook, cash card, etc. to the person with no name, and offered them to divide the price.

On June 2, 2016, the Defendants conspired to receive 50,000 won per day from the family joint market in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and transferred one passbook and one physical card to Defendant 8 (Account Number 9 omitted) through Kwikset Service Delivery Board.

(b) Fraud prevention;

As above, on June 3, 2016, the name influor who received the means of access to the said corporate bank account from the Defendants had the victim Nonindicted 12 by phoneing the victim Nonindicted 12 at an influorous place, and by misrepresenting the victim to “to make a loan at low interest rate. In order to make a loan, he shall send money under the name of the deposit money.” As such, the Defendants deceiving the victim as if he would have caused the loan, and then, he was transferred KRW 2 million from the victim to the above corporate bank account in the name of Defendant 8 on the same day on the same day.

The Defendants, despite being aware that they would be used in committing the singishing fraud, were aided and abetted by transferring the above business bank account with Defendant 8’s above, thereby facilitating the above crimes committed by those who were unable to obtain their names.

(c) Embezzlement;

The Defendants conspired to withdraw and divide money from the corporate bank account transferred as above.

피고인들은 위와 같이 성명불상자에게 양도한 피고인 8 명의의 위 기업은행 계좌에 피해자 공소외 12로부터 200만 원이 입금된 사실을 확인하고, 피고인 9는 2016. 6. 3. 15:53경 서울시 강동구 (주소 5 생략)에 있는 서울시 ◁◁조합 ▷▷지점에서 2회에 걸쳐 199만 원을 인출한 후 그 무렵 피고인들이 이를 나누어 사용함으로써 횡령하였다.

12. Joint-Offences by Defendants 9, 10, 11, and 12

(a) Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act;

No person shall transfer or acquire any means of access for electronic financial transactions.

Nevertheless, the Defendants reported that they purchase the passbook on the Internet, sold the passbook, cash card, etc. to the person with no name, and offered them to divide the price.

On June 27, 2016, the Defendants conspired to receive 50,000 won per day from a person in distress before the Seoul Dong-dong Probation Office located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul. On June 27, 2016, Defendant 11 transferred one passbook in the bank account (Account Number 10 omitted) and one check card to a person in distress through Kwikset Service Delivery Board.

(b) Fraud prevention;

위와 같이 피고인들로부터 피고인 11 명의의 위 우리은행 계좌의 접근매체를 양수한 성명불상자는 2016. 6. 28.경 불상의 장소에서 피해자 공소외 13에게 전화하여 ♤♤저축은행을 사칭하면서 ‘저금리 대환대출 생활자금을 지원해 주고 있는데, 대출을 받기 위해서는 보증보험료가 필요하다.’라는 등 마치 대출을 해줄 것처럼 기망하여 이에 속은 피해자로부터 같은 날 12:59경 보증금 등의 명목으로 피고인 11 명의의 위 우리은행 계좌로 180만 원을 이체받는 등 16회에 걸쳐 총 8개 계좌로 합계 13,504,000원을 이체받았다.

The Defendants, despite being aware that they would be used for committing the singishing fraud, transferred the above bank account with Defendant 11’s above, thereby aiding and abetting the crime of false names.

(c) Embezzlement;

The Defendants conspired to withdraw and divide the money from the Korean bank account transferred as above.

As above, the Defendants confirmed the fact that the above account was deposited in the above bank account in the victim non-indicted 13 and 1.8 million won from the victim's non-indicted 13. Defendant 9 withdrawn 1.8 million won over three occasions from the agricultural cooperative located in Sungnam-si ( Address 6 omitted) around June 28, 2016 and embezzled by dividing it by the defendants around that time.

13. Joint-Offences by Defendants 9, 10, and 12

(a) Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act;

No person shall transfer or acquire any means of access for electronic financial transactions.

Nevertheless, the Defendants reported that they purchase the passbook on the Internet, sold the passbook, cash card, etc. to the person with no name, and offered them to divide the price.

On July 4, 2016, the Defendants conspired to receive 50,000 won per day from the deceased in Songpa-dong 125-2, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and transferred 12 National Bank Account (Account Number 11 omitted) of Defendant 12 and one check to the deceased in name through Kwikset Service Delivery Board.

(b) Fraud prevention;

As above, on July 5, 2016, the Defendants deceiving the Defendants that they would have received the means of access to the said national bank account from the said Defendant 12 by phone call from the victim Nonindicted 34, etc., and that they would have received KRW 2,653,000 via nine times from the victims on the same day.

The Defendants, despite being aware that they would be used for committing the singishing fraud, transferred the above national bank account with Defendant 12, thereby aiding and abetting the act by facilitating the above crimes committed by those who were unable to obtain their names.

1. The legal statement of the defendant 1 (as of the first trial date);

1. Indicating some of the prosecutorial records concerning Defendant 1 concerning the suspect interrogation protocol;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against Nonindicted 6 (limited to the case of paragraph (1) at the time of display)

1. Statement of the police statement on Nonindicted 19

1. A criminal investigation report (compact of trade statements related to Nonparty 19);

1. Investigation report (to secure the victim’s statement Nonindicted 22 and Nonindicted 26)

1. Investigation report (Securing statement of victim and specification of crime);

1. Investigation report (related to the corporate account sold by Nonindicted 6 of the suspect)

【2016 Highest 2738】

1. Each legal statement of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

1. Defendant 3’s legal statement

1. The entry of some of the statements made by the prosecution against the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 in the protocol of interrogation of suspect;

1. Statement of each police statement on Nonindicted 39 and Nonindicted 9

1. A written statement of the applicant for compensation;

【2016 Highest 2746】

1. Each legal statement of Defendant 1 and Defendant 6

1. The defendant 4 and the defendant 5's partial statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against Nonindicted Party 1

1. Statement of the police statement on Nonindicted 40

1. The statement of the victim in Nonindicted 2’s preparation

1. Response to a request for financial transaction information;

[2016 Highest 3150]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1, 3, and 7

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 10

[2016 Highest 3727]

1. The legal statement of the defendant 2 (as of the fourth trial date);

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 3 and 8

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 11

【2016 Highest 4357】

1. The defendant 8's partial statement

1. The legal statement of the defendant 9 (as of the fourth trial date);

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 10, 11, and 12

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 13

1. Each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 36, and Nonindicted 37

1. Investigation report (attaching the victim Nonindicted 11’s statement, etc.);

1. A report on investigation (a criminal investigation into attachment of a victim's statement and delivery of the victim's statement);

1. Response to a request for financial transaction information;

Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted that Defendant 1 did not act as a conspiracy or participation in each of the crimes in this part, on the grounds that Defendant 1 did not act in collusion with a person who was unaware of name, either intended to withdraw cash for the crime of Bosing, or proposed a cash withdrawal to Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 7, although the contact details of Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 7 were known to the person who was unaware of name.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., ① Defendant 1 introduced Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 7 to a person with an unfolding relationship, and accordingly, Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 7 participated in the withdrawal of cash for the crime of Bosing. ② Defendant 1 had already acquired a large number of means of access prior to informing Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 7 of the contact details as above, and sold KRW 90 million to the unindicted 6 and one million to the unindicted 7. In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant 1 knew that the account was used for illegal work, and Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 7 suggested the withdrawal of cash for the crime of Bosing and informed Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 7 of this part of the personal contact details, and Defendant 1 did not accept this part of the crime of this case to each of the above defendants 1 and his defense counsel.

2. As to the aiding and abetting fraud listed in Paragraph 3(b) of the holding

A. Defendant 1

Defendant 1 and his defense counsel held that Defendant 1 had the means of access to the new bank account with Defendant 2, together with Defendant 2, transferred the means of access to the new bank account with Defendant 2, but did not know the details of transfer to the remaining account except the above Defendant 2’s account, and that each account listed in attached Table 2, including the above Defendant 2’s account, was not aware that it was used for the crime of Bosing. Thus, Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted that this part of the crime of aiding and abetting fraud was not recruited and participated.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., ① the victim non-indicted 3, by deceiving him/her by using his/her name-free box, and transferred the money to each account listed in the annexed Table 2. The crime of fraud against the victim non-indicted 3 through July 16, 2015. This is reasonable to deem it a single comprehensive crime of fraud against the victim, and Defendant 1 facilitates the above crime by transferring the means of access to one account used for the above comprehensive crime, ② Defendant 1 collected a large number of accounts from several persons from around June 2015 to August 20 of the same year, and received and transferred the means of access to the name-free person. In full view of the fact that the means of access collected and transferred as such were used on the illegal date, Defendant 1 is not entitled to participate in the crime of fraud, defense counsel's participation in the crime of fraud and defense counsel.

B. Defendant 2

Defendant 2 and his defense counsel asserted that Defendant 2 did not attract or take part in the crime of aiding and abetting fraud, since they did not know of the remaining accounts except the above Defendant 2’s account, although Defendant 2 transferred the means of access to the new bank account with Defendant 1 to a person with no name.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., (i) it is reasonable to view that the crime of this part is a single offense of fraud against the victim non-indicted 3 in the name of the victim. Considering that Defendant 2 transferred the means of access to a new bank account in his name and facilitates such transfer, and (ii) Defendant 2 transferred the means of access to the said account even though he knows that the new bank account in the name of Defendant 2 would be used for fraud, Defendant 2 is sufficiently recognized. Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is not acceptable.

3. As to each embezzlement described in paragraphs (3) and (11) of the holding

Defendant 2, Defendant 8, and their defense counsel have withdrawn and used money deposited in the account under their own name as stated in Article 3-3 or 11-3 of the judgment of the court below, but they asserted that the crime of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting was not established separately because it constitutes an act of ex post facto punishment for fraud.

However, it seems that the act of securing, using, or disposing of the illegal profits acquired by it after the establishment of the principal crime meets the elements of other crimes. However, if the subsequent act is not likely to infringe on new legal interests because it has already been completely assessed by the illegality and responsibility of the principal crime, it constitutes an act after the crime.

In this case, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant 2 assisted the victim Nonindicted 3 to commit the crime of fraud by transferring the means of access to Defendant 2’s account. The victim Nonindicted 3, who was unaware of the victim’s name, deposited money in the above account and then used it. Defendant 8 assisted the victim Nonindicted 12 by transferring the means of access to the account in the name of Defendant 8, and the victim Nonindicted 12, who was accused of the victim’s name, deposited money in the above account, and then withdrawn and used the money. The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., the relationship of custody is established under the principle of good faith between the victim who wired money to another person’s account due to the deception of the name, and the victim’s name and the victim’s account holder, who wired money to the account in the name of the victim, were more needed than the principal offender’s principal offender’s principal offender’s punishment (Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act). Furthermore, the victim’s withdrawal of money from the above account under his name and the victim’s new legal interests.

4. As to Paragraph 5 of the holding

Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and their defense counsel, as indicated in paragraph (5) of the judgment by the Defendant 4 and Defendant 5, have conspiredd and participated in the commission of fraud against the victim Nonindicted 2. However, this part of the crime is merely a new indictment even though it was instituted in Suwon District Court 2016No. 5. Thus, the prosecution should be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

살피건대, 이 법원이 적법하게 채택, 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고인 4, 피고인 5는 2016. 1. 5. 수원지방법원 2016고단5호 로 ‘2015. 11. 5. 16:50 서울 중구 무교로 6, ◈◈◈◈◈◈에서, 검찰청 공소외 38 검사를 사칭하는 등의 방법으로 피해자 공소외 1로부터 18,800,000원을 편취하였다.’는 내용으로 피해자 공소외 1에 대한 사기죄의 공동정범으로 각 기소되었는데, 그 후인 2016. 5. 31. 같은 법원 2016고단2746호 로 ‘2015. 11. 5. 12:30경 불상지에서 서울중앙지검 금융범죄수사부 검사 등을 사칭하여 피해자 공소외 2로 하여금 공소외 1 명의의 계좌로 14,000,000원을 입금하도록 한 다음 계좌 명의자인 공소외 1로 하여금 이를 인출, 전달하도록 하여 14,000,000원을 편취하였다.’는 내용으로 피해자 공소외 2에 대한 사기죄의 공동정범으로 각 기소된 점, ② 피고인 4, 피고인 5는 피고인 1과 공모하여, 2015. 11. 5. 피해자 공소외 2를 기망하여 피해자 공소외 2로 하여금 공소외 1 명의의 계좌로 1,400만 원을 송금하도록 하고, 같은 날 피해자 공소외 1도 기망하여 피해자 공소외 1로 하여금 위와 같이 공소외 2가 공소외 1 명의의 계좌로 송금한 1,400만 원에 자신의 돈 480만 원을 더한 합계 1,880만 원을 인출하도록 한 다음 이를 전달받았는바, 피해자 공소외 2, 공소외 1에 대한 각 사기 범행은 그 피해자를 달리할 뿐만 아니라 별도의 기망행위에 의한 것이므로, 실체적 경합범으로 봄이 상당한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 4, 피고인 5가 피해자 공소외 1에 대한 사기죄로 기소된 다음, 이 사건으로 피해자 공소외 2에 대한 사기죄로 기소된 것은 동일한 사건에 대한 이중기소에 해당되지 아니한다고 할 것이다. 따라서 위 피고인들 및 변호인의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

A. Defendant 1: Each of the electronic financial transactions Act; Articles 49(4)1, 6(3)1 (a) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Articles 49(4)1, 6(3)1 (a) of the same Act; each of the electronic financial transactions Act; Article 15-2(1)1 of the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss from Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Loss; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a) Article 15-2(1)2 of the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss from Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund of Loss; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 347(1)1 of the same Act; Articles 347-2 and 30 of the same Act; Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Article 49(4)1 of the same Act; Article 49(1)1 of the same Act; Article 30(3)3) of the Criminal Act; Article 5(1)3)3)1 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 2: Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a transfer by means of access), Articles 347(1), 32(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of embezzlement), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of embezzlement), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act;

(c) Defendant 3: Articles 347(1) and 30(Fraud) of the Criminal Act.

(d) Defendant 4: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act.

(e) Defendant 5: Articles 347(1) and 30(Fraud) of the Criminal Act

(f) Defendant 6: Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the transfer of any access medium)

(g) Defendant 7: Articles 347(1) and 30(Fraud) of the Criminal Act;

H. Defendant 8: Articles 347(1) and 30(Fraud) of the Criminal Act; Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (transfer of access media); Articles 347(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 355(1) and 30 (Embezzlement of Embezzlement) of the Criminal Act

(i) Defendant 9: Articles 347(1) and 30(Fraud) of the Criminal Act; Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (transfer of access media); Articles 347(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Embezzlement)

(j) Defendant 10: Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the transfer of access media); Articles 347(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of embezzlement)

(k) Defendant 11: Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a transfer by means of access), Articles 347(1), 32(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 355(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act (a point of embezzlement)

(l) Defendant 12: Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (transfer of access media), Articles 347(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 355(1) and 30 (Embezzlement of Embezzlement) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aid and mitigation;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, and Defendant 12: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 (each crime of aiding and abetting fraud) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, and Defendant 12: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 6, Defendant 11, and Defendant 12: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant 6, Defendant 11, and Defendant 12: each Criminal Code Article 62-2

1. Dismissal of an application for compensation order;

Articles 32(1)3 and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Article 32(1)3 and Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Article 32(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Compensation Application for Compensation is not clear in the scope of

The Defendant, who participated in the crime of systematic fraud and takes charge of soliciting and managing the means of access, such as passbooks, to be used for the crime, was responsible for soliciting and managing cash withdrawals. In light of the amount of damage and the frequency of crimes, etc., the Defendant’s sentence is extremely heavy. In addition, considering the fact that the victims have rarely been damaged up to now, the Defendant’s sentence is inevitable. Considering the fact that the Defendant had no record of punishment for the same kind of crime prior to the instant case, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, etc., and all other sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, the sentence is ordered as per Disposition.

2. Defendant 2: Imprisonment for 3 years; and

The Defendant transferred the passbook to be used for committing the crime of fraud, and arbitrarily released and embezzled the money of the victim deposited in the transferred passbook as well as aiding and abetting the crime of fraud. In addition, the Defendant committed an act as if he was an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, and thereby, acquired money from the victims. Considering the method and frequency of the crime, the degree of damage to the victims, etc., the crime’s nature is heavy. Furthermore, the victims’ damage was not recovered, and the Defendant was punished for 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny on October 21, 2010 and 2 years of suspended execution. Considering the fact that the Defendant is recognized as a substitute for the crime and is against the Defendant, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and family relations, and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments, the sentence is ordered as per the disposition.

3. Defendant 3: Imprisonment for 3 years.

In light of the method and frequency of the crime and the degree of damage of the victims, etc., it is inevitable to punish the defendant, taking into account the fact that the victims’ damage was almost not recovered. In addition, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized, reflects, and reached an agreement with the victim non-indicted 9, the sentence is to be imposed as ordered, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, character and conduct, and all other sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct.

4. Defendants 4 and 5: One year of imprisonment.

The Defendants took part in the criminal conduct against the victim non-indicted 2 and the defendant 5 obtained money from the victim as if they were investigators, and Defendant 4 took charge of delivering the above money from the victim to the defendant 1. In light of the method of crime and the degree of damage to the victim, etc., considering the fact that the crime was committed and the degree of damage to the victim was not agreed with the victim, it is inevitable to punish the defendants as to the crime. Considering the fact that the defendants are recognized, reflects the criminal conduct, and are the first offender, the defendants' punishment is inevitable. In addition, taking into account the defendants' age, character and conduct, and family relations, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, the sentence

5. Defendant 6: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and two years under a suspended sentence;

The Defendant transferred the means of access to an account under the name of the Defendant to Defendant 1 and received KRW 300,000 as the price. Considering the content and method of the crime, the circumstances leading to the crime, etc., the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime: Provided, That in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the mistake and reflects the fact that there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, etc., the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and all other sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, the sentence is ordered

6. Defendant 7: Imprisonment for one year.

The Defendant took part in the criminal conduct as if the Defendant was an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, thereby deceiving the money from the victim Nonindicted 10, and taking into account the method of committing the crime, the degree of damage to the victim, etc., the quality of the crime is inappropriate. Considering the fact that the Defendant was aware of and against the mistake, and that there was an agreement with the victim Nonindicted 10, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, etc., as well as all the conditions of sentencing specified in the records and arguments, the sentence is ordered

7. Defendant 8: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

In addition, the Defendant was committed as if he were an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service, and the Defendant acquired money from the victim non-indicted 11, thereby aiding and abetting the victim non-indicted 12 and embezzled the money from the victim non-indicted 12 by transferring the means of access in his name. In light of the content and method of the crime, frequency of the crime, the degree of the defendant's participation, the degree of damage to the victims, etc., the crime is heavy. In addition, considering the fact that the Defendant was in the period of suspension of execution and again left the crime of this case without being aware of the fact, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant. In addition, considering the fact that the Defendant was acting in the period of suspension of execution, punishment is inevitable for the Defendant. Taking into account the fact that the Defendant was recognized as a substitute for his mistake and against himself, the fact that the Defendant reached an agreement with the victim non-indicted 11 and 12

8. Defendant 9: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

The Defendant, along with Defendant 8, took part in the crime of fraud against Nonindicted 11, who assisted and abetted the victim Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 13, and Nonindicted 34 by transferring the means of access to the account to be used for the crime of fraud, and who withdrawn the money of the victims deposited in the account and embezzled it. In light of the content and method of the crime and the frequency of the crime and the degree of damage to the victims, the crime’ nature of the crime is heavy. In addition, considering the fact that the Defendant, even though he had been in the period of suspension of execution, was going back to the instant crime without being aware of it, and that the Defendant was punished as a fine for the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act on February 2, 2016, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant. Considering the fact that the Defendant was erroneous, and contrary, the Defendant’s sentence is inevitable. Taking into account the fact that the Defendant deposited a certain amount with Nonindicted 11 of the victim, deposited a certain amount with the victim Nonindicted 13, the Defendant’s age, character, and family relation, etc.

9. Defendant 10: Imprisonment for one year.

The Defendant transferred means of access, such as a passbook, to be used for the crime of Bosing, aids and abets the crime of fraud by using money wired to the account by the victims of the crime of fraud at will. In light of the content, method, frequency, etc. of the crime, the nature of the crime is inferior. In addition, the fact that the Defendant was punished by a fine for the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act on February 2, 2016 is disadvantageous to the Defendant. Considering the fact that the Defendant was erroneous and contradictory, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim Nonindicted 13, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, and all the other sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, the sentence is ordered as ordered.

10. Defendant 11: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two years of suspended execution.

The Defendant transferred the means of access to the one’s name to assist the victim Nonindicted 13 to commit fraud, and wrongfully embezzled the victim Nonindicted 13 by using money deposited in the account in the one’s name. In light of the content and method of the crime, the degree of damage to the victim, etc., the nature of the crime is not good: Provided, That in consideration of the fact that the Defendant is aware of and against the mistake, and that the Defendant was the first offender, and that there was an agreement with the victim Nonindicted 13, etc., the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relations, and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the record and arguments, as ordered in the Disposition.

11. Defendant 12: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution.

The Defendant has provided assistance to the crime of fraud by transferring the means of access, such as the passbook to be used for the crime of Bosing, and has provided assistance to the victims of the crime using money wired to the account at will. In light of the content, method, frequency, etc. of the crime, the nature of the crime is poor: Provided, That prior to the instant case, considering the fact that the Defendant was erroneous and contradictory to the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment other than the protective disposition against the juvenile prior to the instant case, and that there was no record of criminal punishment other than the protective disposition against the victim, and that there was an agreement with the victim Nonindicted 13, the Defendant’s age, character,

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jin-hoon

(1) Although the facts charged in the instant case are indicated as “No. 4, 2015.” However, according to the evidence presented in the judgment, it is apparent that “no. 5, 2015.” and even if recognized as above without following the amendment process, it does not hinder the Defendants’ exercise of their defense rights. As such, it is recognized as above.