Violation (Fraud), Fraud

2017 early 3190, 3200 Application for a compensation order

2. C

The Defendant shall pay to B the applicant for compensation the amount of KRW 59,00,000 and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from December 5, 2017 to the date of full payment. The Defendant shall pay to C the applicant for compensation the amount of KRW 377,00,000 and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from December 6, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Each compensation order above may be provisionally executed.

The defendant is a person who is a member or staff of the G church in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building, E and F, and a person who was a representative of the J Research Institute in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H apartment.

The Defendant, one of the facts at the above church and research institutes, etc., did not have invested in shares or made high profits through stock investment in a venture business, and did not intend to list the venture business that has invested in or invested in the venture business, notwithstanding the fact that there is no intention to list the venture business that has invested in or made an investment in the venture business, he received money as if he would raise high profits through stock investment or make an investment in a venture business with a high possibility of listing and stock price increase, and received money as if he would bring a profit to meet a high interest rate if he made an investment, and then paid the existing investment money or new invested money to pay interest from 1% to 4% per month, and received money from the church believers or its members and received money from the church, seminars, etc. to acquire money from them.

“2017Gohap1080

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of Victims K and L;

Around December 21, 2014, the Defendant stated that “Isnher own stock investment in a venture business related to missionary work, etc. according to Nr. Nr.’s fraternity, I would make an investment. If you make an investment, I would pay a profit of 2.5% per month.” On January 2015, the Defendant said that I would like to make a victim L, the husband of the victim K, the same purport.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the ability to guarantee high profits by investing in stocks, and even if he received money from the victim, he would be able to avoid return, such as paying the money to other investors' profits.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving victims; (b) received total sum of KRW 1127 million from December 22, 2014 to February 15, 2016 through cash or account transfer from the Victim K to the account transfer of KRW 17 billion; and (c) acquired KRW 500 million from the Victim L to the account on July 2, 2017, respectively.

2. Fraud against the victim M;

On January 28, 2015, the Defendant made a statement to the same effect as the above-mentioned Paragraph 1 to the victim M.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the ability to guarantee high profits by investing in stocks, and even if he received money from the victim, he would be able to avoid return, such as paying the money to other investors' profits.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained a total of KRW 166 million from January 28, 2015 to December 22, 2015 by means of cash or account transfer, etc., as shown in attached Table 2, from the victim, and acquired the total of KRW 166 million from January 28, 2015 to December 22, 2015.

“2017 Highest 1172

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against victim B;

On June 15, 2015, the Defendant stated that “I will pay interest income not only to guarantee the principal but also to 1% to 4% of the monthly interest if I will make an investment in NNB’s shares or venture businesses according to NNB’s guidance.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the ability to guarantee high-income by investing in stocks, and even if receiving money from the victim, it was thought that it would be returned, such as paying other investors' profits.

As above, the Defendant, as indicated in Nos. 3 1 through 14 of the List of Crimes, by deceiving the victim as above, received a total of KRW 590 million from the victim 14 times from that time until August 29, 2016, including obtaining KRW 50 million from the victim.

4. Fraud against the victim C;

On April 21, 2015, the Defendant told the victim C to the same effect as the above 3 paragraphs.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the ability to guarantee high-income by investing in stocks, and even if receiving money from the victim, it was thought that it would be returned, such as paying other investors' profits.

As seen above, the Defendant, as well as the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 100 million from the victim on the same day on the same day, was issued KRW 377 million in total from the victim from around October 31, 2016, from that time until October 31, 2016.

5. Fraud against the victim N orO;

On May 26, 2015, the Defendant told the victim N&O to the same effect as the above 3 paragraphs.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the ability to guarantee high-income by investing in stocks, and even if receiving money from the victim, it was thought that it would be returned, such as paying other investors' profits.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims, received KRW 100 million from the victim N on the same day, and received KRW 50 million from the victim0 on the same day.

6. Fraud of victim P;

On December 24, 2014, the Defendant told the victim P to the same effect as the above three paragraphs.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the ability to guarantee high-income by investing in stocks, and even if receiving money from the victim, it was thought that it would be returned, such as paying other investors' profits.

As above, the Defendant, as described in the attached Table 4, received a total of KRW 245 million from January 4, 2017, including the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and received KRW 5 million from the victim, on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of Q, R and S by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with respect to M, K, L, B, C, P, and N;

1. Each statement of performance;

1. Each account transaction, the details of entry and exit transactions, cash storage certificates, cash receipts (Evidence No. 6, 7, 1080, No. 1080, No. 4,7, 16, 17, 17, 18, and 26) 1. - Indictment, written indictment, written judgment, prosecutor's consolidated case inquiry [the prosecutor], S (the Director of the TRJ Research Institute), Q (the Director of the TRJ Research Institute), and the prosecutor's office consolidated case inquiry, but the defendant argued that the above R was only engaged in the work ordered by the defendant and did not agree with the defendant; R, S, and Q, stating that the defendant did not want to deceive the victims only; S, in collusion with the defendant, deceiving the victims of the instant case by the same method as the facts constituting the instant crime; however, it is insufficient to recognize that the prosecutor of Seoul District Court was acquitted by the prosecutor of the first instance court solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the instant case (Evidence 2017).

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Economic Crimes Act"), Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fraud of the victim K, L, and B), Article 347 (1) of each Criminal Act (the fraud of the victim against the money victim and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Article 50 of the Criminal Act concerning Victim K with the largest penalty and penalty for concurrent crimes prescribed by the Act on the Violation of the Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)]

1. Orders for compensation and sentence of provisional execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 25(1)1 and 3, Article 31(1) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud 3 types (at least 50 million won, but less than 500 billion won): Reduction element: Victims are also responsible for the occurrence of crimes or the expansion of damage.

Aggravations: Where a crime has been committed against unspecified or large number of victims or repeatedly over a considerable period of time;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 3-6 years of imprisonment

3. Determination of sentence: Determination of sentence shall be made in consideration of the following six years of imprisonment, taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, the process of growth, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various factors of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of this case, and the scope of recommended sentences on the sentencing criteria after considering the circumstances after the crime.

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

The crime of this case is a crime committed by abusing the religious belief of a large number of the victims, which is a pastors, and is not very good, requiring the victims to make a statement to the effect that they sent missionary money rather than making an investment to the victims, and making a reply or intimidation to the effect that if they do not comply with this, they may not receive any return of the investment money. The crime of this case was committed with the intent to divide the economic benefits of the members or to make it difficult to understand that the crime of this case was committed in good faith for the missionary work. As a result of the Defendant actively recommended the victims to make an investment while obtaining a loan from the victims, the victims suffered additional damages due to the loan interest burden, etc. Furthermore, although the Defendant set up a right to collateral for the purpose of restoring damage, it is doubtful whether the damage recovery could be actually made in the auction procedure to be conducted in view of the value of the object and senior mortgage, and the other victims’ damage was not recovered at all.

On the other hand, the Defendant was prosecuted for committing the crime of deceiving a person, etc. by deceiving him in the same manner as the instant crime, and sentenced to six years of imprisonment at the first instance trial after the dismissal of the appeal (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Da1098, Supreme Court 2017Da150, Supreme Court Decision 2018Do1227). The first instance judgment in the instant case considered the grounds for sentencing disadvantageous to the fact that the actual defrauded amount is more than the above 2 billion won, and the sentencing guidelines for sentencing is more than 5 billion won and not less than 3 years but not more than 4 years and 8 years (the lower limit of 1/3 has increased as a result of adding up the amounts of deception in accordance with the foregoing written criteria). However, as seen earlier, considering the fact that there is no serious degree of damage to the instant crime that the Defendant, who is a wood company, committed the instant crime against a large number of persons, the sentencing guidelines does not seem to be appropriate and it does not seem to have properly go against the above the above sentencing sentencing.

【Free Circumstances】

The Defendant recognized the basic factual relations. Some victims received money on the pretext of receiving money and seem to have less than the amount of actual damage recognized in the crime. The Defendant did not have any other criminal records other than those sentenced to a fine once on the grounds of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the past twenty years.

Judges in the order of precedence

Judge Kang Dong-hun

The determination shall be determined.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.