However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant 1 shall be suspended.

To order Defendant 1 to provide community service for 120 hours.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of aiding and abetting Defendant 1, the charge of aiding and abetting Defendant 2, and the charge of aiding and abetting the Defendants’ primary and preliminary embezzlement are acquitted.

Of these judgments, the summary of the acquittal part against Defendant 2 is publicly announced.

1. Defendant 2’s crime;

Defendant 2, on February 2017, issued a proposal to “3 million won in one month if he/she sent a physical card,” which was installed in the Defendant’s mobile phone, from the employees of Bosping spam, to which his/her name cannot be known through the Defendant’s mobile phone display,” and then transferred the means of access to electronic financial transactions through an article of Kwikset Service, where the name of Defendant 2 was sent to the above Bosping spam employee on the front of the Newkdong Park, located in Kim Young-gu, Kim Young-si, at around 15:00 on February 6, 2017, and one bank card (Account No. 1 omitted), one connected to the said account, and one OTP card, whose name cannot be known.

2. Defendants’ co-principal conduct

Defendant 2, as set forth in paragraph 1, failed to receive KRW 3 million as promised, even though Defendant 2 transferred the passbook to the singinginging staff, Defendant 2 again made and possessed a singingular card by transferring the passbook and the singular card to the above singinginging staff. On deposit of money in the transferred passbook, Defendant 2, as the above singular staff, did not want to withdraw and use the money first than the above singing staff.

As a result, Defendant 2 proposed that friendly job offering Defendant 1 “B created two e-mail cards to B and applied for text information service, sent one e-mail card to those who illegally exchange and sent the remaining e-mail card to them. When she deposited money in the account, she first withdraws and uses the money, and the text message that was deposited in the account changed the e-mail phone.” On February 2, 2017, Defendant 1 consented to this, and Defendant 1 applied for e-mail service by additionally issuing a e-mail card connected to the SC Japan Bank (Account Number 2 omitted) which was opened in his name in the name of the SC Bank in the Seocho-si, Kim Jong-dong.

At around 13:00 on February 12, 2017, the Defendants issued the means of access to electronic financial transactions to the singinging staff through a passbook with Defendant 1, a head of the above Scing Bank, a check card connected to the above account, and an OTP card on the front of the Busan Bank located in Gangseo-gu Busan, Busan, and then transferred the means of access to electronic financial transactions.

"2017 Highest 2583"

피고인 2는 2016. 11. 12. 03:00경 김해시 (주소 생략) ○○○○○ 술집 내에서 자신의 일행들과 술을 마시던 중 손님인 피해자 공소외 2(22세)가 옆 테이블에서 일행들과 술을 먹으면서 큰소리로 고함을 지르며 대화를 한다는 이유로 피해자에게 “계속 싸워라, 싸워라, 니 꼽나 뭘 야리노"라고 하였고 이에 피해자가 ”우리끼리 놀고 있으니 상관 말고 그냥 가라“고 하자 화가 나, 갑자기 주먹으로 피해자의 뺨을 2-3회 때리는 등 폭행하였다.

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement (Defendant 1)

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 3

1. Official receipt;

1. Details of account transactions, opening date, etc.;

1. CCTV images;

1. Receipts without passbooks;

1. An application for account transactions and a statement of transactions;

"2017 Highest 2583"

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 2

○ Defendant 1: Articles 49(4)1, 6(3)1, and 30 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; the choice of imprisonment;

○ Defendant 2: Articles 49(4)1 and 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the transfer of the means of access as of February 6, 2017); Articles 49(4)1, 6(3)1, and 30 (the transfer of the means of access as of February 12, 2017) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 260(1)1 and 6(3)1 of the same Act; Articles 49(4)1, 6(3)1, and 30

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant 1: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

○ Defendant 1: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation Act

On the other hand, the Defendants are against themselves. Defendant 2 paid part of the amount of damage to Nonindicted Party 1 among the telecommunications-based financial fraud victims, and Nonindicted Party 1 does not want to be punished by the Defendant. Defendant 1 is the primary offender and has disability.

It is decided as per the disposition, including these circumstances, by taking into account the conditions of sentencing prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

A. Defendant 2’s fraudulent aiding and abetting

Defendant 2 was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s account will be used for the exchange of unlawful sports soil by the employees of Bosing singing singing singing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing s

Around 11:00 on February 7, 2017, 2017, the following name-based employees of Bosing singing singing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing ssing

As a result, the Defendant, in order to assist the said member of the Bosing Organization, transferred the means of access as seen above to facilitate the commission of the crime.

B. Defendants’ fraudulent aiding and abetting

Defendant 2 argued that Defendant 1’s account will be used for the exchange of illegal sports soil from the scamman’s staff as stated in paragraph (a). Defendant 1 gave the above talk from Defendant 2, and the Defendants knew that the means of access transferred by them would be used for criminal acts, and thus, on February 13, 2017, the Defendants transferred the ccam card, etc. to Defendant 1’s account on the road located in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan Government, on the road, around February 13, 2017.

Around 09:00 on February 13, 2017, 2017, the following name-based employee of Bosing singing singing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing ssing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing s

Accordingly, in order to assist the said member in committing the said fraud, the Defendants conspired and assisted the said member to transfer the means of access as seen above, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime.

(c) Embezzlement;

(1) Main facts charged

At around 13:00 on February 12, 2017, Defendant 1, following the public offering as above, transferred the passbook, etc. of the above SC bank account in Defendant 1’s name to the Bosingman, and then was waiting to deposit the money in the above account on February 14, 2017, Defendant 1 received text messages that “6.30,000 won was deposited” from Nonindicted 1 of the victim Nonindicted 1 and notified Defendant 2 that “the money was deposited.”

Then, around 11:50 on February 14, 2017, Defendant 2 released 3 million won out of the money deposited in the passbook of the above SCR bank over three occasions by using Defendant 1’s check card, which was in possession of in advance at the cash withdrawal machine at the Busan Gangseo-gu Busan, Busan.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the property in custody for the victim’s scam organization.

(2) Preliminary facts charged

At around 13:00 on February 12, 2017, Defendant 1, following the public offering as above, transferred the passbook, etc. of the above SC bank account in Defendant 1’s name to the Bosingman, and then was waiting to deposit the money in the above account on February 14, 2017, Defendant 1 received text messages that “6.30,000 won was deposited” from Nonindicted 1 of the victim Nonindicted 1 and notified Defendant 2 that “the money was deposited.”

Then, around 11:50 on February 14, 2017, Defendant 2 released 3 million won out of the money deposited in the passbook of the above SCR bank over three occasions by using Defendant 1’s check card, which was in possession of in advance at the cash withdrawal machine at the Busan Gangseo-gu Busan, Busan.

As a result, the Defendants conspired, while the victim Nonindicted 1 was in custody of the remittance due to mistake in the singishing crime, and embezzled by arbitrarily consuming it.

2. Determination

(a) Fraud (Article 1-1 (a) and (b));

The Defendants and their defense counsel deny the criminal intent of fraud, because they have known that the connection account of the means of access transferred was used in exchange for the Internet gambling and had been used in telecommunications-based financial fraud.

According to the evidence mentioned above and the statement of the first police interrogation protocol against Defendant 1, each of the above accounts was used in telecommunications-based financial fraud, and Defendant 2 transferred the means of access to each of the above accounts with the receipt of KRW 3 million each, among which, in the case of the account with Defendant 1, the account with Defendant 2 was made through an electronic communication financial fraud under the name of Defendant 2, and the contact with and transfer of the electronic communication financial fraud to Defendant 2, and the fact that Defendant 1 confirmed whether the means of access to the account was used in telecommunications-based financial fraud by giving the means of access to the account to Defendant 2. However, this circumstance alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendants recognized that each of the above means of access was used in the fraud crime, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(b) Embezzlement (Article 1-3 (c));

embezzlement is established when a person who keeps another's property contrary to a fiduciary relationship, i.e., entrustment, embezzled or refuses to return it (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2404 delivered on November 25, 1994).

First of all, the Defendants examine the primary facts charged. Even if the consolidated account was known to be used in exchanging the Internet gambling, the transferee of the means of access was taken over for the purpose of using it for telecommunications-based financial fraud, and actually used it. Thus, there is no consignment relationship between the Defendants and the transferee of the said means of access to legally protect the source of the singing organization. Furthermore, the singing employee does not have any right to the money deposited in the account under Defendant 1, and thus, the Defendants cannot be said to be a person who keeps the property of the singing employee.

In addition, I examine the ancillary facts charged. The lack of evidence that the Defendants knew that the account in the name of Defendant 1 was to be used for telecommunications-based financial fraud is as seen earlier. Accordingly, the Defendants recognized the money deposited in the said account as the recipient of the means of access to the said account, i.e., the employee of Bosping, or the organization to which he belongs. Thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have recognized the money as the custodian of Nonindicted 1’s property, and the consignment relationship between the Defendants and Nonindicted 1 cannot be established under the principle of good faith or the principle of trust and good faith between the Defendants and the telecommunications-based financial fraud victim. Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that the consignment relationship between the Defendants and Nonindicted 1 exists

Therefore, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants, who retain the property of Bosing staff or Nonindicted 1, have refused the embezzlement or the return thereof against the consignment relationship.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, the facts charged in Article 1-1-A and the facts charged in Article 1-2 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act against Defendant 2 and the Defendants’ main facts charged in Article 1-2 (2) and Article 1-3 (3) against the Defendants constitute cases where there is no proof of crime. Therefore, the part as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the instant case is pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, with respect to Defendant 1, who did not consent to a judgment of not guilty, the summary of the judgment of not guilty should not be published in accordance with the proviso of Article 58 (2) of

Judges Lee Woo-soo