beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant wired money from B to the Internet gambling site’s account, and then was viewed as having been scaming to the police.
A false report is issued to confirm the fact of the accident of this case, using it to suspend payment to the financial institution by making a request for remedy for damage, and then the person who received money in return for the cancellation of payment suspension from the operator of the site and accepted it.
On May 4, 2017, the Defendant received money from B to be deposited with the crime target account, and the Defendant received 1 million won from the new bank account (14001171595) of SB, 200,000 won from C, 1 million won from the new bank account (D) of C, 30,000 won from the new bank account of C (1401695403), 4,000,000 won from the new bank account of C, (1401695403).
50,000,000 won in the new bank account in U.S. (10032046949), 100,000 won in the two accounts (3504505805463), 60,000 won in the two accounts (3019360781), 70,000 won in the new bank account in U.S. (10031820271), 10,000 won in the five accounts in U.S. (1031820271), 10,000 won in the five accounts in U.S. (F), 100,000 won in the one bank account in G (H), 100,000 won in the one bank account in K, 100,000 won in the one bank account in the aggregate of 371,192,100,000 won in the one bank account in K.
1. On May 4, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the performance of a deceptive scheme’s official duties, at the police station investigation department and office located in Ansan-gu, Ansan-si, and the fact that the Defendant was not involved in the singishing fraud was submitted to the police officer in charge of K, etc., stating that “the Defendant was damaged by remitting KRW 6,600,000 to a person who misrepresented the borrower’s staff member under the name of the loan fee, and was issued a false confirmation of the instant accident.”
The Defendant reported as if he was victimized by the phishing fraud, thereby having the police officer in charge.