2014 Highis302, 2014 Highis395 (Joint), 2014 Highis436 (Joint), 2014 Highis

529(Consolidated) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

Crime Name: Fraud; Violation of Fraud and Illegal Check Control Act;

A

Han-Jin Park, Cheong-Jin Park, Lee Jin-Jin, Park Young-Jin, Park Young-Jin, Park Jong-Jin (Public trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

oly 10, 2014

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Criminal facts

“2014Gohap302 / [Basic Facts]

The defendant is operating a 'D' clothing store in Busan Jung-gu, which is operated by organizing four successful bidders at the above establishment.

1. The winning bid process method: 15 days, 20 days, and 25 days, and the winning bid number was 25 or 28 units, and several units were eligible for each class member. In the case of the winning bid amount of 1.5 million won per unit, the first month, the winning bid amount of 1.5 million won per unit, shall be paid to the Defendant who is the fraternity, and the remaining members, from the second month, are awarded the highest interest among the members of each class of accounts, and the remaining members, from the second month, paid the amount calculated by deducting the interest from the total number of units per unit by 1.5 million won per unit, and the winning bid amount of 28 days, beginning in the same manner, was paid in 500,000 won per unit by the amount calculated by dividing the interest by the total number of units per unit.

2. Status of the operation of the successful bidder;

In fact, the Defendant, while operating the successful bid for about 15 years, could not receive a part of the paid-in accounts and could not solve this problem. The Defendant continued to operate the system by way of preventing a new system from returning it to the money being received by the transferor in the first month. Although the Defendant’s operation of the clothing store operated by the Defendant was not possible to properly pay the paid-in accounts due to its poor operation, the Defendant subscribed to 8 units in the above 4111 and operated the system in a sound manner by closing the accounts except the old accounts received in the first time, even though he was unable to pay the paid-in accounts at his own discretion, and even if he was unable to pay the paid-in accounts at his own discretion, the Defendant continued to operate the system by opening a new system to prevent the return.

In addition, the defendant extended money from the members of the fraternity in the name of assisting them to act as a teacher in Japan or purchasing clothings in return for offset disposal. As a result, the circumstance that the defendant, such as the payment of the fraternity and the deposit to be paid instead of the repayment of debt, etc. every month, led to the situation that the defendant is liable, such as the payment of the fraternity and the deposit to be paid instead of the payment of debt, etc., in order to receive a large amount of interest, the defendant used to receive the successful bid at the time of the completion of the relevant successful bid in order to receive a large amount of interest from the end of the relevant successful bid, and operated the four times of this case from January 25, 2012 to February 28, 2014, and 63 times in total, the defendant, who is the leader, while operating the four times of this case, has reached the conclusion of the successful bid for the remaining 59 units except the first four accounts that the defendant first received, and the remaining 26th accounts have not been delivered to the successful bid.

Therefore, even though the defendant operated the clothing store during the above period, even though he did not make profits properly, he did not pay the fraternity of the previous successful bidder in the form of returning the fraternity used by him, and he did not return it to several times in the name of the purchase of the clothes in Japan and Hong Kong. Thus, even if he received the fraternity from the successful bidder, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay all the fraternitys at the time, he did not receive the money under the pretext of payment from the victims, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the fraternitys at the time, even though he did not have the intention or ability to pay it in the amount determined by the successful bidder.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Successful bidder fraud;

Around January 15, 2012, the Defendant re-entered the successful bid amount of KRW 28,500,000 to the victim E, who was a member of the previous fraternity operated by the Defendant at D's clothing store, and KRW 42,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 won for the 28-month period. When subscribed, the Defendant received 1,50,000,000 won on the same day from the victim, and acquired the amount from the total 29,000,000,000,000,000 won for each (total sum of KRW 817,975,60,00) stated in the "amount of money paid (amount of damage)" column from the 29,000,000 from the victim.

2. Violation of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act;

From March 26, 2004, the Defendant entered into a check contract with the Korean Bank's branches in the name of the Defendant and traded checks.

On November 2, 2013, the Defendant issued one check number F, par value 3,00,000, and the date of issuance on March 29, 2014 under the name of the Defendant, which is the “CF”, “CF”, “CF”, “CF”, “CF”, and “CF”, and the check holder presented a check to a national bank on March 27, 2014, which is within the time limit for payment, but did not pay for the shortage of deposits. In addition, the Defendant issued four copies of the household check up to February 27, 2014, including written in the List of Crimes (2), and issued 12 million won in total as of March 27, 2014, when the check holder makes payment to the national bank on March 27, 2014.

3. Fraud of a loan;

Around November 30, 2013, the Defendant, along with the husband, stated that “If the Defendant borrowed money necessary to obtain a room from the children who live in the part of a day, the Defendant would pay the victim H nine interest, while the principal would be paid in installments in May and July 2014.”

However, around that time, the Defendant had been using 20 times the limits of the successful bid that he had already operated, and had no particular property, and there was no profit from the operation of the store, and G had no profit from the urology, and there was no intention or ability to pay the principal, even if borrowing the amount from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the interest.

Nevertheless, in collusion with G, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million from the victim in the same place, and acquired it by fraud, and around that time, he received KRW 40,000,000 in total from the victim four times from March 10, 2014, such as the list of crimes in the attached Form (3).

2014 Gohap395,

On May 25, 2012, the Defendant, at the D clothing store operated by the Defendant on May 25, 2012, the fact, even if he did not have the intent or ability to pay the fraternity normally even if he received the fraternity payment from the fraternity members, begins with the successful bid amount of KRW 25,00,000 per month, KRW 150,000 per month, and KRW 36,000 of the successful bid amount operated for 25 months. When he/she pays the fraternity, he/she shall pay the fraternity appropriately, and he/she shall receive 7,50,000 won in cash for the deposit of KRW 1/2 from that place, and shall receive 15 times in total from that place to February 25, 2014, and shall receive 9,434,200 won in total from that place.

From March 26, 2004, the Defendant entered into a check contract with the U.S. branch and the Defendant under the name of the U.S. bank and was engaged in the transaction of household checks. On March 31, 2014, the Defendant was subject to the disposition of suspension of transaction by the U.S. bank.

Nevertheless, on April 18, 2014, the defendant issued one copy of the household check in the name of the defendant, which is the "J", "3,000,000 won of the check amount", and "date of issuance" on April 18, 2014.

Accordingly, the Defendant issued a check after receiving a disposition of suspension of transaction from a financial institution.

2014Gohap529

From March 26, 2004, the Defendant entered into a check contract in the name of the main office of the Korean bank and the Defendant from March 26, 200 to carry out the transaction of the number of units.

On January 28, 2014, the Defendant issued one copy of the check number at D'K, 'K', '3 million won of the check amount', 'date of issuance', '4 April 28, 2014, and issued one copy of the check number per national bank to the National Bank on April 28, 2014, which is the date of presentment for payment. The Defendant presented the check number to the National Bank on April 28, 2014. However, the Defendant refused to pay the check as the termination of the check contract on March 31, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

"2014, 302.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol of suspect examination of G police officers;

1. Each police statement made to E, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, T, U, V, X,Y, Z, AAB, AC, AD, AE, AE, AF, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, and H;

1. A written statement of Z and AM;

1. Investigation reports (Attachment of details of passbook transactions), investigation reports ( telephone conversations between the possessor of a check and telephone conversations), investigation reports (Adjustment of details of transactions), investigation reports (AM telephone of a witness); and investigation reports (AM telephone of a witness);

1. Each accusation letter "2014 high-class395;

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. A detailed statement of deposit of accounts “2014 high-priced436,”

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A copy of a household check;

1. A written accusation;

“2014 Gohap529,”

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on investigation ( Results of interview with a suspect);

1. A copy of a household check;

1. A written accusation;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Code (Fraud, 2014 high-scale 302) (Article 30 of the Criminal Code) Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Code; Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Illegal Check Control Act (the point of default after the issuance of a check); Article 2 (1) 2 of the Illegal Check Control Act (the point of issuance of an illegal check) of the Illegal Check Control Act; Article 2 (1)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than 15 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Each fraud;

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud. Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won)

[Special Sentencing] Aggravation (In the case of committing a crime against a non-specific or large number of victims or repeatedly over a considerable period of time)

[Determination of Recommendation Area] Aggravation

[Scope of Recommendation] From 2 to 7 years of imprisonment (the increase in the first step of type as a result of adding up concurrent crimes)

[General Convicted Persons] Reductions (Serious Bans)

(b) Violation of the Illegal Check Control Act: there is no sentencing guidelines. The modified sentencing guidelines are set. Since the former sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes between each crime of fraud for which the sentencing guidelines are set and each crime of violating the Illegal Check Control Act for which the sentencing guidelines are not set, the lower limit of the punishment shall be based on the lower limit of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines for each crime of fraud for which the sentencing guidelines are set.

3. Determination of sentence: Four years of imprisonment; and

4. The reason for sentencing is that the defendant made a confession of all of the crimes of this case and recognized his mistake, that the defendant did not have the same criminal record, that there was no other criminal record except that sentenced to a fine in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in 198, that the defendant agreed with Y, one of the victims of successful bid fraud, and accordingly expressed his intention that the above victim does not want to be punished against the defendant, and that the defendant suffers from the scopic scopic scopic scoppy and scopic scopic disc, etc.

However, the amount of fraud of this case reaches 31 persons, and the amount of fraud exceeds 860 million won, and the check amount which was not normally paid as a result of the crime in violation of the Illegal Check Control Act is a total of 18 million won, and most damages caused by the crime of this case were not recovered, and most victims of the fraud of this case still wanted to be punished against the defendant, and the defendant arbitrarily used the payment amount received from the fraternity members as if he was awarded a successful contract. In light of the law of the crime, the fact that the nature of the crime is very heavy, and the circumstances, period and degree of damage of the crime of this case, defendant's age, personality and conduct, family relation, etc., the punishment shall be determined within the scope of the sentencing guidelines as shown in the Disposition of this case within the scope of the sentencing guidelines.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Kim Gi-sung

Judges Shin Young-chul