(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.29. 선고 2018고합533 판결

Around August 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim by telephone, stating that “The purchase of merchandise coupons by a company or tax office having knowledge of the purchase of merchandise coupons under a contact with the company or tax office, there is no problem in selling it.” On the face of the purchase of merchandise coupons, the Defendant would sell it and return the purchase cost of merchandise coupons and 10% profits from the following month.”

However, the defendant, at the time of selling merchandise coupons, did not have the intention or ability to return the purchase cost of merchandise coupons and 10% profit to the victim even if he received merchandise coupons from the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received gift certificates in an amount equivalent to KRW 6 million from the victim around August 24, 2015, KRW 20 million from September 7, 2015, KRW 20 million from around September 7, 2015, and KRW 10 million from August 18, 2016, and acquired the gift certificates in an amount equivalent to KRW 36 million from the victim.

(b) fraud related to bank credit cards;

On October 13, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would purchase a cpft card from a bank” to “the bank,” and then would sell it and return 10% of the purchase cost of the cpft card and 10% of the profits for the following month.”

However, the defendant, at the time, did not have the intention or ability to return the cost of purchasing the card and the profit of 10% to the victim even if he received the card from the victim.

On October 13, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained from the victim a press card equivalent to KRW 7 million from the victim, and acquired it by fraud. The fraud related to cash protocol is related to fraud.

On November 15, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “a new event programming was made in a D card” at the instant coffee shop located in the subway No. 2 in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that “If the Defendant participated in the current gold programming at the 40 million won, 10% of the earnings per two months shall be given, and an additional payment shall be made in 40,000 won per two months from January 201 to December 201 of the same year.”

However, in fact, there was no such protocol in the D Card, and the defendant thought that it was so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the repayment of debts to others' with the money received from the victim at the time, so there was no intention or ability to pay 10% profits, etc. to the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received from the victim, KRW 10 million from the victim, around November 16, 2016, and KRW 29.5 million from November 17, 2016, respectively, through the Defendant’s E bank account (F).

(d) Fraud related to the purchase price of merchandise coupons;

On December 13, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would purchase merchandise coupons instead of purchasing merchandise coupons to B, and then sell the merchandise coupons to B, and then return 10% of the purchase cost of merchandise coupons and 10% of the sales cost of merchandise coupons.”

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 26.5 million from the victim to the Defendant’s E bank account (F) around December 14, 2015, and acquired it by fraud by taking account of the Defendant’s transfer of the total amount of KRW 140 million from December 14, 2015 to April 3, 2017, such as the list of crimes in attached Table (1).

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

On December 13, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with G, H, which is an online shopping mall, and entered into a code for VIP customers to make profits by entering into a contract. After paying the purchase price by credit card, the Defendant notified a certified key sent by a mobile phone after choosing the goods to receive the goods directly. The Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would make the payment by credit card and the payment by 5-6% of the payment by profits” (2).

However, at the time of the fact, there was no net fund formation, and the defendant thought that "the so-called so-called â€˜defluence by the lending of funds by pretending to purchase the net fund, and the repayment of debts to other persons with the funds, etc.", and even if the victim makes the purchase payment by credit card, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the victim the settlement amount and the settlement amount to 5-6%.

On December 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) caused the victim to settle KRW 20,007,00 with the credit card purchase price of KRW 20,00 by using the credit card; and (c) obtained a total of KRW 832,964,200 for 145 times from October 16, 2015 to June 19, 2017, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes List of (2).

2. Crimes against victims L;

(a) Fraud3 concerning the purchase price of merchandise coupons;

Around August 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim through B, “A company or tax office having knowledge of the purchase of merchandise coupons under a contact with him/her, so there is no problem in selling it. On the face of the purchase of merchandise coupons, the Defendant would sell it and return the purchase cost of merchandise coupons and the 10% profits from the next month.”

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 6 million won from the victim to the E bank account (F) around August 24, 2015, and acquired 43.5 million won in total from August 24, 2015 to March 1, 2017, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (3), by deceiving the victim into the Defendant’s account.

(b) Fraud related to cash professionalization (1);

On April 20, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim, stating, “The Defendant may make a cash proude with a full-time fund. If he/she has received a credit loan, he/she will give 5% of the amount invested in the two months.”

However, in fact, the aforementioned cash protocol did not actually take place, and the defendant thought that he would be so-called â€˜the so-called â€˜domination to pay debts to others' with the money received from the victim, so that he did not have the intention or ability to pay 5% profits, etc. to the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 45 million from the victim to the M bank account (N) designated by the Defendant on April 28, 2017, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

On May 15, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant is a cash protocol that gives 10% of the profits from the two months immediately from the phone,” to the victim as soon as possible.

However, in fact, the aforementioned cash protocol did not take place, and the defendant thought that he would be so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the repayment of debts to others' with the money received from the victim, so that he did not have the intention or ability to pay 10% profits, etc. to the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, wired the victim a total of KRW 41 million, including KRW 15 million around May 18, 2017, and KRW 26 million around the 19th day of the same month, to the Defendant’s E bank account (F).

(d) fraud related to net gold drums;

The Defendant, through B around December 13, 2015, concluded a contract with G, H, which is an online shopping mall, and entered into a code for VIP customers and made profits by entering into such code. The Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would make credit card payment and 6% of the payment amount as profits.”

However, at the time of the fact, there was no net fund formation, and the defendant thought that the defendant merely financed funds by pretending to purchase the net fund, and then paid the debt to others with the funds, etc., and even if the victim caused the victim to pay the purchase price by credit card, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the victim the settlement price and 6% of the settlement price.

On June 19, 2017, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim settle the purchase price of KRW 1,053,00 with 0 credit cards, and had the victim settle the purchase price of KRW 1,053,00 with 0 credit cards, and had the victim settle the purchase price of KRW 162,740,90 in total over 71 times from April 18, 2016 to June 19, 2017, as shown in the attached list of crimes (4).

2018Gohap840

3. Crime against victim P;

(a) Fraud related to merchandise coupons;

On August 16, 2015, the defendant made a false statement to the victim P using telephone that "the merchandise coupon is purchased from a large enterprise and is offered to VIPs as gifts. So, the card company is operating a merchandise coupon protocol for merchandise coupon sales to purchase merchandise in the card company and sell merchandise for profits to the large enterprise, but when the Internet merchandise coupon is settled, the amount of the merchandise coupon is settled after the two months and the amount is returned to 10% of the amount."

However, in fact, there was no merchandise coupon entry, and at the time, the defendant did not intend or have the ability to return the purchase cost of merchandise coupons and the profit of 10% to the victim, even if he received merchandise coupons from the victim, because he did not have the so-called â€˜the so-called â€˜the so-called â€˜the repayment of debts to other persons with the profits from

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received gift certificates worth KRW 5 million from the victim, around August 17, 2015, and obtained gift certificates worth KRW 5 million from around that time to June 16, 2017 from around that time, and acquired gift certificates worth KRW 70,100,000 in total on 41 occasions as shown in the attached crime sight table (5).

B. Relevant fraud, including Qu gift certificates;

On August 29, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim P that “I would purchase a merchandise coupon and return the purchase cost of the merchandise coupon and the profits of 10% in the same manner as the conditions of the professionalization of the merchandise coupon before the face of the week” to the victim P.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received gift certificates worth KRW 4.5 million from the victim, around August 29, 2015, and obtained gift certificates worth KRW 4.5 million from around that time to February 14, 2016, and acquired gift certificates worth KRW 38.5 million in total on seven occasions, as shown in the attached crime sight table (6) from around that time.

C. Fraud related to the purchase price of merchandise coupons

On April 22, 2016, the Defendant made a statement to the victim P by telephone that “The cost of the purchase of merchandise coupons shall be deposited directly into the account in lieu of the purchase of merchandise coupons to B. The Defendant would return the purchase cost of merchandise coupons and the profit of 10% after the purchase of merchandise coupons.”

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 30 million from the victim to the E bank account (F) around April 22, 2016, and acquired the total amount of KRW 46.2 million from around that time to May 17, 2017, by remitting it to the Defendant’s account, as shown in attached Table (7).

(d) A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

On October 19, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim P by telephone that “If the Defendant purchased the net gold bar from H, a VIP partner, with the card, and then sent it to B, then the Defendant would return 6% of the purchase cost and the profits from the net gold bar after selling it.”

However, the above net fund did not exist, and the fund was financed by pretending to purchase the net fund as stated in Paragraph 2, and it was thought that the victim would repay the debt to other persons with the fund, and even if the victim purchased the net fund, there was no intention or ability to return the victim's net fund purchase cost and 10% profit.

On October 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) had the victim purchase a net gold bar amounting to KRW 5,024,500 from S, a seller of the net gold bar using the E card; and (c) had the victim obtain property profits equivalent to the equivalent amount of KRW 183 times in total from around that time to June 9, 2017 in the same manner as indicated in attached Table (8) of the List of Offenses Act; and (d) had the victim obtain property profits equivalent to KRW 115,867,700 in total from around 183 times.

2018Gohap939)

4. Criminal facts against the victim M;

(a) Fraud related to merchandise coupons;

Around August 16, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would return 5-10% of the purchase price of gift certificates purchased on the face of the week to B by purchasing gift certificates with a credit card issued with a credit card that was issued with a credit card, such as D Card,” and that “the Defendant would return 5-10% of the purchase price of the gift certificates.”

However, in fact, the defendant made a so-called â€˜the so-called â€˜the repayment of the obligation to others' with the proceeds from the sale of merchandise coupons, and even if the merchandise coupon is received from the victim, there was no intention or ability to return the purchase cost of merchandise coupons and the profits of 5-10

As above, the Defendant, as well as the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received gift certificates in an amount of KRW 5 million on the same day from the victim, from that time until July 11, 2017, received gift certificates in total of KRW 234,175,255 on a total of 75 occasions from July 11, 2017, and acquired gift certificates in total of KRW 234,175,255.

(b) Fraud related to credit card payments;

On February 24, 2017, the defendant made a false statement that "I would use the original credit card until you reach a maturity of the damage because I would have caused damage to the victim M in paying merchandise coupons." The credit card price is "I will pay without a mold."

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any particular property or income, and the so-called â€˜the so-called â€˜the repayment of obligations to other persons with profits from the sale of merchandise coupons' was performed, and there was no intention or ability to pay the price by proxy even if he received and used a credit card from the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received the credit card from the victim, and settled KRW 1,303,60 with the said credit card on the same day, and from that time until July 11, 2017, acquired the financial benefits equivalent to KRW 9,566,32 in total by using the credit card in the name of the victim 66 times in total, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (10) from July 11, 2017.

On May 4, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim M by telephone to the effect that the Defendant would pay the amount if it would prejudice the settlement by credit card at the shopping mall site reported and operated to the domestic tax office as an individual entrepreneur.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any property or income, and the victim did not have the intention or ability to pay the price by credit card even if the victim makes the payment from ‘V' to ‘V'.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim settle 2.4 million won with the credit card in the name of the victim on the same day from July 11, 2017, and had the victim settle the total amount of KRW 1,70,000,000,000 from that time until July 11, 2017.

(d) A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

The Defendant had the victim M purchase the net gold bar at H at the precious metal sales chain in the operation of S, and had the victim M receive in cash the remainder after deducting the fee equivalent to approximately 5 to 10% from S.

On October 16, 2015, the Defendant made phone calls to the victim and made a false statement to the effect that “On the part of the victim, the VIP partner H operates only to a small number of VIP visitors and visitors. If the net gold bar is sent to B after the purchase by credit card, the Defendant sold the net gold bar and then returned 6% of the purchase cost and the profits.”

However, in fact, there was no such net fund, and there was no intention or ability to return 6% of the purchase cost and 6% of the profits, even if the victim purchased the net fund to the defendant, by receiving in cash the remaining amount from which the fee was deducted by pretending to purchase the net fund.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim purchase the net gold bar equivalent to KRW 6,041,50 from S, a seller of the same day by using the D Card on the same day, and acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount, as shown in the attached Table No. 12, from around that time to June 16, 2017, the Defendant acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 52,809,141 in total over 117 times in the same manner as indicated in the attached Table No. 12.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of B, L, and P;

18,533

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the accused, Z, and S by the prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each police statement concerning B and L;

1. The accusation (Evidence Nos. 1 and 1, hereinafter referred to as "Evidence") - 10 protrudings, - 10 protrudings, - Names, C(B), and - Cash Protrudings, merchandise coupon participation details - G seller's information, - debt certificates, debt certificates, - debt certificates, - debt balance certificates, - debt certificate - debt certificate - AB Bank transaction statement (B), - EB Bank transaction statement (B), - - Bank transaction statement (B), EB Bank transaction statement (B), - (B), C(L), debt certificates, and AC transaction statement (L).

1. - - Statements, - Investment Details of Gift Certificates (Return Details) -B, - Investment Details of Gift Certificates (Return details) -L, C (Account Numbers), - AD Securities Transaction Statements (B)

1. Investigation report (Submission of Suspect Admission and Withdrawal Details), - Details of the entry and withdrawal transactions of E banks under A, and details of the transactions of entry and withdrawal transactions of E banks under AE;

1. An investigation report ( complainants’ specifications of AF Association and submission of AG card data), - inquiries into details of AG bank cards use, - 0 cards use specifications, - AA card use specifications, - AC card use specifications, -D card use specifications, - AH card use specifications, - - E card use specifications, - - AC card use specifications, - -O card use specifications, - AA card use specifications, - AA card use specifications, - AA card use specifications - - card use specifications, - AA card use specifications - card use specifications - - card use specifications, - AG card use specifications - - 0 card use specifications, - AA card use specifications, AC card use specifications, - AH card use specifications, - card use specifications, - AA card use specifications.

1. Investigation Report (Submission of Data by an attorney-at-law appointed as a complainant), L, B

1. Investigation report (Submission of Complainants data), - Detailed statement of use of D cards;

1. Investigative Report [Adjustment of the Amount of damage and the amount of reimbursement] - List of crimes, list of deposits, details of deposits and withdrawals, etc. (18,0840);

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused and S;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement of the police about P;

1. A complaint, - A list of crimes 1. An investigation report (Submission of written comments on A reimbursement amount of a suspect), - written submissions, - attachment of details of transactions, - statement of payment of business income, - statements, etc.

1. Investigation report (Submission of the details of repayment received by a complainant), - Settlement of the amount of damage (18 high-class 939);

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused and S;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. The police statement of M;

1. Complaints, - Business Registration Certificates, C, recording books, - Records, - Statements of Credit Card Transactions 1. Investigation Reports (Submission of Statements of Account Transactions in the Name of Complainants) and - Statements of Transactions (Evidence 13). 1. Statements of Transactions (Evidence 34) shall apply.

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, Article 347(1)(e) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1)(d) and Article 47(4) of the Criminal Act, each of the provisions in the judgment, including each of the provisions in the judgment), Article 347(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (including each of the provisions in the judgment, each of which was fraud, each of which was committed by Na money), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravated Punishment and Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

① The part of the judgment that the Defendant unilaterally paid KRW 2015,8.24,00,00 to the victims’ voluntary purchase of gift certificates; KRW 1-2,00,000; KRW 1-2,00,000,000 to the victims’ voluntary purchase of gift certificates; ② No. 2-1 of the judgment on the victim’s purchase of gift certificates; KRW 6,000,000; KRW 7,000 on August 25, 2015 (Attached Table 1-2); and the part that the Defendant unilaterally paid to the victims of the above online gift certificates that it was difficult for the victims to unilaterally purchase the gift certificates; ③ the Defendant’s payment of the purchase of gift certificates at KRW 1-2,00,00,00 for each of the above online gift certificates at KRW 1-5,000,000,000,000,000 for each of the above online gift certificates [Attachment 1-15,000,005,00

2. Determination

A. The Defendant stated to the effect that, in the 1-A gift certificates related to the 1-A gift certificates, No. 2-A of the judgment, the Defendant purchased gift certificates from the victim B and L with a contact name at the company or tax office known to the inside of the Plaintiff, and that, in the 1-B card-related fraud of the 1-B bank, the Defendant would purchase the 'camp cards from the bank' to the victim B and would return 10% of the purchase price of the camp cards and 10% of the profits from the next month. In the case of the 3-A gift certificates related fraud, the Defendant purchased gift certificates from the large company P to the 3-A gift certificates, and provided them as VIP gift gifts. Accordingly, the purport is that "the gift certificates are being carried out by purchasing gift certificates from the card company to receive profits from the large company."

B. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s above remarks are sufficient to regard the victims as deception, and this part of the allegation is not acceptable.

① At the time, the Defendant did not know at a company, tax office, etc. that would sell gift certificates at a price higher than the face value, and instead sold gift certificates at a price lower than the face value to merchandise coupon sales companies. The Defendant stated at an investigative agency that “The Defendant was commercialized at an investigative agency by receiving 95% of the face value excluding 5% of the face value from the face value of merchandise coupons at AJ, AK, etc.” (Evidence 160 pages) (Evidence 160 pages), and stated that “The Defendant paid additional 10% of the purchase cost of merchandise coupons to the victims for the reason of hiding such circumstance,” but it was not possible from the beginning to give the victims additional allowances for 10% of the purchase cost of merchandise coupons, but it was impossible to say that the Defendant was a vehicle or horse recommended by the victim (Evidence 2018Da5333).”

② As can be seen, the Defendant: (a) even though the victims are deemed to have suffered damages equivalent to the commission fee in the course of commercializing gift certificates, flag cards, etc., the victims expressed to the effect that, in addition to the 10% allowance after the two months, the victims would receive an additional allowance from the credit card company in an investigative agency as to the motive agreed to return the principal during which the victims agreed to return the principal. If the customer recruited at least 3 million won per month, the additional allowance, excluding the basic wage, exceeds 10-1.50,000 won per month; (b) the company that uses the card in which the customer recruited the card was paid 1.50,00 won per month; and (c) the monthly card use amount differs for each credit card company; and (d) the victim stated to the effect that: (e) evidence No. 160, 2018; and (e) evidence No. 20131, May 31, 2018).

On the other hand, according to the card (No. 1, 2018) No. 2010 of the card submitted by the Defendant, according to the card (No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the "No. 1 card No. 2010), among various fees that the card designer receives.

The amount of user fees and 50,000 won are to be paid on the basis of the highest unit price of the monthly amount of 1,000 won or more after the issuance of the card (the maximum amount of 60,000 won or more if the defendant is 50,000 won or more, 130,000 won if the amount of user fee is 30,000 won or more, 180,000 won if the amount of user fee is to be paid by the defendant on the basis of the monthly amount of 5,000 won or more (the maximum amount of 60,000 won if the amount of user fee is to be paid by the defendant on the basis of 50,000 won or more, 1,000 won if the amount of user fee is 50,000 won or more, 20,000 won if the amount of user fee is to be paid by the defendant on the basis of 1,000 won or more.

③ In the case of Costbuck gift certificates purchased in the shopping mall “V”, the Defendant received only a limited amount of fees from X. Therefore, the amount is not less than the credit card payment that the said victim paid. The promised revenue was paid to the Defendant according to the customer’s credit card use amount. Therefore, as long as the Defendant does not voluntarily suspend the act, as in the instant other crimes, it was a structure in which it was anticipated to gradually prevent the loss from return, as long as the Defendant did not stop the act (it is unclear that the Plaintiff’s cashbuck gift certificates paid by the victim P were normal transactions in which the entire goods were in existence).

(4) The crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person and acquiring property or pecuniary gain through deception. The essence of fraud is the acquisition of property or pecuniary gain through deception and does not require the other party to actually incur property loss. Even in the case where the cost of deception was partially paid to the victim, the amount obtained by deception is not the difference between the value of the property given from the victim and the value of the property, but the property received (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do490, Nov. 26, 1985; 95Do203, Mar. 24, 1995; 98Do2526, Nov. 10, 1998). Even if the defendant paid the purchase principal and the actual loss to the victim, it shall be deemed that there was a limit to the above defendant's payment or promise to return the money to the victim during the period of deception.

⑤ The Defendant used the fiduciary relationship with the Defendant who was issued a credit card through the Defendant to commit the instant crime. (2) Even if the amount of the customer’s credit card used was seen in the card standard table as seen earlier, despite the highest rate of the Defendant’s fee to be paid to the Defendant compared to the amount of the credit card used, the Defendant: (a) accessed the Defendant, not the entire customer who was issued the card; (b) 100,000 won or more per month, including the victims, to the small number of customers including the victims, only 5,00 won per month.

6) The Defendant, around August 2015, was receiving the amount of KRW 10 million per month, including allowances from a credit card company, and thus, was considered as the basis for not guilty of the crime committed on August 9, 2015 against the victim B, L, and P. In contrast, the Defendant committed the same period of crime against the victim M, and showed contradictory attitude by recognizing all of the convictions.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

2. Application 8 of the sentencing criteria;

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

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Where a person commits a crime against unspecified or large number of victims or repeatedly commits a crime over a considerable period of time, the mitigation elements: the victim is also liable for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage)

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

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and the following circumstances shall be taken into consideration, and the defendants' age, character, conduct, growth process, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and the punishment that deviate from the lower limit of the recommended sentence shall be determined as stated in the Disposition, comprehensively taking into account various factors of sentencing specified in the arguments in the instant case, including the circumstances after

[M] The crime of this case is a case in which the defendant was approaching the victims who had been issued a card through him while working as the card designer and obtained it from many victims over two years and the crime is not good in light of the method of crime and the degree of damage. Most of the victims want to punish the defendant.

【Free Circumstances】

The facts of the crime of this case are generally recognized by the defendant. The crime of this case consists of ‘defluencing' method, and substantial recovery of the part of the damage amount is already recovered. The defendant is liable for the occurrence or expansion of damage in that it seems that the victim B and L in the case of the victim P, approximately KRW 30 million in the case of the victim P, approximately KRW 480 million in the case of the victim M, and approximately KRW 110 million in the case of the victim M, and approximately KRW 480 million in the case of the victim M, and KRW 10 million in the case of the crime.10 million in the case of the victim M, the victims are more likely to have been punished by a fine not exceeding KRW 1.5 million in the case of the defendant's proposal. The defendant is not subject to criminal punishment of KRW 1.5 million in the case of the crime of injury in around 203.

Judges

The presiding judge; and

Awards and Decorations for Judges

Judges Lee Jong-deok

Note tin

1) On the basis of facts acknowledged by the pleadings and records of the instant case, part of the facts charged to the extent that the Defendant’s defense right is not infringed

The amendment was made.

2) The original facts charged are sold if the Defendant purchased a net gold bar with a card from the Internet open market J or K, and then sent it to B.

Afterwards, it is written that the prosecutor would return 10% of the purchase cost and 10% of the profits. However, the prosecutor's office on September 4, 2018.

A request for amendments to a bill of amendment was made to the effect that it stated that the authentication key which was transmitted to a mobile phone, not itself, is a net flab, and that this Court

On September 19, 2018, the same was permitted. The following clause 2(d) was also applied for changes in indictment and permission.

3) The facts charged are stated as "the fraud related to the merchandise coupon," but the defendant does not receive the merchandise coupon from the victim, but the merchandise coupon purchasing unit.

Since gold was remitted to the account, such correction was made as above.

4) Although the facts charged are stated that "total amount of KRW 46.2 million was obtained and obtained with gift certificates in an amount equivalent to KRW 46.2 million, it is stated that they were obtained by fraud."

Since it appears that the money was remitted to the account, it was corrected as above.

5) Online shopping mall opened by the Defendant in W (the construction of Blog-type shopping mall provided in X, the change of the current name "Y").

6) If it is deemed that the amount of customer's use is KRW 100,000 per month, the rate of allowances is KRW 3.3% and the amount of customer's use is KRW 2 million per month.

If 150,000 won is considered to be paid, the ratio of allowances is 7.5%.

7) While the victim L is male, the Defendant became aware of the victim L through the victim B, as the marital relationship with the victim B. Meanwhile, the victim B was the victim B.

In this court, ‘the defendant' is often contacted and frequently met in order to secure friendly relationship with the defendant.In the absence of two friendly ties, the lawsuit is the most.

Therefore, the purport that the travel was flickly thought from a point of time to a point of time, and that the travel was flick as a flick-gu.

the statement was made.

8) Since each of the instant crimes is related to the same concurrent crimes, the sentencing criteria should be applied based on the total amount of profit.

9) The total amount of criminal damage is more than 3.3 billion won, while the actual amount of damage is less than 1.0 billion won due to payment of settlement, etc.

In this respect, it may be problematic whether the risk of damage among the factors to reduce sentencing factors falls into "where the risk of damage has not been substantially realized."

The actual amount of loss reduced after payment to the victim of the loss is within the scope of the amount of profit of the type of crime.

does not mean.

10) However, the amount received as a profit does not necessarily have been used for the settlement of principal, and the defendant does not have to pay the card price agreed upon.

The victims have settled the card price using loan, card loan, etc. of financial institutions, and the actual victims have suffered losses shall be considered as loan interest, etc.

At the time of doing so, it seems that 500 million won, which is the lowest amount of profit of the type No. 3 of general fraud according to the sentencing criteria, will be increased. P is excluded from the profits in this court.

The actual amount of damage is KRW 70 million, and the amount of the card for which the defendant did not pay was more than KRW 130,000,000,000, which is currently at the company.

The loan and credit card loan are personally settled. Current loan and credit card loan are about KRW 60 million.

The statement was made to the effect.