(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.5.22. 선고 2014고합383 판결

Around March 28, 2011, the Defendant purchased “fishery products” by phone to the victim E at the office located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dongjak-gu, and supplied them to the restaurant. The Defendant borrowed money, “I will pay approximately 3% of the principal after a week in addition to the restaurant.” However, around August 2010, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to complete payment even if he borrowed money from the victim because he borrowed money from the victim, because the Defendant was under the so-called right to prevent the repayment of the existing borrowed money with a new borrowed loan borrowed loan with no specific income from the enemy of fishery business.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of F, the Defendant’s seat.

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 500 million from the victim as shown in the attached Table 1 from March 28, 2011 to July 11, 201, and acquired it by defraudation, as shown in the attached Table 1.

2. Fraud;

Around November 7, 2010, the Defendant made a phone call to the victim G and made a delivery of the same by entering the 'Dong' in the Dog-type restaurant. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 80,000,00,000, the Defendant made a false statement that 5% of the principal will be paid plus interest after the 20th day. However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to make a full payment even if he/she borrowed money from the victim even if he/she borrowed money from the victim, because he/she did not have any particular intent or ability to make a full payment, in August 2010.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 40 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of F, the Defendant’s seat.

In addition, from September 3, 2010 to July 18, 2011, the Defendant received and acquired a total of KRW 320 million from the victim H, as shown in attached Table 2, as well as KRW 137 million from the victim G, total of KRW 265 million from the victim I, and KRW 50 million from the victim J, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to G, E, K, H, and J;

1. Each specification of transactions, each certificate of confirmation, each copy of each passbook, cash tea certificate, certificate of cash tea, account details, inquiries about each deposit/trust account, results of inquiries about the details of electronic financial transactions, copies of public receipts, and details of transactions;

Application of Statutes

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) of the Criminal Act (as a whole, fraud against victim E), Article 347(1) of each Criminal Act (as a matter of course, fraud against victim G, H, I, and J, and fraud against victim G, H, H, and I are committed by each victim, respectively.)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Written Sheed Sheed Sheed Sheed Sheed Sheed Sheed Sheed Sheed Sheed Sheed Sheed

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Three years of imprisonment to six years of imprisonment

2. Determination of sentence;

The victims of the instant crime are five victims, and the sum of the amount acquired by the victim reaches KRW 1.277 million. The victims’ damage was not completely recovered. The Defendant, immediately after the instant crime was committed, runs away and lives for escape for two and a half years, and does not endeavor to recover the victims’ damage until now. The Defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime only once.

However, the defendant voluntarily surrenders to investigative agencies to commit the instant crime and reflects his/her wrongness. Some of the money that the defendant acquired from victims appears to have been used to repay the previous borrowed money. Other circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case.