2017Manob2456 Attempted Fraud

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

Lee Jong-chul (Court Prosecution) and Kim Jong-soo (Court of Public Trial)

D Law Firm, Attorneys E (Defendant A)

Attorney F (Defendant B, C)

September 28, 2017

1. Defendant A

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

2. Defendant B

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. To order the accused to provide community service for 80 hours.

3. Defendant C. The Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. To order the accused to provide community service for 160 hours.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On December 9, 2016, Defendant A was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on December 17, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 17, 2016. Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of one million won at the Changwon District Court on April 10, 2015, Defendant C was sentenced to a fine of one million won for fraud, and Defendant C was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Changwon District Court on September 7, 2004, and was sentenced to a summary order of 1.5 million won for fraud at the Changwon District Court on November 19, 2004.

[Criminal] Defendant A conspired to acquire money by deceiving that he would receive USD 500 million from the above bank if he had a fee of KRW 500 million using the Defendant C, Defendant B, and the above fake certificate of deposit, etc. while carrying out the act as the representative of G in Hong Kong. Defendant A conspired to acquire money by deceiving the person who borrowed the fee that he would receive USD 500 million from the above bank.

As above, Defendant B, at the I coffee shop, at around 10, 24:30 on 10, 2016, around 24:15:30, Defendant B, as seen above, displayed a copy of 500,000 U.K.’s 500,000 U.K. deposit at the victim J., and the president of G, who would bring about USD 500,000 from the U.K. bank, requires KRW 50,000.50,000,000. If early lending KRW 500,000,000,000 won, and later, if necessary, the amount of KRW 2,00,000,000,000 was invested. The Defendants again displayed the victim’s CD or check at the L hotel shop at Changwon at around 1, 201, 14:00 on December 1, 200.

However, in fact, Defendant A’s representative is merely a Pucom with no real entity, and there was no deposit of USD 500 million in the U.K. A, and all the certificates of deposit of the above bank presented to the victim was forged.

The Defendants, as such, deceiving the victim and attempted to obtain KRW 500 million from the victim, but the Defendants did not commit an attempted crime but did not commit an attempted crime on the wind that the Defendants are arrested in the field by means of a victim’s report.

Summary of Evidence

○ Court’s legal statement (part) The Prosecutor’s Office and Police Suspect Examination protocol (part) against the Defendants

o Statement of the police against J

○ Investigation Report (the branch office of the Clock Bank and the relative confirmation of the Financial Supervisory Service)

·The results of international mutual assistance

·Protocol of seizure

0. Records of investigation reports (such as original and copy of seized articles) 0 records;

○ Investigative Report (Attachment of the previous convictions and the judgment, etc.)

Application of Statutes

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

Defendants: Articles 352, 347(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment

2. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

3. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B and C: Article 62(1)(b) of the Criminal Act provides that a suspended sentence shall be imposed on the grounds that there was no actual injury. / Defendant C is a G shareholder with a 50% stake at the time of the instant crime, and in light of the role performed in the crime, etc., he/she appears to have been involved in the crime rather than B. However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not clear as to whether there was a conclusive intent to obtain fraud from the beginning.

4. Social service order;

Defendant B and C: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

The reason for sentencing is an intelligent fraud crime using the certificate of deposit, etc. of a foreign bank that has forged the reason for sentencing. Since the defendant was prosecuted for fraud as recorded in the criminal records stated in the same law and was committed, the defendant is judged to have committed the crime of fraud from the beginning, even though he was judged to have the criminal intent to commit the crime of fraud, he is not seriously contradictory to the defendant's intent to evade liability due to a defense that makes it difficult for him to obtain, and he is not guilty (the defendant denies his intention to obtain fraud on the second trial date, but confessions from the second trial date on the second trial date on the second trial date on the second trial date, he believed his intention to have neglected his intention to obtain, but believed his certificate of deposit to be true and paid 5 million won at the expense of changing his name from March to May 2016. However, the e-mail that the defendant received from Adsss or Son on the basis of such fact that the defendant did not have any specific criminal intent between 500 million won and the defendant's business or career of the above case.

Considering the risk of the instant crime, the possibility of recidivism by the Defendant, and equity with the case of fraud in the holding, etc., even if the instant crime was discovered during the middle, and the actual damage did not occur, the victim did not want to punish the Defendants, and even if the Defendant did not forge a certificate of deposit, it is necessary to sentence the Defendant to the punishment in consideration of the risk of the instant crime, the possibility of recidivism by the Defendant, and the equity with the case of being tried together with the instant case. The foregoing circumstances and other factors

Judges Lee Byung-hee