Defendant

Defendant

No. 190

Attorney Kim Jong-ho (Korean National Ship)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2004Mo250, 2004Mo348 (Consolidated), 2004Mo14 (Consolidated) Decided October 14, 2004

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

The seized 14k Packs 14k Packs 2 (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

A requester for custody shall be punished by protective custody.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the facts charged shall be acquitted.

On June 5, 1998, the defendant and the respondent for protective custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") were sentenced to imprisonment for four years with prison labor for habitual fraud crimes, etc. at the Seoul District Court, and on March 16, 2002, the execution of the above imprisonment was terminated, and on March 31, 2004, the same criminal records and the same criminal records and the same criminal records are more than four times during the execution of protective custody.

1. Facilitate, habitually, by approaching the students of the unmarried medical college as the professor of the ○○ University and the professor of the △△ University as if he were the professor of the ○○ University;

가. 2004. 5. 24. 12:00경 인천 (이하 3 생략) □□□대학교 병원 산부인과 병동에 전화하여 위 병원에서 실습중인 피해자 공소외 2의 휴대전화번호를 알아낸 다음, 같은 날 21:30경 공중전화로 피해자에게 전화하여 “내가 □□□대학 의대 공소외 4 교수다, 네가 공소외 2가 맞느냐, ○○○대학교 의대 산부인과 교수 공소외 3이 내 친구인데 네가 2년 동안 했던 평가기록을 그 친구를 만나 주었다, 그 사람을 만나봐라”고 말한 다음, 다시 피해자에게 전화하여 “내가 공소외 3 교수인데 ■■■일보 앞으로 오라”고 말하여, 같은 날 23:00 서울 (이하 4 생략) ■■■일보 앞에서 피해자를 만나 공소외 3 교수인 것처럼 행세하면서 2004. 5. 25. 02:00경 서울 (이하 5 생략) △△△대학교 부근 상호불상의 모텔에 피해자와 함께 들어가서 피해자의 진로에 관하여 이야기하다가, 모텔 밖으로 나와 공중전화로 피해자에게 전화하여 공소외 4 교수인 것처럼 행세하면서 “내가 공소외 3 교수로부터 100만 원을 빌렸는데 네가 50만 원만 갚아 주어라, 돈은 내가 병원에서 주겠다”라고 말한 다음, 다시 모텔 안으로 들어가 공소외 3 교수인 것처럼 행세하면서 돈을 주면 시계를 구입하여 공소외 4 교수에게 선물을 해주겠다는 취지로 거짓말을 하여 이에 속은 피해자로부터 2004. 5. 25. 11:00경 인천 남동구 ◇◇◇조합에서 피고인의 ◇◇◇조합 계좌로 150만 원을 송금하게 하여 이를 편취하고,

B. At around 14:00 on May 26, 2004, the Defendant called the victim by telephone to the public telephone in the new town in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and made a false statement to the victim as if Nonindicted 4 was a professor. Nonindicted 3: (a) as Nonindicted 3 professor, Nonindicted 3 was engaged in driving the Handphone in the name of his phone; (b) the victim was able to talk with the victim; (c) the victim was received from the victim at around 19:00 on the same day from the victim, at around 19:00, KRW 610,000,000, such as the mobile phone market price; and (d) the victim prior to the said time of cash payment period of Seodong-dong, Seodong-gu, Seoul, Seoul, Seoul, by acquiring KRW 300,000,000,000 from the victim; and (d) such false statement is obtained from the victim, and (e) the victim was defrauded by fraud.

C. At around 10:00 on June 1, 2004, the victim called the victim and called Nonindicted 3 professor at the Yongdodong in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and attempted to acquire 3 million won by deceiving the victim by making a false statement that “The victim purchased one building at the Gangnam-gu, Seoul, which attempted to make the professor 4, and then borrowed 3 million won since she was her mother and mother,” but the victim thoughting to rapidly demand and reconven the money, but did not bring about such intent on the attempted crime without reporting it to the police;

2. In mind, intending to obtain money and valuables from an unmarried female working as an intern of the dedicated dedicated hospital by approaching the said dedicated hospital and by using the official authority in position, as if the dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated hospital is the director and the director or the director of the ○○ University Hospital, and habitually;

가. 2004. 5. 초순경 서울 (이하 6 생략) ◁◁◁대학교 부속 ◎◎◎병원 산부인과 병동에 전화를 하여 산부인과 과장이 공소외 5 교수라는 것을 알아낸 다음, 공소외 5 교수인 것처럼 위 산부인과 병동에 전화하여 여자 인턴 중 피해자 공소외 1이 있는 것과 그녀의 휴대폰 번호를 알아낸 후 그녀에게 수회에 걸쳐 전화하여, “나, 산부인과 공소외 5 과장인데 ○○대학교 산부인과 과장인 공소외 3 교수를 잘 알고 있다. 널 추천할 테니 열심히 해봐, 네가 유학갈 수 있도록 추천할테니 열심히 해봐.”라고 관심을 끈 다음, 2004. 6. 19. 15:00경 피해자가 비번으로 숙소에 있다는 것을 알고 피해자에게 전화하여 공소외 5 교수인 것처럼 행세하면서 “네가 다른 인턴들보다 열심히 하고 있는 것 같아 유학갈 수 있게 추천해 줄께, 열심히 해봐, 내가 ○○대학교 공소외 3 교수를 잘 알고 있는데 내가 전화를 해 놓을 테니 지금 ○○대학교로 가서 공소외 3 교수를 만나봐, 공소외 3 교수가 논문발표 때문에 대구에 갈 일이 있는데 네가 차로 모시고 가.”라고 말하고 나서, 이를 믿고 ○○대학교 앞으로 가 있는 피해자에게 다시 전화하여 공소외 3 교수인 것처럼 행세하면서 ▷▷▷대학교 앞으로 오라고 한 다음, 같은 날 19:00경 ▷▷▷대학교 정문 앞에서 피해자를 만나 “네가 공소외 1이냐, 나 ○○대학교 공소외 3 교수야”라고 말한 뒤 피해자가 운전하는 마티즈 승용차에 동승하여 한남동에 있는 한식당을 들러 2004. 6. 20. 02:00경 대구 (이하 1 생략) ♤♤♤호텔에 도착하여 피해자에게 “나는 ◈◈◈대에서 사람을 만나고 와야 하니까 너 먼저 호텔을 잡아 잠을 자고 있어”라고 말하여 피해자로 하여금 객실에 투숙하게 한 다음, 호텔 밖으로 나와 객실에 전화하여 공소외 5 교수인 것처럼 행세하면서 “ 공소외 3 교수가 대구에 잘 곳이 마땅치 않아, 그래서 내가 공소외 3 교수를 그리 보낼테니 오시면 같이 자라, 공소외 3 교수가 이상한 짓을 할 사람이 아니니까 실수 없이 잘 모셔, 그리고 아침에 서울로 올라올 때 나한테 선물하는 것처럼 하면서 로렉스 시계 하나 골라서 사고 그 시계를 공소외 3 교수에게 줘, 그 돈은 내가 나중에 줄께”라고 거짓말을 하여, 이에 속은 피해자로 하여금 같은 날 17:00경 서울 (이하 2 생략) ◐◐◐백화점 1층 ♡♡♡시계점에서 남자용 로렉스 콤비 시계 1개를 구입하게 한 후, 피해자로부터 이를 교부받아 위 로렉스 시계 1개 시가 780만 원 상당을 편취하고,

B. At around 20:15 on the same day, at the cash withdrawal machine in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, the victim made a false statement to the effect that “If there is any money that would be less than 3.5 million won of the non-indicted 5 professor's refusal, the victim shall borrow 3.5 million won of the money, 3.5 million won of the money, and 3.2 million won of the money,” and the victim shall have the victim withdraw 3.2 million won of cash, and shall receive it from the victim and receive it, and thus, there is a risk of recidivism.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made against the victim Nonindicted 1 and 2

1. Protocol of seizure (14,15 pages of investigation records in the case of 2004Gohap250), copies of credit card slips (40 pages of investigation records);

1. A criminal investigation report (each attachment of a suspect's judgment, 103 to 124 pages), a criminal investigation report (the last day of the sentence, the date of the provisional release, and 125 pages of the investigation records);

1. Criminal records;

1. Habitualness and risk of repeating a crime: Although the defendant was sentenced several times of punishment due to a crime recognized as above and was subject to protective custody for habitual fraud, the risk of repeating a crime is recognized, there is no longer a few months after the provisional release, and there is no other crime of the same kind again committed the crime, and the method of committing the crime also assumes the intention, etc., and obtains money from unmarried women working at a hospital by deceiving them, in light of the same and professional point of view, it may be recognized. In addition, the risk of repeating a crime is recognized in full view of the motive, means and methods of committing the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, the number and contents of the criminal records, the timing of the completion of the final punishment, and the living environment of this case, which are recognized as evidence above.

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

Articles 351 and 347(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of repeated crimes;

Articles 35 and proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Protective custody;

Article 5 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Social Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7656 of Aug. 4, 2005), Article 2 of the Addenda to the Social Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7656 of Aug. 4, 2005)

(A) Article 2 of the Addenda to the repealed Act provides that “The effect of a judgment on protective custody that has already become final and conclusive prior to the repeal of the Social Protection Act shall be maintained, and the enforcement of protective custody based on the final and conclusive judgment shall be governed by the previous Social Protection Act.” Since the decision on commencing a new trial does not affect the validity of the final and conclusive judgment subject to a new trial, it is reasonable to maintain the validity of

The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on April 15, 198 and October 12, 1989, respectively, with prison labor of one year and six months, three years and six months, and two years and six months, respectively, and on October 2, 1995. On June 5, 1998, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of four years and four years, and three years, and one-year and six years, with prison labor for habitual fraud, and one-year protective custody after the completion of the execution of imprisonment on March 16, 2002, and was released on March 31, 2004, and even after being released from the protective custody, the defendant again committed several offenses against the victim under several different Acts during the period of a repeated crime of two years and one-half years of age, and the victims were aware of the victim's face and behavior and one-half of the records.

1. Facts charged;

A. The Defendant, while working as a professor of ○○ University and a professor of △△ University, had access to the female students of unmarried medical colleges to engage in sexual intercourse under the pretext of marriage; and

On May 25, 2004, as indicated in the facts of the crime No. 1-A, around 02:00, the Defendant was accommodated in the △△ University as the victim Nonindicted Party 2 (the victim, 24 years of age). On the same day, around 23:30 on the same day, the Defendant was accommodated in the tourist hotel in the trade name of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Yeongdeungpo-gu, but he was well aware of the victim by failing to engage in sexual intercourse. On May 27, 2004, around 04, he was administered as Nonindicted Party 3 as the professor of the above tourist hotel, and was administered as Nonindicted Party 3 at around 04:00 on May 27, 2004, the Defendant was able to wait until he was in his book, she would be good, and married, and the Defendant was sexual intercourse once with the victim, thereby deceiving the victim from the time of marriage to the time of his habitual sexual intercourse with the victim, and the Defendant 31:00 days of the above sexual intercourse.

B. The Defendant, as if he were the director of the mountain division and the director of the dedicated hospital or the director of the mountain division of the ○○ University Hospital, had the intent to engage in sexual intercourse by approaching the unmarried women working as the intern of the dedicated dedicated design hospital and using the official authority in the position.

On June 20, 200 on June 20, 202: (a) around 02:0, as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, after being accommodated with the victim Non-Indicted 1 (the victim Non-Indicted 1, 27 years old) in Daegu (hereinafter omitted); (b) called the guest room and called the victim Non-Indicted 5 professor; and (c) called the victim as the professor Non-Indicted 5, the professor 3 was not well known in Daegu, and therefore, he sent Non-Indicted 3 professors to the professor 3, as he did not come to the professor 3, as he was well from the time when he was listed in the Seoul, and as he did not come to the professor 3, from the time when he was listed in the list of crimes: 1 to 00 days after he was flicked with Non-Indicted 3 professor 3, his sexual intercourse with the victim, and he did not have sexual intercourse with the victim until 0:06 days after 1 to 6:6.

2. Determination

A prosecutor prosecuted each of the above facts charged by applying Article 304 of the Criminal Act. However, Article 304 of the Criminal Act provides that "a person who induces a female who does not habitually engage in sexual intercourse by deceiving such female under the pretext of marriage" has retroactively lost effect according to the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality 2008HunBa58 dated November 26, 2009, 2009HunBa191 (merger). Thus, each of these facts charged constitutes a case which does not constitute a crime, and thus, a prosecutor acquitted each of them pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Justice)