2013 Highest 5083 Fraudulent

nan

nan

nan

December 5, 2013

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Facts of crime

The Defendant was a local fire captain working for the ○○ Fire Captain and the 119 Safety Center.

On April 201, the Defendant came to know of the victim ○○ who was preparing for a test to become a fire-fighting officer at a “Internet Round” meeting for fire-fighting officers on the ground that the Defendant continued to contact with the victim with the victim on August 2011 because he/she would be able to pass the fire-fighting officer appointment test. In the process, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the victim had considerable knowledge in economic issues, and that he/she was able to believe his/her speech with the victim, by continuously contact with the victim through the status of fire-fighting officer, he/she was able to receive money as a loan from the victim, and to not pay it.

On July 6, 2012, the Defendant borrowed money from the Industrial Credit Cooperative located in the Daegu North-dong, Daegu-gu, to the effect that “if the Defendant borrowed money for living expenses, the Defendant would promptly repay the money to the Defendant. However, at the time, the Defendant was liable to pay KRW 78,000,000 for each month upon a court’s individual rehabilitation decision on April 14, 2012, and used approximately KRW 1,50,000 for the amount of the repayment of the obligation, and the monthly salary was approximately KRW 2,80,000,000,000 for each month. Even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim for sports soil rehabilitation, etc.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was delivered one million won in cash from the victim who was in his seat as the borrowed money.

In addition, the Defendant received KRW 68,406,00 from the above date and time to March 8, 2013 as indicated in the attached list of crimes, in total, KRW 68,406,00 from the above time and in the name of the borrowed money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of ○○○○;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the part concerning the statement of ○○○);

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement concerning ○○○○;

1. Statement of the police statement on ○○○;

1. Complaint;

1. Each investigation report (related to the submission of a suspect's receipt of a loan, related to the submission of the details of card use by the complainant, accompanying a copy of a letter submitted by the complainant, attaching documents submitted by the complainant, including suspect's income and data, attaching documents submitted by the complainant, list of individual rehabilitation bonds and a plan for repayment in

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel, including investigation data (the details of benefits and the seizure of benefits)

The defendant and the defense counsel have sufficiently explained the economic situation of the defendant at the time when the defendant receives money from the victim, and the victim is acceptable and the defendant has no intention to obtain money.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the evidence mentioned above, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim who could not properly distinguish the case, and thus, the defendant and the defense counsel do not accept the allegation.

① The victim stated consistently that, on the condition that he was paid from the investigative agency to this court, the Defendant would have been forced to borrow the money for the first time after he first lent the money to the Defendant, at the Defendant’s request, and that he was in the process of individual rehabilitation procedures, but did not know of the meaning of the said money.

② On December 7, 2011, prior to the commencement of the first lending of money from the victim, the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the court for the procedure.

(3) As of December 16, 2012, the Defendant prepared and submitted to the court a list of individual rehabilitation creditors, including KRW 12,00,000,00 to the victim’s claims as of December 16, 201, but immediately thereafter, the list of individual rehabilitation creditors.

The amount of KRW 17,00,000, KRW 20,000 on December 26, 2012, was additionally borrowed from the victim on December 26, 2012, and KRW 53,406,00 from the victim on a total of KRW 53,406,00. The amount of the additional use was not included in the list or the repayment plan for individual rehabilitation creditors.

④ Since there is no economic burden to lend money to the Defendant, the victim raised money from those who have borrowed money from the Defendant, such as card loan, cash service, loan to the lending company, etc. It is difficult to deem that the victim was to bear the burden of interest without the Defendant’s prompt repayment commitment.

⑤ Furthermore, the Defendant draw up KRW 40 million among the money received from the victim for the purchase of sports earth lottery tickets. The remainder was consumed for the Defendant’s living expenses and repayment of debts.

(6) The general public would not lend a large amount of money to the defendant who was in an poor economic situation, such as filing an application for individual rehabilitation, without any collateral.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

The reason for sentencing is that the Defendant, by deceiving the victim with the mother and child satisfying the 68 million won, by deceiving the victim with the 68 million won, and attempted to repay the victim for a long time through the individual rehabilitation procedure without making good effort to recover the damage. As such, there is no reflectivity, such as asserting that there is no criminal intent to commit fraud. Furthermore, even during the individual rehabilitation procedure, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim to the lottery district, and then borrowed money more than the transfer from the victim without the ability to repay the amount of money after preparing the list of individual rehabilitation creditors.

Even though the defendant was a first offender and a public official, and the victim was unable to make a decision properly, the damage has been expanding, considering the above disadvantageous circumstances, the defendant is bound to be strictly punished in light of the above unfavorable circumstances, so it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Sung-sung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.