200 Highest 870 Fraudulents, Damage to Property

Gambling and repair, 74years, South and North, self-employed

Residential Ulsan

double indictments, enzymnasty (public trial)

Law Firm

November 13, 2020

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who operates an industrial company under the trade name of '○○'.

1. Fraud;

On February 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) made a false statement that “The victim’s Kim damage intends to entrust repair of the vehicle to the victim of the defect that he/she intends to repair in an amount equivalent to KRW 420,000,000 at the market price of the Pari Sports Ca,” and (b) made the victim believe that “The repair cost is at least KRW 40,000,000,000 from KRW 35,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim as part cost, he did not have the intention or ability to repair the vehicle by purchasing parts necessary for the repair of the vehicle.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 24 million from the victim on March 20, 2017 to the IBK enterprise bank account in the name of the OBK Investment Trust.

On February 28, 2017, the Defendant dismantled the said vehicle, which was kept in custody in an amount equivalent to KRW 420,000,000 in the market price of the Pari Sports Car for the repair of vehicles from the victim's Kim Kim, and neglected it to November 7, 2019, and thereby undermining the utility of the said vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness and Kim damage;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs, recording records, the closure details, the purchase details of the parts submitted by the defendant, each investigation report, the fact-finding reply letter (Hmoter) and the fact-finding reply letter;

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

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 366 of the Criminal Code, Article 366 of the Criminal Code (the point of causing damage to property), and each sentence of imprisonment.

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

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

① The Defendant had the intent or ability to repair a victim’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “victim’s vehicle”), and actually disbursed KRW 10 million out of KRW 24 million from the victim as a part cost, and made efforts to purchase parts, such as an engine member, etc., so the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to commit fraud. ② The Defendant managed the damaged vehicle with a cover cover, etc. while keeping the damaged vehicle, and notified the victim of the fact, the Defendant did not neglect the damaged vehicle and did not have any intent with his/her hand.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, unlike the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant is sufficiently recognized to have neglected to repair the damaged vehicle for about 2 years after receiving the above KRW 24 million from the victim even though the Defendant did not actually have the intent or ability to repair the damaged vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant’s liability for the crime of fraud and property damage is established. Accordingly, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted.

① In a situation where the Defendant was in contact with the victim, and only confirmed the degree of damage of the damaged vehicle as a photograph, the Defendant told the victim to the effect that it is possible to increase or decrease the amount of KRW 40 million from the repair cost to KRW 5 million. Since then, the Defendant’s delivery of the damaged vehicle from the point of ○○ mark, the degree of damage to the damaged vehicle was serious, and the other repair companies did not repair the damaged vehicle.

② In particular, the injured vehicle was a member with a vehicle support unit. However, in this court, the witness blick part was found to have been unable to purchase new saves with the Defendant’s request, but he also did not participate in the actual purchase, and it was difficult for the damaged member group to have access to the part, and the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the repair cost is the same. After the Defendant’s direct confirmation, the Defendant notified the victim of the fact that the part of the member group was not available, and notified the victim of the fact that the part was used on the blick site, but was found to have failed in the actual purchase.

③ The Defendant purchased parts, such as a DNA, front glass, and balc disc, with the down payment that the victim paid. However, the degree of damage to the damaged vehicle is serious and the input of labor force for repairing the damaged vehicle, such as securing the members of the constituent part, etc. was required for the complete repair and restoration of the damaged vehicle originally promised by the Defendant. From July 2017, the Defendant appears to have failed to take necessary measures for the actual repair by repeating the phrase that it is difficult for the Defendant to repair due to the lack of parts. Furthermore, the Defendant alleged that he lent KRW 12,150,000 to the victim. However, the Defendant asserted that the said expenses incurred for the repair of the vehicle continued to demand the repair of the vehicle, and the victim stated that the Defendant paid the vehicle for the repair of the vehicle for the purpose of leasing, borrowing and lending, and sirening the other vehicle, and it is apparent that the said KRW 1,215,000,00 was not used for the repair of the damaged vehicle.

④ The term of repair originally promised by the Defendant to the victim is about three to four months from the time of delivery, and the Defendant thereafter did not take temporary measures or perform duties to repair the vehicle from around July 2017 to November 7, 2019. The victim urged the Defendant to continue to repair the vehicle from around July 2017, the Defendant respondeded to the purport that he would avoid or defend himself against the demand of the victim by doping during his health condition or business trip (dub, Japan, China, and China). On May 29, 2019, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “the Defendant was in North border for the purchase of parts” in conversations with the victim at the point of braille, and that the Defendant did not perform his duty to repair the vehicle, which was before recovering the damaged vehicle, and the Defendant did not perform his duty to repair the vehicle, so long as the Defendant did not have performed his duty to repair the vehicle within the time limit, it is determined that the Defendant did not perform his duty to repair the vehicle.

⑤ At the time of collecting the damaged vehicle on November 7, 2019, the injured vehicle was located in the location of an industrial establishment other than the Defendant’s industrial establishment, and even when viewed the damaged vehicle as the body through photographing photographs, the vehicle is golded in the front glass window as the plant owner inside the engine, and dust is accumulated in the engine. Following the fact inquiry by the Hmoter, the front part of the damaged vehicle at the time of repair is found to have completely broken, and the engine was confirmed to have been working for a prolonged period, and the cost of repair of the vehicle was KRW 35,40,000,000 in total. Accordingly, the Defendant may be recognized to have neglected the damaged vehicle for a period of about two years without repairing the damaged vehicle from around July 2017, and thus, it would be difficult for the Defendant to obtain repair of the damaged vehicle and repair the vehicle without taking necessary measures to repair it for a more serious situation than the anticipated damage of the Defendant, and it would be difficult for the Defendant to do so.

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to 13 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) A primary crime;

[Determination of Punishment] Fraudulent Crime: General Fraud [Type 1] below 100 million won

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year and 6 months;

(b) Second crime;

[Determination of Punishment] Destruction of Property, etc.

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment with prison labor from April to October. The scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months to November (the first crime maximum + the second crime maximum 1/2)

3. Determination of sentence: The defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment without prison labor for the purpose of repairing the damaged vehicle and neglected it for a long time without performing reasonable and convenient business operations for repairing the damaged vehicle; the nature of the crime is heavy in light of the purpose and motive of the crime, the contents and methods of the crime, and the act is considerably contrary to the principle of trust and good faith required in transaction. The defendant did not agree with the injured party, take measures such as repayment or recovery of the injured party's damage, and does not have any awareness or awareness of the injured party's damage. The injured party's actual economic and mental damage or mental damage caused by the crime seems to exceed the amount of damage stated in the crime. Accordingly, the injured party wanted to punish the injured party. Nevertheless, there is no need for strict punishment against the defendant, considering such circumstances. In light of the above, there is no need for strict punishment against the defendant.

However, although the defendant had the record of punishment for the same crime, it has been around 13 years, and there is no record of punishment exceeding fines, prior to the crime of this case, it seems that he had been engaged in the automobile maintenance and repair business without any problem while operating the above ○○○○ bar, and the fact that there are no economic benefits that the defendant acquired as a result of the crime of this case does not seem to have many financial benefits, etc. shall be considered in the favorable circumstances to the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime of this case, and the amount of damage, etc. shall be determined as the same as the order after getting out of the minimum recommended punishment according

Judges Park Jong-woo