2013 Highest 935, 1128 (combined) Fraud, occupational embezzlement

A

On-site (prosecution), and on-site (public trial)

Attorney AC (National Election)

April 18, 2013

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Criminal facts

On July 5, 2010, the Defendant sentenced the Seoul Southern District Court to two years of imprisonment for violating the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and completed the enforcement of the sentence on May 6, 2012 at the Seoul Southern District Court.

[2013 Height935]

1. Fraud;

On August 28, 2012, the Defendant concluded that “AH located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, purchased one cellphone at a 24-month rate and paid mobile phone charges on the day of payment every month by purchasing one cellphone at a 24-month rate.”

However, the defendant was in bad credit standing at the time, and even if he opened a mobile phone due to the absence of a special occupation, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the mobile phone installments and the user fee.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, obtained from the victim one of the three mobile phones S3 mobile phones (the model name: E210, serial number: 423447) in Samsung Gallon, which is equivalent to the market value of 994,400 won, from the victim and acquired by the victim.

2. Occupational embezzlement;

피고인은 2012. 8.경부터 AJ 퀵서비스에서 물건 배송업무에 종사하는 사람으로, AJ 퀵서비스에 소속되어 근무하면서도 '코리아네트웍 시스템'상 공유 오더 리스트에 올라온 배송 리스트를 통하여 다른 퀵서비스업체의 일을 접수하여 물건을 배송하는 업무도 함께 하고 있었다.

On October 31, 2012, the Defendant received one unit of KT Telecom cell phone (KM-200 model) equivalent to 700,000 won at the market price from the aboveN company, upon receiving a request from the victim AL operating Kwikset service from the victim AL who operated Kwikset service, to deliver the mobile phone from the mobile phone store located in Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-do.

The Defendant, on behalf of the victim, did not deliver the said mobile phone store on his/her duty while keeping the said mobile phone in custody, and embezzled it at his/her discretion.

[2013 Highest 1128]

피고인은 2012. 8.경부터 AJ 퀵서비스에서 물건 배송업무에 종사하는 사람으로, AJ 퀵서비스에 소속되어 근무하면서 '코리아네트웍 시스템'상 공유 오더 리스트에 올라온 배송 리스트를 통하여 다른 퀵서비스업체의 일을 접수하여 물건을 배송하는 업무도 함께 하고 있었다.

At around 19:00 on October 31, 2012, the Defendant received one cell phone of gallon of the market value of KRW 1,089,00 from the “AR store in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, upon request from the victim AP that he/she deliver one cell phone from the “ATR store in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government” to the “ATR store in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul.”

The Defendant, on behalf of the victim, did not deliver the said mobile phone store on his/her duty while keeping the said mobile phone in custody, and embezzled it at his/her discretion.

Summary of Evidence

[2013 Height935]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement about AI and AL;

[2013 Height935]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement about AP;

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. The current status of inquiry into criminal records, copies of written judgments, and number and accommodation of individuals;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 347(1)(Fraud, choice of imprisonment), 356, and 355(1)(Occupational embezzlement and choice of imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant committed the crime of this case in a state of mental and physical disability where it is difficult for the defendant to sculpte due to a sculatory disorder that makes it difficult for him to control his impulse, and according to records, even though the defendant was found to have received mental health treatment in an irregular manner due to uneasiness, impulse adjustment disorder, damage awareness, aggressive speech and behavior, etc., in light of the circumstances and attitudes of the crime of this case, and the defendant's speech and behavior, etc., it is difficult to view that there was lack of the ability to discern things at the time of the crime of this case, and therefore, the above assertion is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

A punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the unfavorable circumstances, such as the circumstance favorable to sentencing, the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing the instant crime, the injury is difficult to view that the defendant is serious, the mental problem appears to have influenced the instant crime, and the above problem seems to have been affected by the instant crime, and the fact that the defendant is a repeated crime, multiple criminal records of the same kind, victims are seeking punishment, etc.

Judges Loatather