2016 Highest 3861, 2016 Highest 4142 (Consolidation) Fraud

A person shall be appointed.

OO (prosecutions) andOO (Public trial)

Attorney ○○○ (Non Line)

January 19, 2017

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

Punishment of the crime

On April 21, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court and was sentenced to six months.

6. 22. Execution of the penalty shall be completed.

【2016 Highest 3861】

1. On June 29, 2016: around 50: around 50, the Defendant changed the amount of KRW 10,000 per cash to KRW 10,000 per each credit card to pay KRW 79,000,000 to the victim B from the convenience store of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul. The internal card is a cash settlement establishment and the credit card must be treated with a cash settlement, and the credit card should be treated with a cash settlement.

However, the Defendant issued cash receipts on behalf of the victim who is not familiar with the operation of the terminal without the intention or ability to pay the price of the goods, taking a cash settlement pressing of the terminal at the convenience store and making a settlement by credit card. In fact, the Defendant did not actually pay the price of the goods on the card.

The Defendant, as such, received from the victim the total amount of KRW 69,00,00 in the market price of KRW 10,000, tobacco 1 cigarette and cash 10,000 in the same place.

2. On July 29, 2016: around 54, 2016: around 54, the Defendant changed the victim C’s “○○○○○○○○○○○” convenience store located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to KRW 105,00,000, including the value of goods, in cash, KRW 105,90,00,000, which shall be settled by credit card. The internal card is a cash settlement card that must be imprisoned by creating cash settlement. The credit card is the settlement card that must be flicked by means of cash settlement.

However, the Defendant operated the device on behalf of the victim who was not familiar with the operation of the device without the intent or ability to pay the price for the goods, and operated the device to pay by credit card, and did not actually issued the cash receipt at will, but did not actually done the settlement by credit card.

The Defendant, as such, obtained 96,90 won in total at the market price from the victim and acquired 9,00 won in cash from the victim, such as hambber, scam, scam, scam, scam, scam, and scam.

3. On August 22, 2016: around 30: (a) around 30, the Defendant changed the amount of KRW 57,000 in cash to pay KRW 15,000 in cash, including KRW 15,000 and KRW 2,000 in cash.

However, without the intent or ability to pay Kin's value, the Defendant issued cash receipts as a result of settling the gap in which the victim works in the main room by using other credit cards, and in fact did not actually pay the price of goods by credit cards.

The Defendant, as such, obtained 15,00 won, such as 40,000 won in the market price from the victim, 3 madin, pel banks, call and cash, from the victim’s location.

【2016 Highest 4142】

4. On August 25, 2016: around 47, 2016: Around 47, the Defendant, “○○○○○○○○○○-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, operated by the victim E, “as if he operated a credit card terminal in order to settle the value of the product by credit card, he/she was aware of the fact by deceiving the victim and obtaining a case equivalent to KRW 18,00 in the market price from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of each police statement of theO,O, orO;

1. A written statement of theO;

1. Printed screen pictures on each receipt, cash receipt accumulation, and the details of sumization of terminals;

1. Investigation report (in relation to the Criminal Procedure Act of Defendant);

1. Each CCTV video;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on inquiry reports and written judgments;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

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

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant has repeatedly committed the same crime several times with an interview and interview method. Considering that the defendant cannot seek money from symbols and necessary money due to inconvenience, the defendant is not responsible for the same crime without any reflective nature. Above all, it is the same kind of crime during the period of repeated crime.

The sentence for the accused shall be determined in consideration of this point.

Judges Habcheon-cheon