beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On June 20, 2017, the non-nameless telephone financial fraud crime of the instant facts charged committed the instant crime by deceiving the victim by carrying the victim at a pop-up store on a fake bank website at the victim B’s computer, and using the identification of the account number, password, security card, etc. of the bank account in the name of the victim, and then transferring the sum of KRW 8,784,000 to the E account in the name of the defendant to nine times.
At that time, the Defendant came to know that the money deposited from the account of the victim was made through Bosishing. As such, even though the Defendant had the victim’s status to keep the money for the victim until the said money was returned, the Defendant immediately withdrawn KRW 6,040,000 in cash from the company error Dong branch and C Bank error Dong branch, and then embezzled the money for personal use after cash transfer to G account in the name of the Defendant’s name to KRW 2,70,000,000.
2. In the event that a sum of 8,784,00 won was transferred to the E account in the name of a defendant nine times by using the account number, password, security card, etc., which was discovered by a non-name telephone financial fraud offender who belongs to the victim B, the crime of fraud is running up to the number of crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6256, Dec. 9, 2010). As such, after the crime of fraud was committed, the defendant occupies funds of the victim.
In addition, it cannot be deemed that there is any consignment or fiduciary relationship with the victim, and thereafter, the defendant withdrawn cash or transferred money from the account used for the crime of fraud to another account.
Even if the crime of fraud was established, it is difficult to view it as infringing new legal interests because it is nothing more than the act that was planned to commit the crime of fraud.
In this case, the crime of fraud was committed after the crime was committed, and as a result, the defendant was not an accomplice in fraud or a crime of fraud.