2013 fails to meet the requirements for the acquisition of stolens

2013 Highest 1804 (Consolidation) b. Fraud

1. (a) A (00000 - 000000), and non-official titles;

Not fixed to residence;

Reference domicile

2. (a) B (0000 - 000000), free of duty;

Residence

Reference domicile

3. (a) C (00000 - 000000), free of office

Residence

Reference domicile

Gangwon-do (Public Trial) (Public Prosecutions) and Private Day (Public Trial)

Article 000 (Court-Appointed for Defendants)

April 23, 2013

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and two months, by imprisonment of two years, and by imprisonment of eight months, respectively.

Seized Nos. 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-22, 24-24-32, 34, 35, 39, 41-70, 72-76, 78-86 shall be returned to each victim’s name unclaimed.

Criminal facts

[2013 Highest 398]

D. E, while residing in China, has purchased high-value smartphones lost or stolen through the Internet, has the recruitment books residing in Korea receive a stolen smartphone from those who reported such advertisement to contact with them, and bring them into China through 'D Do Do -' and Do - China, and operate organizations that repair such smartphones brought into China and sell them at high-value.

Defendant A and Defendant B are collected from the seller of smartphones that they stolen or acquired in the Republic of Korea under the direction from Defendant A and Defendant C, and are the recruitment policy that takes charge of sending them to China.

1. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A and Defendant B

In November 2012, 2012, accomplice D recommended Defendant A to collect smartphones in the Republic of Korea at the office located in a Chinese dangerous port, "if you have raised only a few months, they can gather money for a short period." The Defendant A accepted the aforementioned proposal.

Defendant A, at the end of November 2012, proposed that Defendant B had the same defects as the date of collecting smartphones upon D’s recommendation at the Defendant B’s residence at the end of November 2012, and collected smartphones together with Defendant B.

A public invitation was made to conduct an act of shipping to the country.

On December 1, 2012, the Defendants: (a) reported the Internet advertisement in accordance with D’s instructions in Seoul or Gyeonggi areas; and (b) purchased galthothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothothoth

1. By October, 100, smartphones 5550,000,000 won in the same way, were purchased from 70,890,000 won in lots and acquired stolen goods.

2. Joint criminal conduct of Defendant C, accomplice E, and F;

On December 2, 2012, the accomplice suggested that he would pay 20,000 won per vehicle if he sent the Handphone by phone to Defendant C at the Chinese Buddhist Site. Defendant C conspired to collect and send the smartphone, which was delivered to the accomplice F in a de facto marital relationship, after receiving the above phone at the residence, and accepting E’s proposal.

On December 15, 2012, the Defendant, along with F, received for E 81 smartphone, which is a stolen or stolen article from the seller and sent by E to the 110,000 won, with the knowledge of the fact that the Defendant was a stolen article in the name-free smartphone 1,00 won owned by the victim in the name-free transaction, from the seller, and from around that time until January 12, 2013, the Defendant received 1,1940,000 won in the same method for E.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired stolen goods in collusion with E and F.

[2013 Highest 1804]

Defendant B, around May 2012, 00, stated that Defendant B would sell the forest land in the name of the city of ignified and sold to 000, if Defendant B borrowed the cost of developing the forest land in order to carry on the digital crypting business, Defendant B would sell the forest land and paid the money.

However, the defendant did not own forest land at the time of harmony, and even if he borrowed money from the victim with a bad credit standing for more than 10 years, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

On July 19, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 30 million won from the victim to the new cooperation account in the name of the victim used by the Defendant for the loan as the loan money, and acquired 66 million won in total from September 20, 2012 to the victim four times from that time by September 20, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

[2013 Highest 398]

1. Defendant A and Defendant B’s legal statement, Defendant C’s legal statement

1. The protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant A and C, the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect by each prosecutor against the defendant B, and the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant B;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect against F,00,000, or 000;

1. A copy of each police statement made on 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, and 00, and a copy of the police statement made on 00;

1. A copy of the statement of 000;

1. Each police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Details of conversations between each Chinese call center, a copy of a set, settlement details, and safety transactions;

[2013 Highest 1804]

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Protocol concerning the suspect examination of the defendant B by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution on 000;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant B (in the presence of the defendant);

1. Determination on the issues in each passbook transaction, the detailed statement of loan ledger, the transaction confirmation of financial institutions, and the copy of each letter of loan agreement as to the issue as set forth in Article 23-2 and 33-2 of the Act

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence, Defendant A and Defendant B, who acquired the instant Handphone, committed a promise to pay at a certain level of 25 to 30% of the amount of payment between Defendant A and Defendant B, who promised to pay from 000 co-offenders, in order to receive the amount of payment without being omitted from the beginning of the crime, and the ancillary device such as the Handphone was not received at all, and the acquired Handphone will be taken out to China, and the communication was made from the beginning of the crime to the Handphone using the core chips brought from China. In light of the fact that the communication was made between the co-offenders with the handphone using the handphone chips brought from China, the entire crime of this case can be fully recognized.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

• Defendants: Articles 362(1), 30(a) and 362(2) of the Criminal Code; Defendant B: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Code

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Return:

Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The Defendants provided the 2013 Highest 398 Defendants with a systematic and professional way to dispose of stolen goods, thereby aiding and abetting the crime of larceny, possession of stolen objects embezzlement, etc. or providing tools for the second crime, such as “scaming,” etc. In light of the method, size, and consequences of each of the crimes of this case, Defendants cannot be punished strictly. Defendant B contributed to the crime in light of the role performed by Defendant A upon his solicitation, or the amount of profits distributed, etc., that contributed to the crime. Even if Defendant C did not directly purchase, Defendant C provided information about the Defendant’s resident registration number, handphone number, and opened an account under the name of Defendant, and provided information about the model and product serial number of the Handphone that received, thereby making a significant contribution to the acquisition and release of stolen goods.

On the other hand, Defendant A has four penalties for fines, and Defendant B has three penalties for fines and two penalties for suspended executions, and Defendant C has five penalties for fines, and there is no same kind of punishment and no criminal record for each of the Defendants. Partial damage is either temporarily returned or expected to be returned.

The 2013da1804, the criminal defendant used the fiduciary relationship of the victim, and the criminal law seems to have been confidential and planned.The defendant used a considerable portion of the money acquired as gambling fund.

In addition, the extent of damage was small and has not been recovered from damage. There was a criminal defendant before the same fine or suspended sentence (see the lowest limit of the recommended sentence): June to 1 year and June (the basic area). And in consideration of the defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, etc., each punishment shall be determined as ordered against the defendants.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

For judge Lee Sung-sung.