(영문) 울산지방법원 2013.5.24.선고 2012고단3562 판결

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Cases

Defendant

Prosecutor

Defense Counsel

Applicant for Compensation

Imposition of Judgment

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2013.5.24.선고 2012고단3562 판결

사기,컴퓨터등사용사기,대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반,주민등록법위반,배상명령신청

Cases

2012 Highest 3562 Fraud, Computer, etc. Fraud, Registration and Financing of Credit Business, etc.

Violation of the User Protection Act, Resident Registration Act

2013 early 64,69,125, 147, 159, 173, 179, 196, 248, 334, 364;

372 Application for remedy order

Defendant

Prosecutor

Lee Woo-soo, a non-exclusive trial

Defense Counsel

Attorney B

Applicant for Compensation

1. C.

2. D.

3. E.

4. F;

5. G.

6. H;

7. I

8. J;

9. K;

10. L;

11. M;

12.N

Imposition of Judgment

5, 2013. 5

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The seized PC main body 11 (No. 1), No. 2 (No. 2), No. 7 (No. 3), U.S.B, 68 (No. 4), mobile phone machine 68 (No. 7), smartphone 17 (No. 8), 1,153 (No. 9), 359 (No. 10), 114 (No. 111) shall be confiscated from each defendant.

All applications filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of fraud is acquitted.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The defendant, who opened a mobile phone without the consent of the person who applied for a loan from the name in the name of the defendant (one-person) and created an account on the Internet game and the Internet website of the mobile phone owner in the personal information of the mobile phone owner, and used the mobile phone small-sum settlement to charge cyber money, and then sold it.

1. Computer, etc. fraud;

피고인은 2012. 3. 23.경 경기 부천시 소사구 P 오피스텔 A동 2108호에 있는 피고인의 사무실에서 컴퓨터 10대를 이용하여 제1항과 같이 취득한 Q 명의의 휴대전화 인적 사항을 이용하여 인터넷 온라인게임 사이트인 온게이트에 아이디 "R", 비밀번호 S, 전화번호 T의 계정을 만들어 휴대전화 소액결제를 이용하여 사이버머니 300,000원을 충전한 후 이를 되팔아 현금화 한 것을 비롯하여 그때부터 2012, 11. 15.경까지 별지 범죄일람표 2 기재와 같이 인터넷 온라인 게임사이트인 넥슨 등 12개 인터넷 게임 사이트에 계정을 만들고 휴대전화 소액결제를 이용하여 합계 295,988,000원 상당의 사이버머니를 구매하거나 구매한 사이버머니를 현금화하였다. 이로써 피고인은 정보처리장치인 컴퓨터에 허위의 정보를 입력하거나 권한 없이 정보를 입력하는 방법으로 정보처리를 하여 295,988,000원을 편취하였다.

2. They may not place an advertisement for credit business other than credit service providers or credit financial institutions that violate the Act on the Registration of Credit Business and the Protection of Financial Users;

The Defendant, without registering credit business, made an advertisement for credit business by way of sending text messages stating “any customer shall transfer money at a minimum interest rate without illegal inquiry,” by using text messages as a function of sending text messages to the Internet site of KS telecom, K, and LPer, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), and by sending text messages, at the same time and place.”

3. Violation of the Resident Registration Act.

No person shall unlawfully use another person's resident registration number.

The Defendant unlawfully used another person’s resident registration number by creating an account on the Internet game and the mobile communications website using the resident registration numbers of the persons listed in the attached Form 3, such as Q, known to them at the time and place specified in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (viiient) and part of the protocol of the first trial;

1. A suspect interrogation protocol of U for prosecution;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol concerning V;

1. The written statement of each police officer against W/X;

1. Copies of each police statement made to Y, Z, AA, AB, and AC;

1. Each written statement of AD and AE;

1. Police seizure records;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 19(1)3 and Article 9-2(1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (the point of advertisement for credit business of a person other than a credit service provider) and Article 37 Subparag. 10 of the Resident Registration Act (the point of unlawful use of resident registration numbers)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Confiscation;

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act / [The personal mobile phone of employees shall not be confiscated because there is a lack of evidence to recognize that the personal mobile phone is a thing provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act]

1. Dismissal of a compensation order;

Article 32 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant has compensated the victims for most of the damages caused by his own act, and the defendant has no record of the same crime. However, the defendant's fraudulent act, such as the computer, etc. of this case, has made many unspecified victims for a considerable period of time by using the computer, etc. of this case, and although the amount of damage by each victim is not significant, it is judged that the sentence of punishment is inevitable because the total amount of the defrauded is not more than 30 million won. However, considering the favorable circumstances as seen above, the sentence

Parts of innocence

1. Facts charged;

The defendant sent a text message, etc. on loan advertisement stating the contact information of the name and the contact information of an unspecified number of mobile phones, and the above name and the name and the name of the defendant were to receive money from the loan applicant as a loan deposit.

As above, the Defendant conspired with his name in collusion, sent a loan advertisement to the mobile phone of the victim AF (57 years of age) at an unspecified place on October 22, 201, and received 3,000,000 won from the victim who reported and contacted such act as a deposit money.

However, in fact, even if the Defendant and the Defendant received money as a loan deposit from the victim as above, they did not have the intent or ability to obtain a loan as specified in the loan advertisement. Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with the victim’s name in collusion, acquired 3,000,000 won by deceptive means from March 8, 201 to October 22, 2012 in the above manner, and acquired 27 times in total from March 8, 2011 to October 22, 2012, as shown in the attached Table 1, 27,344,570 won.

The Defendant asserts that the cell phone machines, etc. used for each of the crimes committed earlier guilty are nothing more than those with no personal injury, and that there was no participation in the crime of lending fraud by a person with no personal injury. In light of the fact that the personal information of the victims is discovered during the period of seizure in this case, and that the contents of the contents of the victim’s report and the loan advertisement sent by the Defendant coincide with each other, the Defendant may be found to have participated in the crime

First of all, with respect to the text message on loan advertisement, AG, AH, AI, AI, AK, AK, AL, AM, AO, AP, and Q, it is not a text message (the police statement or transfer statement of each of the above victims), AR, AS, ATS, AF, AF, AU, AV, and AW, and the content of the text message on loan recommendation received by the victims is not known (the police statement or transfer statement of each of the above victims, written opinion), AX, AY, AZ, BA, and BB are not the same as the content of the text message (Evidence record 167, 171, 392) that the Defendant sent (the police statement of each of the above victims). Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence to prove the guilty of the facts charged in this part (the police statement of each of the above victims).

In addition, even if there are articles related to the above victims among the articles seized by the defendant, the circumstance does not conflict with the defendant's defense room. Moreover, considering the fact that there is no evidence that the defendant operated another office for loan fraud or participated in another office at the office operated by the defendant (each police's suspect examination protocol, AD, AE, U's statement, etc. about V) and that there is no evidence that the defendant took part in the above search and seizure, it is insufficient to find the defendant guilty of the charge that the defendant took part in the act of fraud, such as computer, etc. of this case, only because the defendant committed the crime of fraud at the time when loan fraud against the victims of this part of this case was committed.

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court acquitted the defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325