beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On February 1, 2019, the Defendant received a proposal stating that “The Defendant would pay the money deposited by transferring it to another person, and would pay it to him/her at his/her face,” before the cash payment period of Cbank in Gwangju Mine-gu.
Although the defendant is doubtful that the account in the name of the defendant can be used for the remittance of the amount of damage from scam, he was informed of the account number (D) in the name of the defendant.
On January 24, 2019, the name-freeist stated to the victim E that “The FF Union Loan Counseling Company G, if the existing loan is repaid, the amount of KRW 38 million may be reduced to 3.65% interest rate.”
However, in fact, the person who was not a financial institution employee was not a financial institution employee, and there was no intention or ability to provide a loan even if he received money from the victim.
On February 1, 2019, the person under whose name the victim was accused of the victim, and thereby, had the victim transfer KRW 1 million to the C bank account (D) in the name of the defendant, and five million won from the victim.
As above, the victim transferred KRW 6 million to the account in the name of the defendant, and the defendant transferred KRW 5 million to the account known by the Bosing Organization.
Accordingly, the Defendant aided and abetted the crime of fraud of a person who has not received a name.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;
1. E statements;
1. A statement of account transaction and financial information reply (CB) Defendant denied the criminal intent of fraud. However, according to the facts and circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., the Defendant’s receipt of a considerable amount of money of KRW 3 million in return for the mere loan of the name in connection with the purchase of a vehicle, there is no fact that the “H” company that sent the advertisement actually exists, and ii) it is based on the explanation that the “H company” I” was the Defendant.