2014 Highest 3522, 2015 Highest 598 (Joints), 1042 (Joints), 1862 (Joints);

247 (Joint Fraud)

Seo-○ (60 years, South Korea), Company Board

Lee Jin (Institution of Prosecution) and Class B (Trial of public trial)

Attorney Choi Han-hoon

October 23, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Criminal facts

"2014 Highest 3522

피고인은 울산 북구 ○○동 소재 □□자동차 협력업체 ▣▣산업 이사로 근무하였던 사 람이다 .

The Defendant Kim at a mutually French shop in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do on June 2013.

(F) Under 57 years of age, “it is difficult to find employment to enable four children and four early working from the beginning so that they can work directly. It is the most rapid way to work directly for the △ Automobile subcontractor and enter the workplace into the workplace directly, so that they will work directly. As a result, once they are employed directly, they will work for the subordinate vehicle. For that purpose, they would work for the subordinate vehicle, once you have 50,000 won per capita, with the money, and they would make a false statement to the effect that they would cause a drinking value. However, even if they receive money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to find employment by having the victimized children and the injured children as the staff of the subordinate vehicle, or by having them find employment with the subordinate vehicle subcontractor, even if having no intention or ability to do so.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was given KRW 18 million in total on three occasions, including KRW 5 and 2 million on June 14, 2013, KRW 222 and million on June 22, 201, KRW 6 million on August 30 of the same year, and KRW 18 million in total on three occasions, including KRW 30,000,000.

2015 Highest 598 "

On March 14, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the Dogdong-dong 260, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 2014, the victim ○○○ ( South, 54 years old); (b) “I will have the son work in the Dogdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu 260; (c) the Defendant would have the son work in the Dogdong-dong-dong-dong-dong 20 million won to the Dogdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si; and (d) million won was paid in cash around March 21, 201.

However, on June 2013, the Defendant received money from the Kim Il-chul, but was unable to obtain employment from the victim, etc., even if he received money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the ability to obtain employment from the victim. Moreover, the Defendant received money from the victim and used it for personal purposes, such as living expenses.

In the end, the Defendant was provided with KRW 20 million by deceiving the maximum ○○○○○ of the victim.

2015 Highest 1042

On October 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) sought to have the victim work in the △○○○○○, a her mother, in a non-fluencing place; (b) demanded expenses, such as street funds, from the Defendant, to 40,000 won; and (c) received KRW 30,000,000 from the Defendant around October 21, 201 to the Defendant. In such a case, the Defendant received a remittance of KRW 10,000,000,000 from the Defendant to the Defendant, who was in need of expenses, such as street funds.

However, on June 2013, the Defendant received money from the Kim Il-chul, but was unable to obtain employment from the victim, etc., even if he received money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the ability to obtain employment from the victim. Moreover, the Defendant received money from the victim and used it for personal purposes, such as living expenses.

Ultimately, the Defendant was transferred KRW 40 million by deceiving ○○○○ by deceiving the victim.

"2015 Highest 1862

On September 29, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around the National Tax Service located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) on the street in front of the National Tax Service located in Ulsan-gu; and (c) on the part of the victim ○○○○○○○○, the Defendant would have the child and his/her father and wife in the Guldong-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, to find employment in the Guldong-gu. The Defendant changed the amount of KRW 30

However, in fact, even if the defendant was in excess of his/her obligation and received money from the victim for employment expenses, he/she was thought to use it as the name of the defendant's repayment of obligation, etc., and even if he/she received money from many people other than one victim for employment expenses from the beginning, he/she did not have any intent and ability to have his/her children employed in the unfolded automobile.

The Defendant received KRW 30 million from the victim’s place to receive KRW 30 million, as well as from September 12, 2012 to April 10, 2015, a sum of KRW 4770,000 from 15 victims over 18 times by the aforementioned method, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings victims to take the property by deceiving them.

" 2015 Highest 2447"

피고인은 피해자 박○○을 ▣▣산업 회사에 정규직으로 취직시켜 줄 의사나 능력이 없었음에도 불구하고 , 2013 . 12 . 초순경 상호불상의 장소에서 피해자에게 " 언제 짤릴지 모르니까 ▣▣산업에 일하고 싶으면 300만 원을 입금시켜라 . " 라고 거짓말하여 이에 속 은 피해자로부터 2013 . 12 . 6 . 경 피고인 명의 새마을금고 ( 900320915 * * * * ) 계좌로 취업 비 명목으로 300만 원을 송금 받았고 , 2014 . 2 . 13 . 경 상호불상의 장소에서 재차 피해 자에게 " □□자동차 협력지원팀 간부를 만나서 돈을 더 줘야하니까 700만 원을 입금시 켜라 . " 라고 거짓말을 하여 이에 속은 피해자로부터 2014 . 2 . 13 . 경 위 새마을금고 계좌 로 취업비 명목으로 700만 원을 송금받아 피해자로부터 합계 1 , 000만 원을 편취하였 다 .

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Code, each choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

Reasons for sentencing

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

General Fraud Type 3 (not less than KRW 500, less than KRW 5000, less than KRW 5000).

[Person under Special Leave]

Cases of repeatedly committing a crime against unspecified or large number of victims or over a considerable period of time;

【Determination of Sentence】

The fact that the defendant is trying to commit a crime, and that there is no same criminal record is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

The total amount of damage exceeds KRW 650,000,000,000. This case is a major factor for sentencing that the defendant is not able to take measures for recovery of damage due to repayment to the victims only to the extent of KRW 20,000,000,000, and that the case mainly obtained a large amount of money from 19 victims under the pretext of employment mediation by taking advantage of the poor circumstances of the victims who have been employed.

In addition, in consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

Judges Jeong Sung-ho

Attachment omitted