2014 Highest 3459 Gongscam, Gongscamscams and Frauds

A person shall be appointed.

Freeboard (Lawsuits) No. 500, No. 1000, Kim Il-il (Trial)

Law Firm Jung-ju

[Defendant-Appellee]

June 3, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 40 hours.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On November 22, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for an act of false accusation, etc. in the official branch of the Daejeon District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 8, 2014.

[Criminal Facts]

1. Attempted crimes;

The defendant around January 28, 2013, the above * in an open meeting room with well-known victim A** in an open meeting room with well-known victim A

N. (***) The thickness of N.W. (B) means “I.D.,” “I.D.,” “I.D.,” “I.D.,” “I.D.,” “I.D. and “I.D.,” “I.D., I will have to do so if I had to do so for the day I had no work,” “I.D., I would have to die,” “I will have to do so,” “I will have to do so,” “I.D., I will have to do so,” “I will have to do so, “I will have to do so,” “I.D., I will have to do so,” “I.D., I will have to do so before three years ago, I will have to do so, and you will have to do so, “I.D., I will have to do so, not have to do so? I will have to do so? It means that I will have to do so, you will have to do so, you will have to do so. I will have to do so. I will not have to do so.

The Defendant, as such, attempted to attack the victim, and bring 2.488 billion won from the victim frightened, but the victim attempted to commit an attempted crime at the wind that the victim did not respond.

2. Magion;

The Defendant, at around March 17, 2013, called “the Defendant: (a) was 100 million won of bonds borrowed by the Defendant with her mother for six years prior to the maturity; (b) was prepared for the 100 million won of interest burden; (c) was panty panty booming to the effect; (d) was sent by the victim to the victim on the part of March 18, 2013; and (e) was called “the purpose is to make the victim raise money as soon as possible during the extended period; (e) was called to the victim on the part of March 30, 2013; and (e) was called “I am, weather spacking, spacker, spacker, spicker, and spacker,” and “I am the victim’s desire to do so; and (e) was aware of the fact that I am and the victim’s sexual intercourse with her body.

On April 19, 2013, the Defendant got transferred KRW 5 million from the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number omitted) to the Defendant’s name.

3. Attempted fraud.

On October 24, 2013, the Defendant sold the victim A and * the Plaintiff (Defendant) to the Defendants (Defendant A and *) on April 4, 2010, '16B limit of KRW 150,000,000,000,000 to around 50,000,000 won to the public service offices of the Daejeon District Court in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon. The Defendant received a complaint from the Defendant to the effect that the said price was paid.

However, on May 2010, the defendant offered the exhibition space to the victim A* * on July 1, 2010 '16B limit' with ‘16B limit' in his own country * * on the victim's purchase from the defendant.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the said adjudication division and taking part in it from the said adjudication division, attempted to acquire KRW 200 million from the victims, but did not commit an attempted attempt to dispute the victims' response.

Summary of Evidence

[Judgment No. 1]

1. Each legal statement of A and (Omission) respectively;

1. Recording summary, tape-record (as of January 28, 2013, as of January 28, 2013, as of duration);

1. Written estimate and photographs (Evidence No. 40 No. 5 of the evidence list);

[Judgment No. 2]

1. Each legal statement of A and (Omission) respectively;

1. A detailed statement of deposits and text messages printed out;

1. Recording summary, recording (as of March 18, 2013, fice fice fice fice fice), recording (as of March 30, 2013, fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice franchis)

1. Each legal statement of A and (Omission) respectively;

1. A copy of the written claim for the price of goods, pictures, pictures, printed copies of text messages, appraisal opinions;

【Prior Records of Judgment】

1. Investigation into criminal and investigation records materials;

1. A copy of the judgment, Daejeon District Court Decision 2013No2998;

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 352 and 350(1) of the Criminal Act (the attempted charge of insurrection and the choice of imprisonment) and Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act (the public charge)

Article 352 and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the attempted fraud, the choice of imprisonment) 1. Concurrent treatment

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (Mutually between the above crimes and the crime of false accusation, etc. for which judgment has become final and conclusive)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating Conditions among the Reasons for Sentencing)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Determination as to the assertion on the crime of extortion and attempted crime of extortion

A. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that: (a) there was no enemy demanding a gold directly by the defendant with respect to the crime of extortion and the crime of attempted attack; and (b) the defendant and the victim had already been aware of the relationship between the defendant and the victim at the time; (c) since the defendant and the victim had sexual intercourse before and after the above act, the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered any appearance due to the defendant's speech and behavior; and (d) the victim's KRW 5 million, who had been the defendant, was paid as part of the proceeds of the forest sold by the defendant to the victim at around 2010 (16B limit and Manra, Ma, Ba, 'the forest of this case').

B. Intimidation, as a means of the crime of intimidation, refers to the threat of harm and danger likely to restrict a person’s freedom of decision-making or interfere with a person’s freedom of factual conduct. It is sufficient to say that a malicious notice does not necessarily require to be made by the method of specification, and if it is intended to have the other party aware that it would cause harm and injury to the other party by using language or impulse, etc., and even if not directly or indirectly, it may be indirectly made through any third party other than the person under threat. In addition, if an actor demands the delivery of property or pecuniary benefit by using illegal above age based on his occupation, status, bad character and behavior, career, etc., and if the other party fails to comply with such demand, it is also a threat of harm and injury (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1565, Jul. 15, 2005).

C. In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court: ① at the time of the crime, namely, (i) the victim was highly likely to have been exposed to her reputation, status, etc. if the relationship with the defendant was leaked as well as widely known and (ii) the defendant was aware of the situation of the victim and the concern about the victim, and (iii) the defendant was able to publicly announce the relationship with the victim or to see the problem in a way other than the above 0-year-old relationship with the victim, even if 0-year-old relationship was not established by the court, the victim did not appear to have been sufficiently known to the effect that some of the defendant did not interfere with the victim's right before and after 0-year-old relationship with the defendant at the time of the crime of assault and attempted to commit the above 0-year-old relationship with the defendant, and thus, the victim could not have been widely known to the effect that it did not interfere with the victim's new and outstanding relationship with the victim.

2. Determination on the assertion on the crime of attempted fraud

A. On October 24, 2013, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not actively manipulate evidence while filing a lawsuit against the victim for the purchase and sale of goods, etc., and that there was no legal dispute as to whether the forest of this case was donated or not, so the defendant did not have a criminal intent to mislead the court to have the court rendered a judgment.

B. A lawsuit fraud is a content that leads to the deception of a court and the deception of a third party’s property. In order to be recognized as a crime of fraud, it is insufficient to say that rights, such as the assertion, are not existing at the time of the lawsuit, and that it is not sufficient to recognize it as a crime of fraud. Moreover, even if it is well known that there is no right to claim, it is false assertion and proof that the court is deceiving the court.

The deception of a court is a means of deception, if the party's assertion is sufficient to deceive the court even though it does not necessarily use false evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do7262, Sept. 8, 2011).

C. Even if the defendant did not have the right to claim the payment of the purchase price as a result, if the defendant believed that he had a right not to exist due to mistake or legal evaluation, the crime of fraud may not be established. However, according to the evidence (in particular, the victim and ** the statement and text message (Evidence No. 71) adopted by the investigative agency and this court) that the defendant would actively express that he would "drawing the picture of this case" to be donated to the victim, and that it does not constitute part of the purchase price. Even if the defendant did not have the right to claim the payment of the purchase price, it is hard to view that the defendant did not have the right to claim the sale of the forest of this case as sale and purchase, even if he knew that he did not have the right to claim the sale of the forest of this case to the victim, the defendant's assertion that it constitutes a sale and purchase of the forest of this case, and that there was no sufficient evidence that the defendant had the right to claim the sale of the forest of this case from 10 years to 20 years ago.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

The sentencing criteria shall not apply to each crime in which judgment has already become final and conclusive and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant tried to take money by taking advantage of the status of the victim who caused fear of the relationship with the Defendant and the uneasiness psychological condition, and furthermore, the Defendant’s accusation, false assertion to respond to the Defendant’s complaint, and the commission of litigation fraud is not good. However, each of the instant crimes, which the Defendant had already been sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months due to an uneasiness crime, may have been sentenced to a final judgment together with an uneasion crime, etc. (in the sentencing grounds for the crime of uneasiness, etc., where the judgment becomes final and conclusive, including the fact that the nature of the Defendant’s crime is not good for the purpose of obtaining monetary benefits, and that it is related to the Defendant’s attempted attempt to commit the instant crime, and thus, it may be deemed that the value of each of the instant crimes was partially limited to the Defendant’s order to take account of the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s occurrence or attempted to take advantage of the Defendant’s identity and behavior, and that the amount of the instant punishment would not have become more than 50 years.

Judges Domins