2018 Highest 1528 Fraudulent and Electronic Financial Transactions Act

A person shall be appointed.

Residence

Reference domicile

Radju (Lawsuits) and Madhee (Public Trial)

nan

August 16, 2018

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Seized evidence 1 to 19 each shall be confiscated.

In order to do so, the total amount of the false name-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-based fraud-related fraud-related fraud-based fraud-related fraud-related fraud-related fraud-related fraud-related fraud-related fraud-related fraud-related fraud-related fraud-related fraud-related fraud-related fraud

1. Fraud;

A. A. On April 19, 2018, the Non-Name-based inducement policy posted a letter on the part of “Sone Star Program” to publicize the passage of terms and conditions, and the letter “on the part of the victim B, who reported and contacted this paper, will be relieved of the terms and conditions when remitting money to the victim B,” and it received 2,100,000,000 won from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of C (52,0000). The Defendant withdrawn cash with the physical card connected to the said account and delivered the name and non-known statement to the victim B, who instructed the total book.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspireds with the general responsibility for name in sequence, and acquired 2,100,000 won from the victim.

B. Name-based inducements made a false statement to the victim D by means of the foregoing day, stating that they would be able to meet the terms and conditions if they remitted money to the victim D, and that is, from that point to April 20, 2018, remitted KRW 5,602,00 to the new bank account in the name of E (11,0000) from that point five times from that point to that of April 20, 2018, and the Defendant released cash with the physical card connected to the said account and delivered the name disapproval that the total book instructed by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with the general responsibility for name misstatements, received the remittance of KRW 5,602,00 from the victim in sequence.

2. Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act

No person shall borrow or lend a means of access, or keep, deliver or distribute a means of access, knowing that he/she is to be used for a crime or to be used in such crime.

Nevertheless, on April 15, 2018, the Defendant issued a direction to the general responsibility for the name in the name of the above-mentioned person.

For the purpose of fraud crime, in the vicinity of the subway station in Seoul and below, the body card and password connected to C’s bank account (52000000) was issued and kept, and the check card was delivered from April 25, 2018 to 11.

Accordingly, the Defendant received and kept the means of access for the purpose of using it in crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement related to F and G;

1. Each written statement B and D;

1. An investigation report (in cases of attaching two copies of a report on damage, such as the registration of a victim and the written petition);

1. Written confirmation of transfer transaction and photographs of mobile phone contents;

1. Examination on the details of transfer, and photographs on mobile phone Messenger;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Article 49(4)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the point of keeping the means of access) and the choice of imprisonment, respectively.

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Confiscation;

The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act was committed as part of the crime of Bosing organization which causes a large social problem, and the defendant has a high possibility of criticism, such as taking advantage of high profit by being well aware of such circumstance, and participating in it. In addition, it is not completely eradicated any reason that it is not easy to detect and arrest as the method of the crime of Bosing is being committed with the organization of the organization of the defendant, and it is not necessary to strictly punish the defendant even if it is considered that there is a large amount of profit actually earned by the defendant compared to the total amount of damage.

In light of the fact that the defendant's participation in such organized criminal acts is very poor in the nature of the crime, and that the amount delivered by the defendant is a large amount of money near 100 million won even if the defendant's statement is based on the defendant's statement, it is inevitable to punish the defendant strictly.

In determining the term of punishment, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes and would not repeat such errors again, that the benefits acquired by the crime of this case are not significant, that there is no profit gained by the crime of this case, that there is no criminal record except once a fine, that there is no record of crime except for one time, and that it is still an early birth of society in 194, etc., the sentence is ordered as per Disposition.

For transfer of judge