2017 Highest 1971 (a) Occupational embezzlement

(b) Fraud;

1. A;

2. B

OO (prosecutions) and ○○○ (Public trial)

Law Firm ○○, Attorneys ○○○ (for Defendant A)

Attorneys OOO (Korean Pharmacopoeia for Defendant B)

November 8, 2017

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and by imprisonment for one year.

Facts of crime

/ Criminal Power

Defendant B was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with labor for an OO in the ○○ District Court on July 1, 2015.

12. 24. A person on whom the judgment became final and conclusive, and Defendant A, on May 27, 2016, was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for ○○ District Court for ○○○○○○, etc., and on June 23, 2016, on whom the judgment became final and conclusive.

11. ○○ District Court sentenced one year to imprisonment with prison labor for ○○○○○○, etc. and is currently pending in the appellate trial.

【Criminal facts

The Defendants had Vietnamese who want to be issued a Korean visa receive a visa such as religious visa, study visa, tourism visa, etc., and decided to collect the cost from the above Vietnamese.

As a part of the above project, Defendant A entered into an operating agreement with ○○ University on December 1, 2014 to allow Vietnam to receive students studying abroad. Defendant B around that time entered into an operation agreement with ○○ University ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. Defendant B requested 35 Vietnam who wished to participate in the above ○○ University program, including 17 students of “○○○ School in Vietnam” at ○○○○○○○○ University in Vietnam, and 35 students of said ○○ University, who wish to participate in the above ○ University program. The Defendants requested the above ○ University’s account for educational expenses for the program, and the dormitory expenses to be deposited into the account in the name of ○○○○○ managed by Defendant A.

Accordingly, the victim's OO, OO,O,O,O,O,O,O, O,O,O,O,O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O,O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O, 23 victims of each of the dormitory expenses (hereinafter referred to as "23 victims of embezzlement"), respectively, transferred approximately 1.8 million won for each of the above ○○○, O, O, O,O,O, O, O, O, O, 7,00 won for each of the victims' 7,000 won for each of the aforesaid ○○, O, O,O, O, 2,00,000, 1,000, 2,000, 2,000.

1. Occupational embezzlement;

As seen above, the Defendants kept approximately KRW 40,140,000 for the dormitory expenses of Vietnam students deposited into the accounts of ○○○○○○, for the purpose of “the victims of embezzlement of 23 persons” as above. On February 6, 2015, the Defendants used KRW 5,00,000 for the necessary expenses for the business of giving the Defendants to Vietnames who were the Defendants, and 30,000 won for the 30,000 won for the business expenses of the Defendants used until now or for the Defendants’ business expenses.

Defendant B received the above KRW 36.4 million from Defendant A on February 6, 2015 as the ○○○○ bank account managed by Defendant B, and used the Defendants’ business costs and personal purposes around that time. Defendant A used the said KRW 5 million for the Defendants’ business costs and personal purposes.

As a result, the defendants embezzled the property of the victims who had been kept on duty in collusion.

2. Fraud;

On February 2015, the Defendants were unable to get Vietnam to participate in ○○○○○○○○○ University’s management on the ground that ○○ University’s program was non-contributed, and that the aforementioned ○ University program was maintained by ○○ University’s 17 victims of fraud, who received education expenses from ○ University’s faculty members, would be able to use the aforementioned 17 victims of fraud for the Defendant’s business expenses, etc.

On March 17, 2015, Defendant A prepared an “written request for the refund of admission fees” and received Defendant B’s seal, and sent e-mail to ○○○○○ University’s faculty members, along with “written request for the refund of admission fees,” along with “the list of trainees claiming the refund of admission fees,” and sent e-mail to ○○○○ University’s faculty members, who agreed to participate in the above program, and the Defendants, who did not immediately refund the above educational expenses, sought ○○ University’s office located in Seoul ○○○○ University’s Seoul ○○○○○○ University’s office, and then Defendant B’s ○○○○ was entrusted with the said ○○○○○○○○○ University’s agent, so if 35 educational expenses were to be returned in full, us would return educational expenses to Vietnam. If 35 educational expenses could not be refunded, it is clearly confirmed that 17th of the acceptance of the educational expenses on the document.”

However, in fact, the Defendants thought that the aforementioned educational expenses were used for the business expenses or used for the business expenses of the Defendants, so even if the above educational expenses were returned from ○○ University, they did not have the intent or ability to return them to 17 victims of fraud.

Ultimately, the Defendants deceiving the above ○○○ as above, and are in its control from the above ○○○.

On March 31, 2015, Defendant B received KRW 35,702,242 in money owned by 17 victims of fraud, "in the name of ○○○○○○, managed by Defendant B."

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of ○○○○○;

1. Each prosecutor's office protocol against the Defendants (including the replacement of the Defendants)

1. Statement of each police statement on ○○○ and ○○○;

1. Evidential materials submitted to the ○ University;

1. Complaint;

1. Previous records: Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each criminal record and results of confinement of prisoners;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational embezzlement), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (latter part) and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the sum of the sum of the amount of embezzlement and defraudation in this case is about KRW 77,00,000,000 and the name is not recovered from damage; and (b) there is no corresponding punishment because the nature of the crime and circumstances against foreigners are good for the crime committed against them; (c) the defendants are recognized as facts charged; and (d) the defendants should take into account the balance with the cases where a judgment already became final and conclusive, as seen in the records, should be judged simultaneously; and (d) the sentencing materials, such as the defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances,

Extent of judge