A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

1. The head of Gangnam branch office of the “stock company C”, which sells insurance sales entrusted by the domestic insurance company, is the director of the Gangnam branch office of the “stock company,” with which the Defendant had recruited the insured while receiving the prescribed fees according to the insurance premium collected from the insurance company, and has attempted to procure the insurance solicitation fee by pretending that the Defendant had concluded a high-amount life insurance contract.

On November 28, 2013, the Defendant, at the office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building 1302, recommended the Defendant to buy insurance to the above Gangnam-gu branch office located in Gangnam-gu, which was operated by the Defendant, but refused to buy insurance, and upon receiving a request from the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant wishes to buy insurance to pay insurance premiums on a large scale,” the Defendant concluded an insurance contract with the insured E, monthly paid-in insurance premium 2,247,00 won, and claimed insurance solicitation fees to the victim M&T company.

However, the fact was that there was no intention or ability to conclude and maintain an insurance contract in a normal way by paying the insurance premiums directly by the insured E, and the defendant was thought to receive the insurance solicitation fee by paying only once and twice the initial insurance premiums.

On December 24, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the damaged company as such, received KRW 14,030,067 from the victimized company as a deposit account in the name of the Defendant for a national bank account in the name of the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant, from that time until November 29, 2013, recruited false insurance in the same way five times in total, as shown in [Attachment Table Nos. 1 to 5], from that time, and received KRW 79,270,150 in total as insurance solicitation commission from the victimized company.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. The Defendant, who attempted fraud, was aware of his knowledge at the office operated by the Defendant as described in paragraph (1) of December 31, 2013.