In a case where the Defendant was indicted for acquiring money from Party A as a price for an indecent act by deceiving Party A, who consulted with Party A, at a higher price than Party A’s desire, and even if he did not know whether Party A’s Monobur will be sold, and the Defendant did not have the ability to do so, the case holding that the Defendant was guilty on the ground that the Defendant, who was a religious act, acquired money from Party A by pretending to commit an indecent act beyond the permissible limit as a religious act, by deceiving Party A’s Manobury act.

It is a case where: (a) the indecent Defendant consulted with the hotel operator A, who was aware of the problem of selling telecom; (b) even if the indecent act was conducted, it cannot be known whether the telecom owned by Party A would be sold at a high price; and (c) the Defendant did not have the ability to do so, and (d) the Defendant was prosecuted for acquiring KRW 210,000,000 from Party A in total eight times in consideration of the compensation for indecent act.

The case holding that although the non-speed of the exercise of the right of redemption, etc. does not sufficiently explain the fundamental principles and character scientificly, it is a kind of folks and folks religion, which has been considerably widened among the general public in Korea for a long time, and its meaning or subject is established on the premise of mental and viral world, such as so-called “A” rather than within the scope of objectively recognizable logic, it is established on the first day of which he met with himself, and the Defendant asserts that “A was promised to receive KRW 200 million in terms of the source of origin.” However, the Defendant stated that he tried to find the Defendant in order to identify when he sells it, and that he did not immediately visit the apartment in order to receive part of the advance payment amount of KRW 100 million from the general public of Korea, and that the Defendant was entitled to receive the remainder of this prepaid payment, and that the Defendant’s assertion that he would be aware of the fact that he would not have any persuasive interest in the purchase and sale of the Defendant’s property, including the most persuasive act, is written by the Defendant.

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Kim Jin-young et al.

Attorney Cho Young-jin

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The Defendant is a person who operates a new church with the trade name of “○○○” in Suwon-si ( Address 1 omitted) and the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (Inn, 69 years old) is a person who runs a lodging business with the trade name of “△△△△△△△” from Ulsan ( Address 2 omitted).

The Defendant consulted with the victim, who was found as the introduction of the victim-friendly job offers by Nonindicted 2, and tried to sell the above “△△△△△△△△△△” operated by Ulsan. However, the Defendant intending to receive compensation from the victim, who was aware of the lack of the purchaser of the sales price of at least 4 billion won desired by the victim, with the intention of receiving compensation for such act.

Around September 18, 2017, the Defendant, at “○○○○” around September 18, 2017, told the victim that “I are under the command of good faith at the time of Na.” In a case where the event is held as a wild yellow rain, white rain, and mar, at a higher price than 4.3 billion won between October and the end of December, 100. However, as it is difficult to seek a wild rain, there is a large amount of expenses. In order to see the filial test, the Defendant should hold the event and, in return, paid in advance KRW 100 million among the KRW 200 million, and paid in advance after the sale. This day should not see any person.”

However, the Defendant, while operating “○○○○” under the name of Nonindicted 3, in bad credit standing at the time, received the event cost in excess of KRW 15 million, so far, so far, and did not intend to sell high-priced conference to the victim with an intention to sell high-priced conference. However, even if the Defendant had a bad credit standing, he did not know whether the said conference was sold at the victim’s desired price, and did not have the ability to sell the said conference at high-priced level.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 10 million from the victim, through the new bank account in the above name of Nonindicted 3 on the same day, as compensation for indecent act, from the time on January 27, 2018, and acquired the total amount of KRW 210 million through eight times, such as the list of crimes, from January 27, 2018.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness

1. Part of the prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 4’s statement

1. A copy of the passbook, a vice versa, a letter of characters, and a new bank account with Nonindicted 3;

1. Investigation report (verification of the user of the accused through deception of the accused);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 347(1)(generally) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment

1. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

Although it is true that the defendant received money from the victim, it is merely received as compensation for an act without delay, and it does not constitute a crime of fraud, since it is not received from the victim to sell at a high price.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Although the fundamental principles, character, etc. of the exercise of the right of redemption are not sufficiently explained scientificly, it is a kind of public earth and fisheries that has been considerably widened among the general public in Korea, and its meaning or subject is established under the premise of mental and secret world, such as so doing rather than within the scope of objectively recognizable logic. As such, it is most intended for the applicant to directly and indirectly participate in the process rather than demanding the achievement of any objective result. In exceptional cases where it is subject to the achievement of an objective result, the implementer acts without the intention to achieve such objective objectively, and even if it was not achieved as a subjective intention to achieve such objective, it is difficult to view that the implementer, etc. deceiving the requester, etc. without the intention to engage in the act without the intention to engage in the act without the intention to engage in the act without the intention to engage in the act without the intention to engage in the act without the intention to engage in the act without the intention to engage in the act without the intention to engage in the act without the intention to engage in the act without the intention to engage in the act without the intention to engage in the property.

B. Specific determination

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as a religious act, obtained money from the victim by pretending to a indecent act beyond the permissible limit. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not acceptable.

① The Defendant stated that “the victim was committed to receive KRW 200 million on the first day of the first day in which he met the Defendant, but rather, the victim was promised to receive KRW 200,000,000 on the name of the source of origin.” However, the Defendant stated that the victim was the Defendant before investigating agency to find out whether or not the contact would be consistently sold at the time. The Defendant appears to have immediately visited the victim’s mother in order to receive the remainder of the amount on September 23, 2017, in light of the following: (a) the victim’s right to receive KRW 40,000,000 from the victim’s mother to receive KRW 10,00,000; and (b) the victim’s right to purchase and sell the contact at the last day; and (c) the Defendant’s right to claim the remainder of KRW 100,000 from the victim and the Defendant’s genuinely owned the Defendant’s property that was written on September 27, 2017.”

② Around September 28, 2017, around October 28, 2017, and around January 27, 2018, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant engaged in an act without delay, such as carrying the father at ○○○ or the victim’s her mother or having the right to terminate the contract, etc. However, in the process, there is no clear evidence that the Defendant used the wild friendship mentioned by the victim (i.e., the Defendant appears to have transferred the money received from the victim to the Defendant’s family members or used it as living expenses around that time). However, the Defendant visited Nonindicted 4, who is the former husband, to visit the victim’s mother over two occasions, as if the re-power of interest in the purchase of the telecom, is “Mague”.

③ As seen earlier in the police investigation process, the Defendant submitted two copies of the written agreement stating that the victim would not raise any objection even if it did not take place. However, the victim denies the preparation of the written agreement as a document without any specific intent. According to the prosecutor’s fingerprint appraisal result as to the said written agreement, it is recognized that the unmanned is the same as the victim’s unmanned. However, it can be said that preparing written agreement in the course of requesting an indecent act between the bound person and making a written agreement would be an exceptional case. As above, preparing and signing the written agreement two times more and more, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant promised to receive KRW 200 million from the victim in return for giving the victim’s consent. However, in light of the fact that the amount of maximum amount stated in the written agreement as of September 18, 2017 is KRW 180,000,000, the said written agreement is more doubtful.

④ Even if each of the above agreements is genuine, it is sufficient to deem that the Defendant could sell the victim’s cartels at a higher price than 4.3 billion won, thereby deceiving the victim. As seen earlier, it is also sufficient to deem the victim to have drawn up the above agreement under the circumstance that the victim belonged thereto. Therefore, the existence of the above agreement alone is difficult to deny the Defendant’s intentional act.

1. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Fraudulent Crime

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment with prison labor for one to four years

2. Determination of sentence;

The amount obtained by the Defendant from the victim is larger than KRW 210,00,000, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the method of the commission of the crime. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the Defendant denies the crime and does not reflect the mistake, and does not endeavor to reach an agreement, etc., the Defendant shall be sentenced to the sentence against the Defendant, taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; records such as the circumstances after the crime; and the conditions of various sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case shall be determined as per the order.

[Attachment] Crime List: Omitted

Judges Kim Jong-du

Note 1) appears to be September 23, 2017.