(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.2.22. 선고 2018고합84 판결

1. On January 10, 19, 2017, the Defendant presented 50,000,000,000 won, forged in the sale of dry water, which was operated by AH, in five days prior to J. J., and exercised forged currencies by means of scaming money.

2. On October 19, 2017, the Defendant presented 50,000,000 won forged and falsified and forged 40,000 won (D. number) in a single sales unit operated by AK in the J five days in the J calendar. On February 19, 2017, the Defendant exercised fake currencies by means of shoting each of them respectively.

3. On January 10, 2017, the Defendant presented 50,000 won, forged in a small store store store operated by AM, located within five (5) days in J. J. 19, 19, J. AL, and exercised a forged currency by using a lusium receipt method.

4. On October 19, 2017, the Defendant presented a forged copy of 50,000 won (D) forged in the agricultural product sales store operated by NN located within five days in Jinari-si, Alsan-si, J. 19, 2017, and exercised a forged currency using a scambling method.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement prepared by AH, AK, AM, andN;

1. Each report (No. 2, 10, 18, or hereinafter only the sequences No. 2, 10, and 18), each internal investigation report (No. 31,33), each investigation report (No. 34, 36) and a list of 112 reported cases;

1. Each protocol of seizure and list of seizure [No. 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, 20, 24, and 25] 1. The photographs of forged land and damaged site and the Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 2017 High Court Decision No. 20164;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 207 (4) and (1) of the Criminal Code (the point of exercising counterfeited currency and choice of limited term)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes concerning the crime of uttering of counterfeited currency against AM with the largest penalty)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act)

1. Confiscation;

The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. The scope of punishment by law;

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than 22 years and six months;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determinations of types: Forgery, alteration and events of a Korean currency (such as fabrication, alteration, etc. of a currency) against the Control of Illegal Check Control Act;

(b) Scope of recommending punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months, but not more than three years (basic area); The scope of recommending punishment for multiple crimes: Imprisonment with labor for not less than one year and six months but not more than five years and six months;

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances and the Defendant’s health, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the instant trial process.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant’s instant crime is not only an act of seriously undermining the public credibility of currencies and the safety of transaction in circulation of currencies, but also an act of causing harm and danger to society, such as the occurrence of multiple victims. The Defendant used forged currencies against the aged who could not know that forgery is well-known, and thus is also not suitable to the method of committing such crimes.

The circumstances favorable to ○: The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes from the investigative agency to the present court, and against his mistake. The Defendant does not seem to have been professional or organized. The amount and the amount of the forged currency used by the Defendant was relatively large and the forged currency used was recovered. The Defendant had no record of being punished for the same crime before committing the instant crime.