logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.20 2017고단1809
컴퓨터등사용사기등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for one year and six months, respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment for four months with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) at the Busan District Court on April 16, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 24, 2015.

[Criminal facts]

1. The Defendants’ fraud, such as the computer, etc., planned to withdraw cash directly from the bank counter because of frequent cases where: (a) the Defendants’ act of using the computer, etc. was conducted with overall control over the organization, such as solicitation of passbooks; (b) recruitment of staff members of springing; and (c) management of the website of a fake public institution; and (d) withdrawal of the amount acquired by committing a crime of Bosing through cash withdrawal; (b) the Defendants planned to withdraw cash from the bank counter through the restriction on cash withdrawal time or the restriction on cash withdrawal amount; (c) calls from many unspecified persons while working at the call center located in China; and (d) transfer the money to the bank counter; or (e) instruct Defendant B, who was in charge of inducing access to the Internet website of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, such as the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, to find money directly from the bank counter; and (d) Defendant B, who proposed that Defendant B and the Defendant’s employee, who was aware of the fact that he was subject to punishment, to the Defendant’s name and the Defendant’s consent, presented.

Accordingly, on January 26, 2015, the measures to carry out the “scamscam” in the name of the victim G calls to the victim G and misrepresent the inspection of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and it is now known on the Internet site to prove that there was no suspicion because the correspondence was involved in the large passbook case.

arrow