2013 fails to meet the requirements for the acquisition of stolens

2013 Highest 1804 (Consolidation) b. Fraud

1. A.

2. (a) B

3. (a) C.

Gangwon-do (Public Trial) (Public Prosecutions) and Private Day (Public Trial)

Article 000 (Court-Appointed for Defendants)

April 23, 2013

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and two months, by imprisonment of two years, and by imprisonment of eight months, respectively.

Seized Nos. 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-15, 17-22, 24-24-32, 34, 35, 39, 41-70, 72-76, 78-86 shall be returned to each victim’s name unclaimed.

Facts of crime

[2] 100 00 and 000 are operating an organization that is operated to repair and sell high-priced smartphones in China while living in China and purchasing high-priced smartphones which have been lost or stolen through the Internet. From those who reported and contact such advertisement to those who live in Korea, the collection of stolen-friendly smartphones from those who reported and contact such advertisement to those who collected it and carried it into China.

From 000, Defendant A and Defendant B collected smartphones that were stolen or acquired in the Republic of Korea from the seller under each direction from 000 to 000, Defendant C collected them from the seller and sent them to China.

1. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A and Defendant B

On November 2012, the accomplice 00 recommended Defendant A to collect smartphones in the Republic of Korea at the office located in the port of China's danger and injury to the police officer "if he/she has raised only a few months, he/she may gather money for a short period", and the Defendant A accepted the above proposal.

At the end of November 2012, Defendant A offered to Defendant B with the same defective date as the collection date of smartphones according to the solicitation of 000 at Defendant B’s residence, and offered to collect smartphones and take them out to China along with Defendant B.

On December 1, 2012, the Defendants: (a) reported the Internet advertisement in accordance with the direction of 000 at Seoul or Gyeonggi areas; (b) purchased at KRW 4.20,000 from around that time with knowledge of the fact that three prices of gallon smartphones are stolen or acquired by a seller in the name of a victim in the name that he/she stolen or acquired; and (c) purchased at least KRW 9,000,000 in the name of a victim in the name of a victim in the name that he/she stolen or acquired.

1. By October, 100, smartphones 5550,000,000 won in the same way, were purchased from 70,890,000 won in lots and acquired stolen goods.

2. Joint principal offenders committed by Defendant C, 000, and 000

On December 2, 2012, the accomplice 00 suggested that the defendant C will pay 20,000 won per vehicle if he sent the Handphone to the defendant C by phone at the Chinese Franman. The defendant C conspiredd to collect and send smartphones delivered to the co-offender who was in de facto marital relationship with 000 after receiving the above phone at the place of residence and accepting the proposal of 000.

At the same time, on December 15, 2012, the Defendant received, from the seller, one copy of the smartphone owned by the victim under the name-free seller, knowing that the seller in the name-free seller stolen or stolen and sent 110,000 won from the seller to 110,000 won, and then received, from around that time to January 12, 2013, 81 of the smartphone, which is a stolen part of the market price of KRW 10,1940,000, in the same way, from around that time, to December 15, 2013.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired stolen goods in collusion with 000,000.

[2013 Highest 1804]

Defendant B, around May 2012, 00, stated that Defendant B would sell the forest land in the name of the city of ignified and sold to 000, if Defendant B borrowed the cost of developing the forest land in order to carry on the digital crypting business, Defendant B would sell the forest land and paid the money.

However, the defendant did not own forest land at the time of harmony, and even if he borrowed money from the victim with a bad credit standing for more than 10 years, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

On July 19, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 30 million won from the victim to the new cooperation account in the name of the victim used by the Defendant for the loan as the loan money, and acquired 66 million won in total from September 20, 2012 to the victim four times from that time by September 20, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

[2013 Highest 398]

1. Defendant A and Defendant B’s legal statement, Defendant C’s legal statement

1. The protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant A and C, the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect by each prosecutor against the defendant B, and the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant B;

1. Protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect against 00,000,000, or00;

1. A copy of each police statement made on 00.00. 000. 1. 000. 1. 1. 1. 1.000 on 1. 1.000 on 1. 1.000, 1.00 on 1. 1. 1.00, 200 on 1. 1. 1666

1. A copy of the statement of 000;

1. Each police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Details of conversations between each Chinese call center, a copy of a set, settlement details, and safety transactions;

[2013 Highest 1804]

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Protocol concerning the suspect examination of the defendant B by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution on 000;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant B (in the presence of the defendant);

1. Determination on the issues in each passbook transaction, the detailed statement of loan ledger, the transaction confirmation of financial institutions, and the copy of each letter of loan agreement as to the issue as set forth in Article 23-2 and 33-2 of the Act

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence, Defendant A and Defendant B, who acquired the instant Handphone, committed a promise to pay at a certain level of 25 to 30% of the amount of payment between Defendant A and Defendant B, who promised to pay from 000 co-offenders, in order to receive the amount of payment without being omitted from the beginning of the crime, and the ancillary device such as the Handphone was not received at all, and the acquired Handphone will be taken out to China, and the communication was made from the beginning of the crime to the Handphone using the core chips brought from China. In light of the fact that the communication was made between the co-offenders with the handphone using the handphone chips brought from China, the entire crime of this case can be fully recognized.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

• Defendants: Articles 362(1), 30(a) and 362(2) of the Criminal Code; Defendant B: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Code

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Return:

Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The actual substance of the 2013 Go-Ba398 Defendants provided the course of disposal of stolen property for a considerable period of time and expertise, thereby aiding and abetting the crime of larceny and the embezzlement of stolen property, or providing the implements of the second crime, including “scaming,” etc. In consideration of the methods, scale, and consequences of each of the crimes of this case, the Defendants cannot be punished strictly. In light of the roles performed by Defendant A at the request of Defendant A while taking part in the crime, or the amount of profits distributed, etc., the contribution to the crime is not less than that of Defendant A. Even if Defendant C did not directly purchase the stolen property, Defendant C provided 00 co-offenders with the resident registration number, hand phone number, and opened an account under Defendant’s name, and provided considerable contribution to the acquisition and release of stolen property, such as informing the model name and product serial number of Handphone received.

On the other hand, Defendant A has the past record of punishment four times of fine, Defendant B has the past record of punishment three times of fine and two times of suspended execution, Defendant C has the past record of punishment five times of fine, and there is no same kind of punishment and no previous record of punishment for each of the Defendants. Some of the damaged goods are either temporarily returned or expected to be returned.

The 2013da1804, the criminal defendant used the fiduciary relationship of the victim, and the criminal law seems to have been confidential and planned.The defendant used a considerable portion of the money acquired as gambling fund.

In addition, the extent of damage has not been small and has not been recovered from damage. The defendant has the same kind of fine and criminal records of suspended sentence (see the lowest limit of the recommended sentence): June to June (the basic area). And in consideration of the defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, etc., each punishment shall be determined as ordered against the defendants.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Sung-sung