2015Gohap490 General Motor Vehicle Fire Prevention, thief

2015Gohap666(combined) Fraud

A. (1) (73 years old, over), free of office

Residential Suwon City

Seoul High Court Decision 201

The highest satis, the Hanbat (prosecution), the original satis, and the full satisfy;

Attorney Yoon Young-young (Korean)

March 18, 2016

A person shall be punished by imprisonment for two years with prison labor for a crime of "2015 High 490" as stated in the judgment of the defendant, and by imprisonment for six months for a crime of "2015 High 66" as stated in the judgment of the defendant.

However, the execution of the above punishment for the crime of "2015 Ma666" shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

One set (No. 1) for a time seized shall be confiscated.

Criminal History Office

【Criminal Power】

On August 18, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for night building intrusion larceny at the Suwon District Court for six months, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 26, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

"2015, 490"

1. Ordinary automobile fire prevention;

A. At around 00:40 on April 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) discovered the ESCORT 110 Orala, which is owned by the victim, set up at the front of Suwon-si, Suwon-ro, - around 00:40 on April 1, 2015; (b) discovered the ESCORT 110 Orala, which is owned by the victim, and had the victim, who works together with the Chinese office employees, and put the victim into a single stop.

As a result, the Defendant destroyed the above Obaba, which is the victim, by burning the 200,000 won of repairing expenses.

B. At around 03:00 on August 27, 2015, the Defendant discovered that a yellow car bus owned by the victim cardioB was parked in front of a middle school located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, with its windows opened, and reported news to the effect that children are parked in the child care center, with a view to getting out of the bus, and brought out a paper stuff at the nearby separate collection place, and took out a paper strawing box from the bus, using a disposable dog with a single straw with a fire attached to the bus, and got out of the bus, and caused it to spread to the entire bus. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the bus at the level of KRW 10 million at the market price owned by the victim; and (b) destroyed the bus at the level of KRW 10 million.

2. Larceny;

The Defendant: (a) entered the bus inside the bus through the open window without any particular reason before leaving the bus, such as the date and time, at the place, as described in Paragraph (b) of Article 1; (b) and (c) took one solution of the market price equivalent to KRW 500,000,000, which was the victim’s possession, and stolen it.

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport 2015 Gohap666 operates the system of the deposit money for the lease of houses with a lower interest rate than the market without securing the deposit money for the lease of houses from the National Housing Fund through financial institutions entrusted with the National Housing Fund affairs for the stabilization of housing of homeless workers.

The loan hub consisting of loan hubs, tenant recruitment books, tenant recruitment books, tenant recruitment books, tenant recruitment books, and tenant recruitment books, etc. takes advantage of the fact that if the financial institution entrusted with the business related to the loan of the loan of the loan of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the house of the loan, the house of the house of the house of the house of the loan.

On November 2011, KimCC is the husband of the false lessor JD, and the defendant, as a false tenant, knew that it is difficult to lend a financial institution by normal means of normal methods, and made a false employment-related documents and false contract-related documents such as leE, E, a licensed real estate agent, etc., and made a false contract-related documents, and conspired to divide them into two parts.

On November 25, 2011, in accordance with the above public offering, E had the Defendant obtain an employee loan of the pre-house rental loan in accordance with the instructions of the LBF, SG, LH, etc., and then had the Defendant conclude that the Defendant is an employee of the company "(ju) shock" for the purpose of acquiring the loan, the E obtained a false employment certificate necessary for applying for the loan of the pre-house rental loan, a false employment certificate necessary for the application for the employee loan loan, a income tax withholding receipt, a payment statement, etc., and sent it to the Defendant.

On the other hand, yellow II received a proposal from E to introduce a person who enters into a false real estate lease contract, and around that time, introduced KimCC to E, and KimCC received a proposal from leE to make a false real estate lease contract and offer a certain amount of consideration if the leE serves as a lessor, notified leE of the personal information such as the resident registration number of leukdo who will serve as a lessor. On December 10, 201, leE prepares a false lease contract to be used as a loan use between leulD and the Defendant, and this FF prepared a false lease contract to be used as a loan use between leulD and the Defendant, and this FF prepared a lease contract to leul in Gyeonggi-do = * 300,80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

On December 13, 201, the Defendant continued to apply for a loan of the National Housing Fund loan of KRW 50 million to the bank employees in charge of loan, whose name is unknown at the point of the victim dives bank in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the Defendant had no intention to rent the house in accordance with the above lease agreement and had been working for the company "(state) dives," although he did not have any intention to rent the house in accordance with the above lease agreement, the Defendant had been working for the above company and had been working for the company "(state) dives," while acting as the dives for the use of the loan as the lease deposit, along with the real estate lease agreement and the documents related to employment, submitted the application for

As a result, the Defendant, in collusion with EF, leE, KimCC, sulfur II, RedF, ScarG, LG, and H, by the above method, deceiving knives bank, the victim, and the deceivings from the victim on December 23, 201, by receiving KRW 50 million from the victim to the account in the name of a false lessor JD for a house leasing loan.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 166(1) of the Criminal Code(general car fire prevention), Article 329 of the Criminal Code, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Code(Fraud point and choice of imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (trade between night buildings and intrusion larceny for which judgment has become final and conclusive)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (each general crime of fire prevention, theft between theft, and punishment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4637, Feb. 26, 2002) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4637, Feb. 26, 2002).

1. Confiscation;

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

2015 Gohap490

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for not less than two years nor more than 45 years;

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

1. Crimes (Setting fire)

[Scope of Recommendation] General Criteria and Type 2 (Setting fire to other buildings, etc.) Basic Area (one year to six years)

【Special Convicted Person】

Second Crimes (thief)

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area of thie (General thief) for General Property (6 months to 6 months)

【Special Convicted Person】

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: one year and six months to three years and nine months;

* Scope of the revised recommendation type: two to three years (in the case where the lowest limit of the recommendation type is lower than the lower limit of the applicable sentencing type in law, the lower limit is the lower limit of the applicable sentencing type in law).

3. Determination of sentence: The crime of this case for a two-year period of imprisonment is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, in which the defendant destroyed and stolen property on the road by setting fire and cutting down property on the otobane and bus parked on the ground that the defendant was making a fire only without any particular reason. The crime of this case is not suitable for the nature of the crime. The crime of this case is not substantial property damage, most of the damage is not recovered, and the crime is committed again without being aware of the fact that it

However, all of the crimes in this case are recognized by the defendant, and the fact that some of the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant is considered as favorable to the defendant, and all of the sentencing factors specified in the arguments in this case, such as the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

1. The range of applicable sentences under the law of 2015, 666: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to ten years;

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

Article 37 (Failure to Apply Sentencing Criteria) of the Criminal Act as it falls under latter concurrent crimes

3. Determination of sentence: The crime of this case 2 years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the Government acquired public funds systematically and systematically by taking advantage of the hubs of the gold lending system prepared by the tenant to stabilize the lives of ordinary people in the National Housing Fund, and the social harm is significant and potential for criticism, and that the damage caused by the crime of this case has not been recovered properly.

However, all of the crimes of this case are against the defendant, and there is no economic benefit in relation to the crime of this case, the judgment was received at the same time with the previous conviction of the judgment, and the equality with accomplices should be considered as favorable circumstances to the defendant. In addition, all of the sentencing factors specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, career, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered.

The presiding judge and assistant judge;

Judges in depth;

Judges Kim Gung-sung