2017 Height3439 Fraudulent

A person shall be appointed.

○○ Kim (Institution of Prosecution), ○○ (Trial)

Attorney Lee ○-soo (Presiding over National Assembly)

July 19, 2018

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Criminal facts

【Factual Facts】

In 2012, the Defendant got the victim B, who was preparing for the election campaign of a member of the National Assembly in ○○○○ region, to help the victim B receive a notarial deed through a person with a fluorial power in good faith, and tried to acquire the money under the pretext of the loan.

【Criminal Facts】

1. The fraud by June 2, 2010 million won

On June 2, 2011, the Defendant, at the victim B’s office located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around June 2, 201, may assist the victim to get a candidate for a National Assembly member through a force voter. Moreover, the Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million necessary for a new performance-related business.

However, there was no particular property or income on the part of the Defendant, and the performance-related company managed by the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to import new works due to financial circumstances, such as default of about KRW 1.2 billion of corporate tax, and there was no intention to exercise the authority or influence to obtain a candidate for a National Assembly member. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the said money.

The Defendant received KRW 100 million from the victim on the same day.

2. The fraud of KRW 200 million on June 15, 2011

On June 15, 2011, the Defendant: (a) sent money to the victim on June 15, 201 to the Cheongdae, and met the President Lee Jae-young; (b) borrowed money as soon as possible.

However, as above, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the above even if he borrowed money.

The Defendant received KRW 200 million from the victim on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim and defrauds the total of 300 million won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness B, C, and D;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of each police statement concerning B and C;

1. A loan certificate issued on June 15, 201;

1. The authentic copy of a promissory note 200 million won on January 27, 2014;

1. B Details of transactions in new banks;

1. A certificate of the new bank issued on June 15, 2011, respectively;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion on the details of the transactions in the Hong Kong Bank, the details of the transactions in the Hancom Bank, and the statement of payment in arrears

The defendant asserts that there was no act of deception such as the statement of the facts constituting the crime of this case, and that there was no intention to acquire money by deception because it did not proceed after borrowing the money to the extent that it is expected to be sufficiently possible to repay the money at the time of borrowing the money for the purpose of public performance.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged. In full view of this, the defendant can sufficiently be recognized that he had taken money by deceiving the victim like the crime of this case. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

① The Defendant was operating a performance producer Co., Ltd. D, and the company closed its door because it was difficult at the end of 2010, and the Defendant was in arrears with 1.2 billion won as corporate tax, etc. of performance-related company (Evidence No. 47 pages).

(2) According to the account transaction statement, the Defendant does not seem to have used money borrowed from the victim for the revenue of public performance.

③ The victim stated in the complaint that the Defendant was able to assist in the election of the National Assembly members, and that he lent money to the Defendant for a new business, and thereafter, the victim made a statement to the effect that it is similar to the victim’s statement. The victim made a statement to the same effect as the victim’s statement.

④ On June 15, 2011, the Defendant: (a) borrowed 100 million won as interest-free loan to the victim; (b) prepared and rendered a certificate of loan to the effect that the victim would repay by June 15 of the following year; and (c) thereafter on January 27, 2014.

The Defendant prepared and delivered a notarial deed of promissory notes with the content that the Defendant shall pay KRW 200 million to the victim by August 31, 2014, but this also does not refer to interest. Ultimately, the victim lends money to the Defendant at no interest rate of KRW 300 million.

⑤ The Defendant voluntarily stated that the Defendant would have repaid KRW 200 million as the 300 million Won was essential to the victim, and that additional KRW 100 million would help the Defendant. However, the Defendant would have been able to pay KRW 100 million with the Defendant’s share of KRW 100 million as activity expenses, etc., and that he would have paid KRW 200 million later with the Defendant’s share of KRW 100 million with the Defendant’s share of KRW 200 million as the loan. (Evidence No. 33 of the evidence record)

(8) In view of the relationship between the accused and the victim, it appears that there is no reason to provide the accused with subsidies to cover KRW 100 million free of charge without any special reason, and the accused and the victim may be deemed to have had the same purpose as a member of the National Assembly, as alleged by the victim.

④ The Defendant himself thought that 300 million won should be repaid to the victim, and the remaining KRW 100 million should not be considered as money of the nature to be returned (Evidence No. 34 of the evidence record), and the Defendant also stated as follows: (Evidence No. 35 of the evidence record) that she first appeared to have talked about money in the concept of help to do so rather than the concept of borrowing. (Evidence No. 35 of the evidence record) The Defendant was well aware that she would have been going to go to the election of National Assembly members at the time of the No. 1 of the No. 2000, the Defendant was also aware of the fact that she was going to go to the election of National Assembly members (Evidence No. 57,58 of the evidence record) and that 100 million out of 300,000 won received from the victim had aided the victim to go to the election of National Assembly members, and thus, the Defendant did not receive money from the victim in relation to the election of National Assembly members.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal principles and choice of punishment concerning facts constituting a crime;

Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Code, the choice of imprisonment (in light of the contents of deception and the distance of time, etc., it is a single crime that is recognized as a single criminal intent and inclusive).

The reason for sentencing is that there are no criminal records other than the criminal records of the fine, and there is no criminal punishment for the same crime.

However, even after a long period of time has elapsed, the victim is unable to pay off at all. It is not good to the criminal attitude of the defendant because the deception was made by means of deception with the official ceiling of the National Assembly members. The amount of fraud reaches KRW 300 million. There seems to be no possibility of the victim's repayment. The victim is punished.

The punishment shall be determined as per the order, comprehensively taking into account such circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime.

Judge Lee Jae-il