Defendant

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

except that from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

In general, the telephone finance fraud organization assumes a false call against many unspecified persons, assumes a false name with investigative agencies, the Financial Supervisory Service, banks, etc., deceptions by means of personal information leakage, criminal cases, loans, etc., and then acquires money from victims.

The instant telephone finance fraud organization is divided into two roles: “total liability” in charge of organic communications among braille organizations; “col center” in which the victim calls; “col center” in which the victim withdrawss the money deposited by the victim under instructions from the total book; “col for withdrawal” in which the victim withdraws money from the withdrawn book; and “col for collection” in which the money is collected from the total book; and is operated in the form of a thorough occupation organization in preparation for arrest.

As above, the Defendants agreed to take part in the singish financial fraud planned by the telephone financial fraud organization. Defendant B, who received money from the withdrawal book and sent money to the total book and received a certain fee in return, and Defendant A conspired with each other to directly withdraw and deliver money deposited from the victims to the collection book and to deliver the money deposited from the victims to the collection book and to pay a certain fee in return.

On June 27, 2018, a non-name telephone finance fraud assistance employee is allowed to take a phone call to the victim C at a non-displace on June 27, 2018 and make a loan at a low interest rate of 45 million won.

However, if it transfers money to an account that is known to increase credit rating for a loan, it will give a loan by raising credit rating.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false representation.”

However, in fact, the above person was not a bank employee, and even if he was given the money from the victim, he was thought to use it for his personal purpose, and he did not have the intention or ability to execute the loan to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendants are above.