beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Criminal facts
On May 25, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, and completed the execution of the above sentence on October 3, 2013.
On November 10, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement at the victim D’s office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building, stating that “The Defendant would grant a project financing (PF) loan from the Military Mutual Aid Association, and the soldier is the same as the Military Mutual Aid Association E, and even if retired, he/she will be on board a ship.”
However, the defendant did not have worked in the Military Mutual Aid Association, and because there was no special relationship between E and E, there was no intention or ability to have the victim get the victim loans from the Military Mutual Aid Association.
As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 6,050,000 in total over 15 times from November 11, 2013 to June 25, 2014, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, from the victim, to from June 25, 2014.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement made to D by the police;
1. Previous convictions indicated in the relevant judgment: To refer to inquiries, such as results and criminal records of the relevant prisoner, and to the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report criminal records;
1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes under relevant Articles of the Criminal Act;
1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;
1. A favorable circumstance is that the defendant's reasons for sentencing Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act aggravated concurrent crimes are divided into his/her errors, and that the defendant deposited KRW 3,500,000 in the victim D future.
On the other hand, it is unfavorable that the Defendant, who had been punished several times due to the same criminal act in the past, was well aware of, and immediately after release, went back to the instant criminal act, and did not fully recover from the damage.
In addition to the above circumstances, the overall process and result of the instant case.