2016 Highest 4205 Fraudulent

1. A;

2. B

Voluntary Binding machines and Gu residents flag (public trial)

Attorney C and D (private ships for Defendant A)

Attorney E (private election for the defendant B)

November 2016, 24

[Defendant A] A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months with prison labor for the crime of 1-A and 1-B of the judgment and each crime of 2-A of the judgment of the court below.

[Defendant B] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Criminal History [Defendant A's Criminal Power]

On June 26, 2014, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for occupational embezzlement at the Busan District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 11, 2014.

[criminal facts] Defendant A was a person who joined the 1998 M&D and worked as F of the above union since 2001 and resigned from the above union around April 18, 2016. Defendant B was a person who became aware of Defendant A from 2011 and was in a close relationship with each other.

Defendants offered access to the Busan Port Labor Union by allowing them to be employed in Busan Port Labor Union and offered them in advance to receive money as a job placement fee and to use it in installments.

1. Defendant A and Defendant B

A. Fraud of the victim G

On February 2, 2014, Defendant A received a request from Defendant B to use money in the name of job placement for the first time after the receipt of the request from Defendant B to the end of February, 2014.

Accordingly, around February 24, 2014, Defendant B made a false statement to Defendant B, “A, who is known to the inside of the country, shall be employed within two to three months from the week, with the victim’s “A” F of the Busan Coast Guard. However, even if the Defendants received the above money from the victim, Defendant B was able to use the said money for personal living expenses, etc., and did not have the intent or ability to have the victim employed the said money in Busan Coast Guard. Defendant B, by deceiving the victim as above, received cash KRW 20 million from the victim as a job placement expense at the above IT restaurant, and then, Defendant B conspireded Defendant A with the victim to acquire KRW 20 million from the victim, and thereby, obtained KRW 20 million from the victim. Defendant B received KRW 20 million from the victim.

B. Fraud to the victim J

On April 2015, Defendant A received a proposal from Defendant B, “The intention of Justice to see that a person who wants to be employed in the Busan Port of Korea is to work for the Busan Port of Korea” and received money as a job placement fee from Defendant B to use it together.

Accordingly, at around 14:00 on April 17, 2015, the Defendants introduced the Defendant “A” to “A” to “A, but Defendant B” to “A” to “Is the Victim J, who was employed by N, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P.

However, even if the defendants received the above money from the victim, they were thought to use them as personal living expenses, etc., and they did not have the victim's intent or ability to employ K to Busan Port Trade Union.

Nevertheless, as seen above, the Defendants deceptiond the victim, and received cash of KRW 18 million from the victim as a job placement expense in the same place, and divided the amount of KRW 10 million by Defendant A and KRW 8 million by Defendant B. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to obtain KRW 18 million from the victim and acquired it by deception.

2. Defendant A

On June 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at the end of Busan, Q Q is employed by the victim P as a full-time worker in the Busan metropolitan city, the Defendant would be employed in Q Q Q in the Busan metropolitan city.” Upon the victim P’s request, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would have been employed in the Busan metropolitan city as a full-time worker in the Busan metropolitan city.” The Defendant would be required to pay 20 million won in cash to the branch in order to be employed in the Busan metropolitan metropolitan city. On the entry of the money, Q Q would be employed in the Busan metropolitan city as a full-time worker.”

However, even if the defendant received the above money from the victim, he was thought to use personal living expenses, etc., and the defendant did not have any intention or ability to get Q Q to work for the Busan Coast Guard.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained cash 20 million won from the victim in terms of job placement expenses at the hotel coffee shop around 15:00 on the last day of July 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement related to P, J and G;

1. Investigation report (the details of withdrawal of cash from the victim);

1. Copy of the receipt;

1. A financial transaction statement;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment to the judgment of a suspect A, Busan Coast Guard, or Occupational Embezzlements);

Application of Statutes

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

Defendants: Articles 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Selection of Imprisonment

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: Reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

[Extent of Recommendation] Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) Additional Area (1 to 2 years)

[Special Persons] The case where the Criminal Code is very poor or the case where a crime was committed by deceiving the court in the trial procedure.

【Determination of Sentence】

The Defendants’ crime of this case is very good for the crime to be committed by defrauding a lot of money that is socially problematic employment of port union members. Defendant A, as an anti-port union member, is centered on the instant crime, and Defendant B also is liable for the share of the act of practice and its role. Defendant B is also a disadvantageous sentencing factor. Although the Defendants agreed with the victim G and Defendant A deposited KRW 5 million for the victim J and P, it is inevitable to punish all the Defendants. However, Defendant B does not have any statutory restraint for the purpose of giving an opportunity to reach an agreement.

Judges Cho Jae-chul