2012 Highest 4052, 4645 (Consolidation)

A. Violation of the Labor Standards Act

(b) Fraud;

C. Attempted Fraud

1. A. (b) G.O. (0000 - 000000) Other projects;

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residence ○ ○

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na11444 delivered on April 1, 201

b.(b) ○○ (0000 - 0000000), free of duty;

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Residence ○ ○

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na11444 delivered on April 1, 201

3.(b) . (c) Ma-○ (0000 - 000000) - Other Defendant employees.

Housing Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○

In the case of the Gyeong-gu, Gyeong-gu, Gyeong-do, Gyeong-do, ○

4.(c) Kim○○ (0000 - 000000) - Other projects.

Seoul Housing Seongbuk-dong ○○

Seongbuk-gu Seoul District Court ○○

Gangnam-do (Court Prosecution) and Young-gu (Court Trial)

Attorney Lee In-bok, (Apon for Defendant Kim Il-○, and Man-○)

Attorney Lee Young-young (Law Firm Jung-young, a national ship for defendant Jeong-young, Kim ○○)

March 6, 2014

Defendant ○○○ was punished by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for ten months, by imprisonment for Defendant ○○○, by imprisonment for eight months, and by imprisonment for Defendant ○○○, and by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive.

The order of each community service for 120 hours to Defendant Jong-○, and 80 hours to Defendant Kim Jong-○.

Criminal facts

[2012 Highest 4052]

From March 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008, the Defendant operated a restaurant with the trade name of "○○○ by employing two full-time workers from ○○○○○○-dong, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, and from July 1, 2010 to May 31, 2008.

10. From November 1, 2010 to July 31, 2011, a restaurant was operated in the name of "○○○, employing two full-time workers at the same ○○○○○○○." From November 1, 2010 to July 31, 201, two full-time workers at the same ○○○○○○○○ was employed and operated in the name of "○○○○○."

The Defendant is from March 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008 to ○○, and from July 1, 2010 to 2010.

10. From November 1, 201 to May 31, 201, 00 to 00 ○○; from around November 1, 201, to around May 31, 201, the employees, who were employed at 00 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

[2012 Highest 4645]

Defendant 1, from March 1, 2008 to July 31, 201, was a person who operated ○○, ○○, and ○○○ cafeteria in Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul from around 1, 2008 to around 31, 201. Defendant 1, as the husband of the above Kim○ ○, was a person who operated the above cafeteria with Kim○ ○, while Defendant 1 was a real estate intermediary who was known to Kim○ ○, and Defendant 1, as a taxi driver, was a person who was well aware of ordinary ○ ○.

1. Defendant Kim○-○, and leap○○

From around 2002, the Defendants were unable to repay approximately KRW 12 million credit card payment in their names, and there was no financial situation such as bad credit standing from that time.

The Defendants believe that the victim 00 ○○ has a intellectual disorder so that they easily believe another person’s words, and 207.

12. In light of the fact that ○○, the husband of ○○, died and there was no person who aids and abets a woman in the surrounding area, the victim obtained a business registration under the above ○○, etc., and received a business start-up loan from a financial institution under the victim’s name and received a credit card under the victim’s name and received a credit card and did not pay the loan, etc.

Accordingly, on March 2008, the Defendants registered the above ○○’s business in the name of 000, and Defendant ○○ prepared the above cafeteria’s lease contract in the name of 000, and Defendant Kim○○.

5. Around 19. Around 19. Around 19. Around 00, ○○○○ had the victim ○○○ (a person in charge of loaning KRW 5 million - 000 - 000 - 0000 - 00000) that he received from the Defendant’s account in the name of ○○ Bank in the name of the victim (a person in charge of loaning KRW 55,595,180 in total in the name of the victim, as shown in the attached Table 2 of the day of crime committed on nine occasions from around that time to November 19, 2009.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim to borrow the loan from the financial institutions in the name of the victim, and caused the victim to repay the loan debt, thereby acquiring the pecuniary profit equivalent to the same amount.

2. Defendant Kim○-○

A. A. Around July 21, 2008, the victim 000,000 won 5.1 million won that had been lent to the ○○○○ prior to the filing of the registration statement, the victim 00,000 won, was trying to repair his house by finding out the money. The victim 00,000 won, who had been lent to the ○○○○○○, said ○○, told Defendant Kim○ to do so in order to keep the place

The defendant Kim ○, who did not have the intention or ability to repay, stated that the defendant Kim ○ is to pay 4.6 million won from the bank account in his name (00 - 0000 - 00000 - 000000) to the victim, and then received 4.6 million won from the victim's bank account in his name.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

B. On August 11, 2010, when the Defendant lent 5 million won to 00,000 won to 00,000 won in the name of the victim to 00,000 won in the name of the bond manager, the Defendant used 2 million won in the name of the victim, and 3 million won in his/her own use only to 3 million won, and later, he/she would make payment to ○○○○ in the name of the victim by borrowing 5 million won to 00,000 won in the above Kim○○○, and the Defendant used 5 million won in the account in the name of the victim ( 000 - 000 - 00000) to 0,000 won in the name of the defendant, and did not pay to 5 million won in all together to ○○○.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

C. The Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money even if she borrowed money from ○○○○○, but he received a loan as collateral from the victim around May 25, 2009, with the consent of the victim, i.e., “I will pay the loan immediately. I will pay the loan to the victim.” The Defendant established the right to collateral and received the loan amount of KRW 3 million from ○○○ ○○, Agricultural, and ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 400,000 won, with the consent of the victim, and received the loan amount of KRW 300,500,00 from the Defendant.

3. Defendant 1-○○

The Defendant, using the fact that the victim, 000, was unable to make a normal judgment due to his/her intellectual ability, committed a false representation as to the fact that real estate owned by the company that he/she went to the victim was developed so as to make it difficult for the victim to purchase such real estate.

A. On June 24, 2009, the Defendant recommended the Defendant to look at the ○○○ in a village of Gyeonggi-gu, on the ground that there was a good land for the victim at the above ○○○○○ around June 24, 2009, and that there was an amusement park in the near the place, and that the land value was twice twice.

However, there was no specific plan regarding the development of amusement parks in the vicinity of the above real estate, and the above real estate is not only one parcel, but also 344/957 shares, and the sale is restricted to others before the partition of co-owned property is registered.

The defendant had the victim purchase the above real estate, and paid 32 million won to ○○ Co., Ltd., the owner of the real estate at the price.

B. Around May 2, 2011, the Defendant, at the above ○○ restaurant, proposed the victim to look at the victim’s ○○○○○○○○○ in a way that would have caused damage to the land, and the amount of the land at the time of the gold development would vary. The purchase price would be paid to the husband’s compensation held by 00,000, and the purchase price would not be paid by 00,000. On the other hand, the Defendant, at the above ○○ restaurant, recommended ○○○○ to look at the ○○○○ in a way that would have caused the death of the husband’s husband, who is in his/her custody.

However, there was no plan to develop the above real estate, and there was no other factor to mislead the land value.

The defendant had the victim purchase the above real estate, and paid 8 million won to ○○, a real estate owner, as down payment.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim over twice and let a third party receive the property.

4. Defendant 1, 1, 2, and 3

The Defendants knew that 00,000 won of compensation for death 80,000,000 won, which is the husband of 00,000,000 won, is kept by 0,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Accordingly, on May 26, 201: around 20: (a) around 20: (b) around 20, the Defendants sought a taxi of 00,000, which was driven by Defendant Kim○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○ 102, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. Defendant Kim○ was using the victim’s house with KRW 50,000,000,000 prior to several months of the month, and the Defendant Kim○ intended to pay KRW 1,00,000 as interest every month. The Defendants received money from the victim on the last day of the month, and Defendant Jong○○ received money from the victim, and Defendant Jeong○○ was “When ○○ gains 50,000,000 won from Kim○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○, and ○○, ○○, and the guarantor was to receive money from the victim, thereby refusing to pay the money.

Summary of Evidence

[Attachment 2012 Highest 4052] (Defendant Kim-○)

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness, 000 and Kim ○○;

1. A written confirmation by the ○○○;

1. A letter of business trip;

[2] [Attachment 4645] (Defendant Kim-○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○○)

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness, 000 and 000;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused ○○○ (including each part of the statement made by ○○ and 000);

1. Details of transactions in each passbook;

1. Receipt of refund loan (post office), refund loan inquiry (post office), details of refund loan loan (post office) and details of receipt account inquiry (post office) and statement of deposit transaction;

1. A certified copy of the building registry (referring to the 000 Bae-dong, Blue-dong), or a certified copy of the land registry (referring to the 00 Doo-be);

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant (Defense Counsel) on a land sales contract (in the case of a female, the land in the south of the Republic of Korea), the land sales contract (in the case of a two-dimensional land), and the land sales

1. Defendant Kim○-○, and leap○○

A. 1) With respect to the violation of the Labor Standards Act as to Defendant Kim ○, 00,000 won as stated in the judgment against Defendant Kim ○ was not the employee of Defendant Kim ○, but the employee is not the employee of Defendant Kim ○, and thus there is no obligation to pay his wages to his female. 2) The fraud described in paragraph (1) in the judgment against the Defendants is denied, and the amount of KRW 4.6 million as stated in the judgment against the Defendants was not received, and the amount of KRW 2-B as stated in the judgment. 5 million as stated in Article 2-3(b) of the judgment was used as the operating expenses of the restaurant operated with the Plaintiff 1,00,000 won out of the amount of KRW 4 million and used as the operating expenses of the restaurant operated with the Defendant 2-3(1) as stated in the judgment, but the amount of KRW 1,000,000 as stated in paragraph was returned to ○○ immediately.

B. Determination

1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court regarding the assertion regarding the violation of the Labor Standards Act in the judgment by Defendant Kim○-○,

① In other words, the investigation on the violation of the Labor Standards Act in the judgment on Defendant Kim○-○ is being conducted on September 30, 201 when the investigation on the crime of fraud was conducted on the judgment on Defendant Kim○-○ and Ma○○.

In light of the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ has made a work before receipt of the above petition, Defendant Kim○○ stated to the effect that he was able to do so, and that ○○○○○○○○○○ would have made a work, such as snowing and purchasing food materials, etc., at the time of request of his female, ○○○○○○ paid a little amount of money, kimchi, rice, etc. (204 to 206 investigation records of 2012Da4645 case), or that ○○○○○○○○ was wrong for not paying monthly wages (270 pages of the above investigation records). In view of the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s operation of a restaurant without having been actually working as an employee from that time, it was difficult to conclude that ○○○○○○○ was an employee of the above investigation records, and that ○○○○○ had actually received money and valuables from the Defendant 2000.

Therefore, Defendant Kim○-○’s above assertion is without merit.

2) According to the aforementioned evidence as to the Defendants’ assertion on fraud, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit, since the Defendants’ assertion on fraud is found guilty on the 1, 2012 Highest 4645 case.

2. Defendant 1, 1, 2, and 3

A. The assertion

With regard to the fraud described in Paragraph 3 of the Decision 2012 Highest 4645 case, there was no criminal intent to obtain fraud from Defendant Jung-○○, and only accompanying to the site by 00 ○○’s request with regard to the attempted fraud described in Paragraph 4 of the Decision, and the Defendants did not commit deception as stated in its reasoning.

B. Determination

1) As shown in the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court regarding the argument regarding the crime of fraud in the judgment of Defendant Jung-○○, the case of the two-dimensional land

The Defendant acquired co-ownership shares from 00 ○○, or did not notify that there was a special agreement prohibiting the pre-sale of co-owned property as to the above land, and the basic measures to be taken as an intermediary at the time of concluding a real estate sales contract, such as not leaving 00 ○○ at the site before the conclusion of

In short, ○○○ had ○○○ purchase the above land from ○○ Company, a company to which the Defendant belongs in KRW 32,065,000,000, but had the said company sell it again in KRW 25,410,000, thereby making the said company gain profits from KRW 6,655,00.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Defendant voluntarily recognized that there was no development plan and no other factors to increase the price of the land at the time, and that 00 ○○, whose economic situation at the time was insufficient, did not have any reason to purchase the land without any value of investment, it is reasonable to view that 00 ○ was the purchase of the land at the end of the Defendant, such as the women’s investigation agency and legal statement.

Ultimately, by mediating the conclusion of a purchase and sale contract of each of the above land, the Defendant deceptioned the investment value in the desire to receive allowances from his company by a passive means, or concealed the basic information to be notified to the customer at the time. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit. Accordingly, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendants’ assertion regarding the attempted fraud in the judgment of the Defendants, it is recognized that the Defendants committed a deceptive act as described in paragraph (4) of the judgment of the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant Kim○-○: Articles 109(1) and 36(2) of the Labor Standards Act; Articles 347(1), 30(1), and 347(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Labor Standards Act (a point of fraud as indicated in the Decision in the Decision in 2012Kadan4645) and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act (a point of fraud as listed in the Decision in the Decision in 2012 Godan45

B. Defendant Ma○○○: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act. Defendant Ma○○○○: Article 347(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Articles 352, 347(1), and 30 (the point of attempted fraud) of the Criminal Act

D. Defendant Kim-○: Articles 352, 347(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant ○○○, Ma○○, and Ma○○○○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50(1) of the Criminal Act suspended execution.

Defendant Jeong-○, Kim○-○: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant Jeong-○, Kim○-○: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant Kim○-○, and Defendant Kim○-○, using a circumstance in which the victim’s 00 ○○ was somewhat weak enough to distinguish himself from each other, they are very poor to commit the crime, such as by deceiving money between a long-term period, and not paying wages to the female as an employee. Nevertheless, without complying with the wrong, there is no consistent intent or effort to recover from damage.

Although Defendant ○ was running a taxi business in diving, he actually operated with Kim○○, and participated in the crime of Kim○○, or enjoyed the proceeds of the crime jointly, he did not differ from Kim○ in the degree of responsibility.

Therefore, by imposing a sentence on the Defendants, the Defendants are subject to strict liability, and the Defendant Gim○ does not have good health due to the certificate of work force, and Defendant leap○○ need to open Kim○○, taking into account the fact that the Defendants need to care for the Kim○○, and the Defendants do not legally detain the Defendants in the sense that they are given an opportunity to recover from damage.

2. The victim 00, who used the victim's 00, who used the victim's 00 scambling of the remaining scambling power, which was familiar with the profits of Defendant 1 scambling, and attempted to obtain money by means of systematic and planned means against the victim 00 scambling, etc. In addition, the crime is very poor in terms of motive, circumstance, and method of the crime. In consideration of the economic situation of the victim scamb○, there is no effort to recover damage even though the damage was not a significant amount of damage caused by the crime, and there is a significant need to impose heavy liability on the victim scambling the victim's scambling power, regardless of the fact that the victim scambling did not have any urgent damage caused by the crime. However, the defendant is a primary crime and there is a relatively large circumstance that the profits from

3. In light of the fact that Defendant Kim○-○’s past record of the same kind of crime and attempted to commit the crime in a systematic and planned manner, it is necessary to impose strict liability, but considering the fact that the profit from the crime was not realized and the degree of participation in the crime was relatively high, a suspended sentence is to be imposed.

Judges Ha Sung-won

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.