2012Gohap1552 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

2013Gohap887(Merger), Fraud partially recognized

2013 Gohap1239 (Joints)

A

Lee Sung-hoon, Yang Jin-Jin, Resident Binding, Mobile (Public Trial)

Law Firm B, Attorney C

June 19, 2014

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power】

On March 18, 2008, the Defendant sentenced the Incheon District Court to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence on May 10, 2009.

[2012 Gohap1552]

The defendant is known as ‘D' and ‘E' while soliciting subscribers to the services in ABro service.

In December 209, in order to attract participants to the Habro service, the victim KT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "KT") and SKcom (hereinafter referred to as the "SKT"), the 24 months to 36 months from the Habn on December 2009 set up a system by which long-term users of services can purchase Hab North Korea at a higher rate during the service use period, and the Haban agency which has concluded an entrustment contract with the victim company first purchased the Hat North Korean model designated by the victim company and then issued the Habdong number scheduled to deliver to the subscriber and the Hab chip with the recipient (A4S) and the Habchip, the victim company later operated the Habdong's agency in a lump sum manner by which the Haban will provide the Haban and the chip subsidy.

The Defendant: (a) confirmed the purchase and payment of the ice number of the Not North Korea that the victim company entered or notified by the opening agency in the computer; and (b) conspired with subordinate recruitment business entities, etc. in order with subordinate recruitment business entities, etc., by using the fact that the purchase and payment of the ice number of the Not North Korea was made; (c) subsequently, (d) in collusion with subordinate recruitment business entities, etc., applied for the purchase of services and the application for the Not North Korea unit through the opening agency through the opening agency for false subscription to the services of the victim company as a hub from the subscribers recruited by the subordinate recruitment business entities, and (d) made an application for the Not unit with false subscription to the services of the victim company through the opening agency; (d) the opening agency business entities pay the Not North Korea to the subscriber instead of paying the Not North Korea to the subscriber; and (e) the Defendant received a certain amount of money from the opening agency business entities, and then

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the victim KT;

The Defendant: (a) in collusion with F (the opening agent’s trade name; hereinafter referred to as “G”); and (b) around April 2010, in collusion with F (the opening agent’s trade name; hereinafter referred to as “F”); (c) on the condition that H will pay a certain amount of money to H, the H will receive documents of subscription to the service from H under the condition that H will pay a certain amount of money; and (d) the Defendant would pay the Defendant a certain amount of money to H; and (e) the Defendant would, using the above documents, file an application for subscription to the service under the name of H to the above F as if the Defendant would normally use the service with the victim KT and pay the principal to H in good faith; and (e) the F will pay the Defendant a certain amount of money to H under the name of 70% of the cost of the LAT in cash; and (e) the Defendant would then have the Defendant paid the above amount of money to H 1, 200,300,000 No.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with F business owners, etc. in sequence, by deceiving 1,328,800 won by deceiving KR, and by deceiving 1,328,80 won from that time until May 19, 201, and through F, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "I") and J (hereinafter referred to as "J") as an opening agency, through the aforesaid methods, and acquired 924,95,880 won in total under the name of Nowon-gu price and opening subsidies from KR for 491 times.

2. Fraud in relation to the victim SK;

On September 7, 2010, in collusion with F business owners, etc. on or around September 7, 2010, the Defendant received documents to subscribe to the service from K on condition that he would pay a certain amount of money to K using the Internet-based microcredit advertising, etc., and the Defendant sent a certain amount of money to the Defendant. The Defendant, using the above documents, applied to the above F, a general agent, for the subscription to the service and the payment of the Nowon-do in the name of the victim SK, as if he would normally use the services and faithfully pay the principal of the Nowon-do in the name of the victim SK, and the F shall pay the amount of money to the Defendant in cash equivalent to 70% of the cost of the Nowon-do in the name of the LGN model (name LGRTT 280S), and requested the Defendant to pay a certain amount of money to the Defendant, etc., and then the Defendant received a certain amount of money from the victim SK under the name of the above 360 EM.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with F business owners, etc. in sequence, by deceiving 973,260 won from the time of deceiving KS and deceiving 973,260 won to November 30, 2010, through F, a general agent, as described in the separate crime list (2) as seen above, joined the false purchase of Bab service through F, a general agent, and acquired 196,382,628 won in total as the price of Nopt North Korea over 182 times from KS to 182.

[2013 Highis887]

When the defendant opens a mobile phone due to the excessive competition between the operators of the mobile phone, he has used the fact that subsidies are granted from the operators of the mobile phone, recruited L which is a small credit service provider, L which is the operator of the mobile phone sales store, M which is the operator of the mobile phone, etc., let them join the mobile phone, received the subsidies from the operators of the mobile phone, and used them in installments. L which is the borrower, recruited the persons who need the loan through the Internet advertisement, etc., and then sent the documents necessary for the opening of the mobile phone, he shall open the mobile phone and send the documents necessary for the opening of the mobile phone to the defendant and N, and the defendant and N, after receiving the documents necessary for the opening of the mobile phone, sent the documents received from L from the operators of the mobile phone sales store in order to receive the mobile phone from the operators of the mobile phone.

Accordingly, L around August 24, 2011 received documents necessary for joining the mobile phone from P and delivered them to the Defendant. The Defendant sent the above documents to M, and M prepares the subscriber documents as if P purchases one unit of the victim SK mobile phone and actually uses as if P actually uses it, and received one unit of the mobile phone period equivalent to KRW 946,000 from the victim SK at around that time.

However, in fact, P did not intend to actually use the mobile phone by joining the victim SK and taking part in PK.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with L et al., by deceiving the victim SKT and by deceiving one mobile phone operator, from September 26, 2012 to September 26, 2012, acquired 544 mobile phoness in total amounting to 43,113,40 won from the victim LG Plus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “LG Plus”) by means of the same 544 times as indicated in the annexed crime list (3). From May 7, 2012 to June 21, 2012, the Defendant acquired 48 mobile phoness in total amounting to 43,113,400 won from the market price from the victim LG Plus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “LG Plus”) by means of the same 48 means as indicated in the annexed crime list (4).

[2013Gohap1239]

The Defendant, like the initial criminal facts stated in the first head of the crime No. 2012 Gohap1552, abused the methods of purchasing services and the methods of paying the principal of the unit, etc., in order with subordinate fund raisers, etc. in collusion with the lower fund raisers, etc., to acquire Nowon-do price and the general subsidy from the victim companies.

1. Joint crimes with Q, etc.;

On March 28, 2011, in collusion with Q, etc., the Defendant: (a) received from R a small amount of money from R to obtain a small amount of loan; and (b) Q to Y again, on the condition that Q would pay a certain amount of money; and (c) the Defendant would use the above documents to use it as a hub for the victim KT and pay the principal of the Nopt in good faith; (d) the Defendant filed an application for the purchase of services and the payment of the price of the Nopt North Korea in the name of the victim KT to the opening agency; and (e) the opening agency requested the victim KT to settle the price, etc. of the above Nopt and receive KRW 2,021,800 from the victim KT to receive KRW 2,80,00 in the name of the principal of the Nopt and the opening subsidy.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with Q Q, etc. to deception 2,021,80 won by deceiving the victim KT, from around August 30, 201 to around August 30, 201, and acquired 90,336,300 won in total under the name of the principal of Nowon-gu and the opening subsidy through S, F, I, etc., a general agent, such as S, F, and I, as shown in the separate crime list (5) in the above manner, and acquired 52 times from the victim KT, by fraud.

2. Joint offenses with T, etc.;

(a) Fraud against the victim KT;

On December 23, 2010, in collusion with U.S. business owners, etc., the Defendant received documents from V to pay a certain amount of money to V, on condition that he reported a loan advertisement of the former land, such as rice Luxembourg market, etc., and the Defendant made use of the above documents, and the Defendant received a certain amount of money from the Defendant to pay the victim KT’s KRW 60% of the cost of the Nowon-do in cash, and then requested the victim KT to pay the above amount of money under the name of the victim KT’s normal use of the services and faithfully pay the principal of the Nowon-do in the name of the victim KT, as if the Defendant would use the above documents to pay the victim’s KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with UT in sequence, by deceiving 1,924,800 won by deceiving KR, and by deceiving 1,924,80 won from that time until December 29, 2010, through W, which is an opening agency, as shown in the separate crime list (6) in attached Form 2, and acquired 6,581,200 won in total as the price of Nopt North Korea from KR for four times from the victim KT, and fraudulently acquired 6,581,200 won.

B. Fraud against the victim SKS

On July 12, 2010, in collusion with U.S. business owners, etc. on and around July 12, 2010, the Defendant received documents to subscribe to the service from X on condition that X should pay a certain amount of money to X including rice Luxembourg loan advertising, etc., and the Defendant was given a certain amount of money to the Defendant, and the Defendant, using the above documents, applied for the subscription to the service and the payment of the principal of the Nowon-North Korea to the above Y, a general agent, as if he used the service normally as a hub of the victim SK and faithfully paid a certain amount of money to X. As such, the Defendant applied for the subscription to the service and the payment of the principal of the Nowon-North Korea to the victim SK under the above Y X’s name. The opening agent is obliged to pay 60% of the cost of the Nowon-North Korea in cash to K, and had the Defendant pay a certain amount of money to X, and then requested the victim SK to pay the above 50% amount of money to the victim.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with T, etc. in successive collusion, by deceiving 935,088 won for the victim SKS, and by deceiving 935,08 won, from that time until January 31, 201, as shown in the attached list of crimes (7) in attached Form 201, through Y, etc., a general agent, and acquired 238,968,924 won in total as the price for Nowon-North Korea through 248 times from the victim SK to obtain it.

Summary of Evidence

[2012 Gohap1552]

1. Two statements made by witnesses in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Each protocol of examination of the accused by the prosecution (peach interrogation protocol, No. 2, 3, and 4);

1. A copy of the interrogation protocol of the prosecution (second time) with respect to the A;

1. Copy of each protocol of examination of the prosecution concerning Z;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against AB;

1. AC a copy of the prosecutor's statement;

1. Each investigation report (AT Robro Robro Robro, reporting on the confirmation of the amount of money obtained, the confirmation of the details of money deposited and withdrawn from A cash, the filing of data related to the opening of the F sub-company, the filing of the suspect A and B, and reporting on the opening status of KT and ST);

[2013 Highis887]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused and N;

1. A copy of each protocol of examination of suspects of M or AD by prosecutors;

1. N’s protocol of interrogation of the police officer;

1. Each police statement made to AE and AF;

1. The current status of output data from the USB output confiscated by AD and the opening number stored by AD USB;

[1239]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's examination protocol on the accused and Q

1. Statement by the prosecution of Q;

1. Each investigation report (a verification by subordinate loan business operators, Q, adjustment of a list of crimes A, and analysis report by TUSB, accompanied by a copy of a revised document by subordinate loan business operator);

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Investigation into criminal records;

1. Investigation report (the confirmation report on the date of release);

Application of Statutes

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

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including fraud of the victim's KT in 2012 high Gohap152), Article 347(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (excluding fraud of the victim's KT in 2012 high Gohap152), and Article 347(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (excluding fraud of the victim's KT in 20

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act [In the case of Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall be the severe penalty for concurrent crimes prescribed by the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

A. As to the case 2012, 1552

1) The Defendant believed that the participants would merely make a loan and pay the price of Nopt North Korea in a normal condition by using a hybrid service, and that there was the ability of the victims to repay the price of Nopt North Korea through a credit inquiry by the victim company. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain fraud.

2) Even if the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation, the Defendant is merely a simple aiding and abetting crime of fraud, since the Defendant gains the level of the opening fees and only takes charge of the role to connect the subscribers with the opening agencies.

3) Since a crime of fraud is not established against the actual participants who paid off the price of the Trade Union and North Korea, the amount of damage to the Trade Union and North Korea shall be KRW 772,529,320, and the amount of damage to the Trade Union and Japan shall be KRW 172,487,456 (Evidence 15, 16).

4) As to the crime of fraud against the victim KT, there is a difference between the person who actually wishes to pay the price of the Nowon-gu in accordance with the subscriber, and thus, it cannot be punished as a single comprehensive crime in the same manner as a single crime is committed. Therefore, as to this part of the facts charged, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Economic Crimes Act") cannot be applied.

B. As to the case 2013Gohap887

1) As to the part prior to 420 times a year indicated in the list of crimes (3) in the course of committing fraud against the victim SKT, the Defendant was aware that there was no intent to deceive the victim SK and that it was done through a normal cell phone opening.

2) As to the crime of fraud against the victim SKS, the crime of fraud is not established against the subscribers who paid in full the actual mobile phone price, and the amount acquired by the defrauded based on the mobile phone installment price of the victim SKS should be determined by the property. As such, the amount of damage to the victim SKS is merely KRW 375,058,300 (Evidence 17).

C. As to the case 2013Gohap1239

1) Regarding the crime committed in collusion with Q, etc., the Defendant did not have been involved in the opening of Q, etc. (crime sight table (5) and the Defendant was merely a purchase of Q from Q to Q.

2) With respect to the crime committed in collusion with T, etc., ① the Defendant believed that the Defendant was merely aware that the Defendant would make a loan and pay the price for the Nompt North Korea in a normal condition by using the Hybro, and that the Defendant had the ability to repay the price for the Nompt North Korea through the victim’s credit inquiry, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud. ② Even if the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation, the Defendant was in charge of only the degree of benefits from the opening fee and the role of linking the subscribers with the opening agency, and thus is merely a simple aiding and abetting crime of fraud

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion related to the case 2012 Gohap1552

1) As to the assertion that there is no criminal intent to acquire fraud

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' and '' can be fully recognized as being delivered the '' principal of the '' in collusion with the F' owner of the 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '

① At the time of prosecutorial investigation, the Defendant stated to the effect that “I applied for membership in AG via AG, and 850,000 won calculated by sending 50,000 won after I received 850,000 won of 50,000 won from I to AG,” and that the Defendant stated to the effect that “the 864 pages of the investigation record was carried out in the manner of sending 850,000 won after I received 850,000 won of 50,000 won of 50,000 won of 8,000 won of 50,000 won of 50,000 won of 864,000 won of 30,000 won of 205.”

② Even if the victim company entered into a service contract as a hybrid through a credit inquiry for the insured, if the victim company knew that it was an applicant for the purchase through a transaction method in the form of a 'ex-opener' type which is combined with a loan that is not a normal application for subscription, it seems that it did not enter into a service contract as AB, and it seems that the Defendant was aware of such circumstances or at least did not recognize it.

③ At the time of undergoing the prosecutorial investigation, F’s representative AA, the Defendant, the agent agent of the opening branch where the participants were arranged, stated that “the Defendant was made by directly paying to the Defendant the part-time insured or by paying the part-time insured through Kwikset services” (the above investigation record 547,548 pages), and the J’s representative Z was the witness at this court that “the Defendant traded with the tin-time insured in a manner almost similar to that of the tin-time insured in a manner similar to that of the tin-time insured” (the 11th examination report of the Z).

④ The above AA, Z, or 1’s representative AH was found guilty of the crime of “a person who, in collusion with the defendant, acquired the principal, etc. of the Nompt North Korean unit from the victim company” and “a person who acquired the principal, etc. of the Nompt North Korean unit from the victim company” on the basis of the data containing opening details and the opening data discovered in the process of relevant search and seizure. The judgment became final and conclusive after being sentenced to a conviction of the crime of “a person who obtained the identity, etc. of the principal, etc. of the Nompt North Korean unit from the victim company”.

2) As to the assertion that only one of the aiding and abetting offenders is an accomplice relationship where two or more persons jointly process a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Thus, even if there is no process of the whole conspiracy, a conspiracy relationship is established if a combination of intent is made in order or secretly through several persons, even if there is no process of the entire conspiracy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011).

According to the above evidences, the defendant is found to have arranged the insured who want to borrow a loan and connected them to the opening businessman, received cash or Nowon-gu from the opening businessman, and left part of the proceeds from the sale of cash and Nowon-gu, etc. from the opening businessman and remitted the remainder to the subordinate recruitment businessman. According to the above facts of recognition, it is sufficient to view that the defendant had functional control over the whole crime as a co-principal because it is sufficient to see that the defendant and the defense counsel have carried out functional control over the whole crime by going through either successively or implicitly through the role sharing of the 'ex-opener' and the joint will of the 'ex-opener' as a co-principal. Accordingly, this part of the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

3) As to the assertion of property fraud

In the case of fraud of taking property advantage, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it constitutes a crime of fraud by itself, thereby infringing on the property of the victim, and even if considerable consideration has been paid or no damage has occurred to the whole property of the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1899, Jul. 7, 200). Thus, since the defendant, from the beginning, did not intend to subscribe to the service normally from the beginning, by deceiving the victim, as if he were a normal customer, and by receiving the Nowon-do principal from the victim, etc., he was paid from the victim, each crime of fraud is established against the victim company, and even if some of the subscribers have paid Nowon-do payment to the victim company after the fact, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud. Accordingly, this part of the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

4) As to the assertion that the special law is not applicable

In the case of fraud, in which the money is acquired by deception several times against the same victim, the inclusive crime of fraud is established if the criminal intent is a single and the method of crime is the same (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4862, Feb. 11, 2000).

As seen above, as to this case, the crime of fraud is established between the defendant's deception by deceiving the victim KT and receiving the price of Nowon-gu, etc. as if the defendant merely is a normal customer. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that whether a single comprehensive crime is established in the crime of fraud against the victim KT should be determined on the basis of the defendant's fraud. (Therefore, the defendant's assertion that whether a single comprehensive crime of fraud is established or not a single crime of fraud is determined on the basis of whether the subscriber has no intent to pay the price of Nowon-gu or not has no intention to pay the price of Nowon-gu shall be without merit) According to the above evidence, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant acquired the price of Nowon-gu by the same method against the same victim KT with a single criminal intent, so the comprehensive crime of fraud against the victim KT is established, and since the total amount of damage exceeds 50 million won, Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on Special Economic Crimes is applied. Therefore, this part of the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion related to the case 2013Gohap87

1) As to the allegation that there is no criminal intent to acquire by fraud of the previous part No. 420 as stated in the crime sight list (3)

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant and the defense counsel are sufficiently recognized to have received mobile phone devices from the victim SKT and LG displays in collusion with L, M, N, etc. from August 24, 201 to March 9, 2012 in collusion with [1 to 419 a year indicated in the list of crimes (3)] L, M, and N, and thus, the defendant and the defense counsel's allegation in this part is without merit.

① At the time of undergoing the prosecutor’s investigation, M, the main owner of the opening agency, which opened the opening agency with the Defendant’s subscription documents, stated to the effect that “AD, who opened the opening agency with the Defendant, had been engaged in an illegal opening of the cell phone using documents issued by the Defendant from July 201 to May 2012, sent out the opening of the cell phone to the Defendant, and that the Defendant sold or exported the cell phone devices received from the Defendant to another person,” “All materials related to the Defendant are in the USB seized from AD,” and that “AD, which operated the opening agency jointly with M, was also subject to the prosecutor’s investigation, sent the cell phone illegal openings through documents sent by the Defendant, and sent the cell phone phone to the Defendant after opening the opening (the aforementioned investigation records, 1007, 1010).”

② At the time of the police investigation, N made a statement to the effect that “If you and the Defendant received documents from L to open a cell phone and open it to M.D, you sent it to L if you send a cell phone in which M., and the customer knows that the cell phone is not known to have been transmitted (the above investigation record 1417, 1420 pages).”

③ At the time of undergoing the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant stated that “Until March 9, 2012, the Defendant (not later than 420 times a year No. 3) of L, a small lending business operator, recruited visitors by advertising loans related to the opening of the cell phone, and opened the opening of the cell phone in the name of the subscribers by receiving the documents from him/her and sending the opening of the cell phone to M who operates the opening of the mobile phone, and then sent L’s cell phone to L again by receiving the opening of the cell phone from M,” and even according to the above Defendant’s statement, the above procedure for opening the cell phone cannot be deemed as a normal procedure for opening the cell phone, and if the Defendant was aware that the subscribers were to obtain the loans by using the cell phone opening, it would not be deemed that the Defendant was aware of such circumstances (the investigation record 1491 pages).

2) As to the assertion of property fraud

A) In a crime of fraud, the property taking the property taking the property taking the possession of deception, if there is a property taking the property taking the property taking the victim's property infringement itself, and therefore, the crime of fraud is established, and even if there was no considerable amount of compensation or damage to the entire property of the victim, the establishment of the crime of fraud does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1899, Jul. 7, 200). Since the Defendant, as long as there was no intention to take the ordinary mobile phone service taking the part from the beginning, by deceiving the victim company as he was a normal customer, and by receiving a mobile phone taking the victim's mobile phone taking the part of the loan applicant who was in need of urgent transfer from the victim as he was a normal customer taking the part, the crime of fraud against the victim SK is established. Even if some of the subscribers paid the mobile phone payment after the fact, it

B) In addition, the facts charged against the victim S&T are that the defendant defrauded the amount equivalent to the market price of the 'portable telephone by deceiving the victim S&T, and that it is not the fraud of the amount of the 'portable telephone market price'. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount obtained by deceit should be calculated on the basis of the cost of the terminal installed in the victim

C) Therefore, this part of the argument by the defendant and his defense counsel is without merit.

C. Determination as to the assertion related to the case 2013Gohap1239

1) As to the assertion regarding the part of the conspiracy with Q et al.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant can be fully recognized that the defendant obtained the principal of the Nohbuk-gu from the victim KT while 's Mabro-North Mabro in collusion with Q, etc.', so this part of the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

① At the time of undergoing an investigation by the prosecutor’s office, Q sent money to the account known to the Defendant by requesting the Defendant to transfer money by informing the Defendant of the name and account number of the person who is obligated to send money through the subordinate solicitor’s phone number. However, Q stated to the effect that “If the Defendant had access to a capital in his/her name, he/she opened the account after having become aware of the phone number of the subordinate solicitor’s subordinate solicitor’s online service provider through the said Internet website.” The Defendant’s statement to the effect that “If he/she had access to a capital in his/her name from the foreign exchange bank account in his/her name, he/she opened the account after having received the opening document from him/her (404, 406, 554, 557 pages of investigation records of the case, 2013Da1239), and Q Q purchased false statements from the Defendant cannot be seen as having been reliable, in light of the credibility of Q Q’s statement.

② Attached List of Crimes (5) was prepared based on the details of Q’s deposit of money to account holders among Q’s account details of foreign exchange bank accounts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 411 through 427 pages).

2) As to the argument regarding the portion offered with T, etc.

A) As to the assertion that there is no criminal intent to obtain fraud

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court: (i) the Defendant stated that “after the late July 2010 of T was investigated by the prosecution, the Defendant: (ii) was aware of this part of the facts charged (the above investigation record 764,765 pages) by the means of obtaining the loan applicant’s access documents and paying loans in lieu of Nohbuk; and (iii) even if the victim was aware of the victim’s subscription through a credit inquiry with the subscriber, the Defendant did not enter into the service contract in the form of “her inner name combined with the loan that is not a normal subscription application,” and the Defendant was also aware of such circumstances (the above investigation record 768 pages). The Defendant conspired with the victim’s defrauded and the defense counsel for the issuance of the principal and the principal part of this part of this case can be sufficiently recognized.

B) As to the assertion that the aiding and abetting is merely a aiding and abetting crime

According to the above evidences, the defendant is found to have arranged the insured who want to borrow a loan and connected them to the opening businessman, received cash or Nowon-gu from the opening businessman, and left part of the proceeds from the sale of cash and Nowon-gu, etc. from the opening businessman and remitted the remainder to the subordinate recruitment businessman. According to the above facts of recognition, it is sufficient to view that the defendant had functional control over the whole crime as a co-principal because it is sufficient to see that the defendant and the defense counsel have carried out functional control over the whole crime by going through either successively or implicitly through the role sharing of the 'ex-opener' and the joint will of the 'ex-opener' as a co-principal. Accordingly, this part of the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Fraudulent Crime Group, General Fraud, Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won, and the same type of concurrent crimes, the determination of types shall be based on the sum of the amount of profit)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravated Punishment: Where a person commits a crime against unspecified or large number of victims or repeatedly commits a crime over a considerable period of time: Where the victim is fully responsible for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than six years (Basic Area)

2. Determination of sentence and the reasons therefor;

(a) Sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years and six months;

(b) Grounds;

In light of the fact that the defendant's 's inner name' and 'protruding-protruding' and 'protruding-protruding-protruding-protruding-protruding-provings' abuse of a difficult position of individuals in need of a sudden challenge, it is inevitable to sentence a severe sentence imposed on the defendant is imposed on the defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated offense; (b) the defendant has repeatedly induced the victims' companies for a considerable period of time; and (c) even though the total amount of damage exceeds KRW 1.9 billion, it is a large amount of damage; (d) the defendant did not recover from damage of a considerable portion.

However, under the circumstances where the defendant partially recognized the defendant's mistake, excessive competition between the victim's company to attract new subscribers has caused each of the crimes of this case, and the crime of this case 2012 High and 1552 seems to have been partially recovered by other accomplices. The defendant's actual profit from each of the crimes of this case does not considerably exceed the amount of damage indicated in the crime. The defendant's age, occupation, health, character and behavior, circumstances after the crime, degree of the defendant's participation in each of the crimes of this case, degree of punishment, etc. shall be determined by taking account of various sentencing conditions shown in the records of this case and the whole pleadings.

The presiding judge, senior judge;

Judge Senior Professor

Judges Park Jong-young