(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.6.15. 선고 2017고합439 판결

From October 2012 to February 2014, the Defendant operated a studio lambul in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul. From February 2014 to March 2015, the Defendant operated studio lambul in the second floor of the building located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul from February 2014 to March 2015. At the same time, from September 2014 to March 2015, the Defendant operated part of studio lambul in the “G” on the first floor of the above building, and there was no special revenue source from November 2015 thereafter.

The Defendant, while participating in the operation of studio typ as above, had the Defendant invested and operated a large amount of money in the studio typ to the victim H and his spouse, who is the motive of the high school, which he became aware of through the budio typ, and had the victim I, who is his spouse, studio typ to obtain money from the victims.

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

On December 2013, 2013, the Defendant: (a) stated that “studio hump hump hump hump hump hump hump requires a large number of female employees; and (b) to employ female employees, the Defendant should pay a prepaid payment to the victim H. When lending KRW 50,000,000 to female employees; (c) the Defendant was used to employ female employees; and (d) paid a balance within three months by adding two parts per month interest to interest.” However, the Defendant had already been liable for a debt of KRW 400,000,000, and the operation of stum hump hump was not exempt, and thus, the Defendant did not have

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received KRW 50,00,000 from the victim as the loan money on December 31, 2013; and (c) from that time, received a total of KRW 688,00,000 from the victim every 14 times until August 21, 2015, as stated in the separate crime list.

2. Fraud against victim I;

A. On December 1, 2014, the Defendant stated to the effect that “A victim I was accused of a complaint from the person J” on December 1, 2014, 100,000 won is required to be agreed upon. If the Defendant borrowed the money, it shall be agreed upon, and shall be paid within six months by adding the interest on the 1.5th of each month plus the interest on the 1.5th of each month.” However, the Defendant was liable to pay 300,000,000 won or more, and the operation of studal luds was not relieved of the enemy, and the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the borrowed money to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 100,000,000 won from the victim as the loan, in other words, from the victim.

B. On January 20, 2015, the Defendant stated to the effect that “it is necessary for the victim to agree with two waitter” at the place indicated in the above paragraph (a) above, KRW 100,000,000, each of KRW 500,000 is required. The Defendant now has KRW 50,000,000,000. If the Defendant additionally lends 50,000,000 to B, it shall be used as the agreed amount and repaid within six months.” However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the borrowed amount to the victim on the grounds stated in the above paragraph (a) above.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 50,000,000 won from the victim as the borrowed money.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of 150,000,000 won from the victim as a loan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Second police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant (including H. I substitute part);

1. The police statement of H;

1. A written confirmation of equity investment and a fact-finding certificate prepared by a defendant;

1. A complaint, recording book, and recording book;

1. Notice of details of transactions, details of transactions, receipts, data on financial transaction status, and details of transactions by account;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (referring to fraud against victim H), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (referring to fraud against victim I, including fraud, fraud by victim I); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

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 more severe penalty provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years but not more than 40 years;

2. Scope of recommending sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years but not more than six years;

【Scope of Recommendation】

General Fraud Type 3 (not less than KRW 500, not more than KRW 500, not more than KRW 5 billion) basic area (3-6 years);

3. Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment;

The fact that the defendant paid 40 million won, which is a part of the amount of damage to the victim H, to the victim H, and that the defendant reflects his own crime in depth is favorable to the defendant.

The Defendant committed the instant crime using personal trust relationship, such as victim H, elementary school and high school motive creation, and the victims expressed their wish to punish the Defendant because it was almost not recovered from damage, and the Defendant committed the instant crime even though there were many criminal convictions, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

Other factors of sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as per the order, comprehensively taking into account.