beta
Text
Defendant
Section 1-A, Section 2-A, (b), (c), (d), or (h) of the judgment of A, four years of imprisonment, or more, and Section 1-B, (c) of the judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Western District Court on August 26, 2010, and the above judgment was finalized on September 3, 2010, and on May 6, 2010, the Jeju District Court sentenced two years and six months of imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Jeju District Court on May 6, 201 and became final and conclusive on December 12, 201.
1. The Defendants’ joint criminal conduct [2012 Gohap38]
A. The Defendants in violation of the Resident Registration Act obtained a detention warrant from the Jeju District Court on September 10, 2009 and conspired to use the warrant when Defendant A, who was designated as a police officer, obtained a re-issuance of the resident registration certificate in the name of Defendant B accompanied by his photograph, and was engaged in an escape life.
Accordingly, around September 30, 2009, Defendant B submitted an application for re-issuance of the resident registration certificate to the public official in charge of the name in Samsung 2's office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and submitted his photograph as if he were his photographed and had the public official in charge issue the resident registration certificate in the name of Defendant B with a photograph of Defendant A attached.
As a result, the Defendants conspired to apply for false facts about the resident registration certificate.
B. Each of the Defendants against the victim I and J did not have the intent or ability to return the investment money, which was newly recruited by investors on March 201, 201, to prevent the so-called return, such as the repayment of debts to the existing investors or the debtor, and thus, even if they borrowed money from the victims as the investment money for the business of selling charnel houses, they did not have the intent or ability to return it by normal means.
The Defendants are in a state where it is extremely difficult for the Defendants to conduct normal business due to the lack of business as above, and even if they were living together in their own de facto marriage, they would have come to know about the victims of the early police officer on March 201.