(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.7.10.선고 2018고단2937 판결

An official of the Republic of Korea is an official of the Republic of Korea. The official of the Republic of Korea is an official of the Republic of Korea.

Defense Counsel

Attorneys*, * He/she, Mad, Mad (for all the Defendants)

Applicant for Compensation

A person shall be appointed.

Imposition of Judgment

July 10, 2019

Text

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of four and a half years, and imprisonment for a period of three and a half years, respectively.

Two books seized (Evidence No. 146 of the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office 2018, No. 2 and 8 of the 2018) and Chapter 46 of the Memnopt 26

(Evidence No. 146 of 2018) of Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office shall be confiscated from Defendant A, respectively.

An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

Criminal History Office

【2018 Highest 2937】

1. Defendants’ co-principal conduct

Defendant A, as a leader in the Ulsan-gu area from around 1989, operated a fraternity by collecting many people, such as members of various groups and relatives. Since around 2004, there were members of the fraternity who did not receive the fraternity payments but did not receive the fraternity payments. While Defendant A lent the fraternity payments to the fraternity members and its branch members, it was difficult to pay the fraternity payments to the fraternity members.

Accordingly, Defendant A had concealed the use of the fraternity for the purpose of paying the fraternity, and had a mind that Defendant A paid the fraternity by lending money from the fraternity members, or operated the fraternity by 'the prompt term of return that pays the fraternity with the fraternity payments of other fraternity members.'

Defendant A, around 2008, borrowed money from the members of the fraternity and its members around KRW 500 million. Since around 2013, Defendant A borrowed money in KRW 1 billion around 2013, and around 2015, KRW 1.5 billion around 2015.

In addition, Defendant A had to operate the system and pay the fraternity to the members as above, and had no intention or ability to pay the fraternity even if Defendant A received the fraternity payment in the absence of any fixed income other than the fraternity operation, and there was no intention or ability to pay the fraternity payment from the victims even though Defendant A did not have any intent or ability to pay the fraternity payment.

Meanwhile, Defendant B, who is the wife, was aware of the aggravation of the financial status of Defendant A’s lending of money from creditors and that it is impossible to pay fraternity money normally according to the sequences among the members. Defendant B, despite being aware of the fact that Defendant B’s lending of money from creditors becomes worse without any other occupation, recommended Defendant B to the effect that “A shall pay fraternity money without any mold if he subscribed to the said company’s lending and relatives.” Defendant A’s lending of his name foreign exchange bank and the accounts of community credit cooperatives to Defendant A to collect fraternity money or let the fraternity pay it, and deliver it to Defendant A by directly collecting the fraternity money. Defendant B, after confirming that the fraternity’s payment was made, signed by the fraternity members to pay the fraternity money, and Defendant A received part of it from the victim’s borrowing of money from the victim’s borrowing of money from the victim’s borrowing of money (hereinafter referred to as “child’s personal seal impression’s borrowing and operation”). Defendant A’s joint guarantee was made in a manner of borrowing money from the victim’s borrowing of money.

(a) the fraud of a 'defluence lying from a 'defluence'

On December 16, 2010, the Defendants made a false statement that the Defendants would pay a fraternity when the relevant sequence comes into effect if they make a payment by telephone to the victims E, who are the branch in Ulsandong-gu* OO bbb in the way, and that if they would not pay a fraternity, they would make a payment at the time when the relevant sequence comes into effect, and would make a false statement that they would make a management by converting the fraternity into a borrowed amount (hereinafter referred to as a "title") under the condition of the interest on January 5 of the month in lieu of receiving the fraternity.

However, in fact, even if the Defendants received an advance payment from the victim, they did not have the intent or ability to pay the advance payment to the victim, and did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and interest of the loan even if they were converted into the advance payment.

Nevertheless, the Defendants: (a) deceiving the victim as above; (b) obtained a total of KRW 110,00,000 from around that time to February 15, 2016, in total from around December 11, 2007 to around December 13, 2017, by deceiving 25 victims in the same manner; and (c) obtained a total of KRW 1,085,00,000 from around December 11, 2007 to December 13, 2017.

(b) Fraud of ordinary fraternitys;

On July 14, 2016, the Defendants made a false statement that they would pay an amount when they would come to an ordinary order of priority when they came to pay an amount of money to the victim F by joining the number system at the places described in paragraph 1(a) above.

However, in fact, even if the Defendants received an advance payment from the victim, they did not have the intent or ability to pay the advance payment to the victims because of the excess of the obligation amounting to KRW 1.5 billion.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, as seen above, by deceiving the victims as the victim and receiving a total of KRW 4,095,00 on several occasions from around that time to October 26, 2017, and by deceiving 28 victims by the same method from around May 17, 2016 to December 13, 2017, and by deceiving 246, 983, and 300 won.

2. Defendant A

On October 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around October 28, 2016, at the places indicated in the above-mentioned Paragraph (a) above, managed the victim E under the condition of one-time interest if he leave 100 million won of the husband’s retirement allowance to the victim E; and (b) the Defendant, instead of paying the interest, shall subscribe to the number-based five unit under the name of the husband and the son; and (c) therefore, he/she shall pay the remainder only after deducting the interest.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay money from the victim because the obligation to repay the money to the borrowed money was at least 1.5 billion won due to the unreasonable extension of the number system as above.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deceiving the victim as above and received KRW 100,00,000 from the victim as the loan money on the same day, and instead, by deceiving the victims total of 17 victims by the same method from January 9, 2009 to October 25, 2017, including by deceiving the victims of total of 17 victims by the same method.

【2018 Highest 2967】

On November 2016, 2016, Defendant A made a false statement to the victim G who is a resident of the same apartment unit in Ulsan-gu Ma-dong Ma-gu Ma-dong Ma-dong Ma-dong Ma-dong Ma-gu, to start the number system, and if he/she lends money to B, he/she will pay interest of KRW 100,000 per month, and if the principal is required, he/she will pay at the end of the month.

However, in fact, Defendant A had no intention or ability to return the obligation to the lender even if he/she borrowed money from the victim because there was no certain occupation or income and there was no property owned by Defendant A. However, due to the unreasonable extension of the number system, he/she did not have any intention or ability to return the obligation.

Nevertheless, Defendant A received KRW 10 million from the Agricultural Cooperative Account under his name on December 16 of the same year as the victim by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim as above. In addition, Defendant A received KRW 10 million from around December 16 of the same year.

[2018 Highest 3300]

From around 1989, Defendant A, as a leader in the Ulsan-dong area, operated a system by collecting many people, such as members and relatives of various groups, but the members who did not receive the fraternity from around 2004, did not pay the fraternity. However, it was difficult for Defendant A to pay the fraternity to the members because it did not receive the fraternity.

Accordingly, Defendant A has concealed the use of the fraternity for the purpose of paying the fraternity, and had mind that Defendant A paid the fraternity by lending money from the fraternity members, or operated the fraternity under the law of "the prompt name of the fraternity that pays the fraternity by paying the fraternity to other fraternity members."

On the other hand, Defendant B, the wife, operated a large number of numbers without different occupation, and was aware of the aggravation of the financial status of Defendant A, and was unable to pay the creditors with the money borrowed from the creditors, and was unable to pay the money normally in accordance with the sequences among the members of the fraternity, Defendant B, by soliciting Defendant A to the same company fees and the same school principals to the effect that “A shall pay the money without the mold, if he subscribed to the fraternity as a member of the fraternity,” and in order to assist Defendant A’s guidance operation. In return, Defendant A received part of the amount of money paid from the victims to use it as living expenses, such as the purchase price of stocks.

From the end of 2011, the Defendants joined the exchange travel meeting organized by six persons, such as the victim H, a middle school, at the △△△ branch located in the Dong-dong-dong Do-dong in 201. Defendant B, around February 2, 2012, operated the number system against six persons, including the victim H, with a good credit in Ulsan, even though they did not receive a large amount of annual salary from the victims and did not receive a false credit guarantee from the victims. However, even if there was no possibility to receive a large amount of annual salary, the Defendants could not receive a false credit guarantee from the victims.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, as seen above, by deceiving the victims, received KRW 1,175,00 from the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant around March 14 of the same year from the victims, and received KRW 1,175,00 from the time to October 15, 2017 a total of KRW 80,09,000 by the same method from the time until October 15, 2017.

【2018 Highest 3438】

In addition, Defendant A had no intention or ability to pay the fraternity even if Defendant A received the fraternity payment from the fraternity members in the absence of any fixed income other than that of operating the fraternity.

On February 15, 2017, Defendant A made a false statement that “The victim would normally pay an amount of KRW 25 million to the victim, if the victim entered the five unit of five units of accounts from February 15, 2017 to July 15, 2018.” In fact, Defendant A did not have any intent or ability to return money to the victim, even if the victim received an amount of money from the victim, due to excess of the amount of money equivalent to KRW 25 million. In fact, Defendant A did not think that it would not return money to the victim, but did not have any intent or ability to pay money to the victim.

Nevertheless, Defendant A, as seen above, by deceiving the victim and deceiving him as the victim, received KRW 1,419,00 in total from 10 times until November 20 of the same year as the monthly deposit of KRW 14,19,00 from the victim to the agricultural bank account under his own name, and acquired it by defrauding KRW 14,190,000 in total from November 20 of the same year.

【2019 Highest 420】

Defendant B’s wife as a leader in the Ulsan-dong area from around 1989 and operated a fraternity by collecting many members of various groups, relatives, etc., but there were members who did not pay the fraternitys since around 2004, and even if they received the fraternitys, it was difficult to pay the fraternitys to the members because they did not receive the fraternitys.

Accordingly, A, while hiding the use of the fraternity for the purpose of paying the fraternity, has paid the fraternity by borrowing money from the fraternity members, or has operated the fraternity by means of "the prompt name to prevent the payment of the fraternity by paying the fraternity to other fraternity members". From around 2008, the amount borrowed from the fraternity and the land in the above amount was 50 million won, and around 2013, the amount of borrowed money was 1 billion won in around 2015 and 1.5 billion won in around 2015. In addition, A had no intention or ability to pay the fraternity even in the absence of any fixed income in addition to the operation of the fraternity.

On the other hand, Defendant B, while operating a large number of numbers without different occupation, was unable to repay the obligees with the borrowed money, and was well aware of the fact that it was unable to pay the borrowed money normally according to the sequences among the members, Defendant B, with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant B was unable to pay the borrowed money from the creditors, recommended to subscribe to and borrow money to the same company's lending fees and relatives to the effect that “A has subscribed to the same company's lending and has paid the borrowed money without the mold, and has paid the borrowed money without the mold.” Defendant B lent the foreign exchange bank account under his name to her own lending to her lending to her lending to her lending or the creditor, including her victim J. In borrowing money to the victim, Defendant A was able to borrow money with joint and several sureties by issuing a certificate of the personal seal impression and a certified copy of resident registration card to the victim, etc. In return, Defendant A received the money from the victim, etc. and used the money for his daily life from the victim, etc.

Defendant B and A made a false statement that, at around September 13, 2010, Defendant B and A would pay interest on the loan to the victim if there is a person in need of money to pay the victim. However, Defendant B and A did not have an intent or ability to pay the loan even if they borrowed money from the victim even if they borrowed money from the victim.

Nevertheless, Defendant B and A deceiving the victim as above and received KRW 20,00,00 from the victim as the loan money on the same day, and then acquired KRW 122,00,000 by deceiving the victim six times in total from August 16, 2017.

Accordingly, Defendant B was given money by deceiving the victim in collusion with Defendant B.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

○ Defendants: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Provided, That in the case of partial joint fraud, “Article 30 of the Criminal Act shall be added”

1. Selection of penalty;

○ Defendants: The Defendants’ choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendants: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

○ Defendant A: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Orders for compensation;

Articles 32(1)3 and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Article 32(1)3 and Article 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Compensation for Defendant A is not unreasonable to issue an order for compensation in criminal proceedings because the scope of liability for compensation of Defendant A is not clear. Meanwhile, the applicant for compensation with respect to the application for compensation for Defendant B withdraws on March

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to ten years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria; and

[Determination of Type] Fraud 01. General Fraud / [Type 3] More than 500 million won, less than five billion won

[Special Aggravations] Aggravated Punishments: Where a crime was committed against unspecified or large number of victims or repeatedly between considerable periods of time;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, 2 years and 8 years to 7 years (one-third years of the lowest limit of sentence due to the increase in one short line as a result of the combination of identical competitions)

3. Determination of sentence;

It is recognized that the Defendants all of the instant crimes were led to confessions by the Defendants, K, L, and M wanted to be the front line of Defendant A, part of the victims were minor by participating in the auction procedure, but they were compensated for some damage, Defendant A was the first offender, Defendant B was not subject to punishment for the same crime. However, there are many damages caused by the instant crime, and the amount of damage is very large (in the case of Defendant A, approximately KRW 2.499 billion, KRW 500, KRW 1.534 million, KRW 1.4 million, in the case of Defendant B), the Defendants did not agree with most victims, and all other circumstances indicated in the record, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., and the record, etc., based on the sentencing guidelines, the sentence should be determined within the scope of the recommended punishment as stated in the sentencing guidelines.

Judges

Judges’ or higher leaves

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제25조 제3항 제3호

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제32조 제1항 제3호

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2019.07.10 2018고단2937

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2014.04.17 2014고합2

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2014.04.04 2013고단1807

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2014.07.09 2014노128

-부산지방법원 2014.05.15 2013고단9576