beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: In light of the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that he was investigated as a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, there was no suspicion of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the prosecution of indictment was suspended, and the Defendant was also aware that the method to be loaned by the Defendant was not common, the Defendant was aware of aiding and abetting the Defendant to commit the instant Bosing fraud
However, since the court below acquitted the defendant, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. A. On February 2017, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant received money from the Defendant’s bank account by providing the Defendant’s bank account to the Defendant’s mobile phone from the Defendant’s opening staff at the end of the time; and (b) the Defendant directly withdraws from the bank counter and sent it to the other Defendant’s opening staff; and (c) in response to the proposal, the Defendant notified the name-dissc-day bank (C) number in the name of the Defendant.
On March 10, 2017, at around 13:00, the Defendant received a false statement that “The Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office is an investigator of the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office, which created a passbook under the name of the party in Gyeonggi-do, the amount of damage was KRW 7,00,000,000, and all the money deposited in the account to be investigated into the opening of the passbook shall be sent to the account under the name of A (Defendant) and shall be returned if there is any error after confirmation,” and the Defendant received KRW 10,000,000 from the damaged person’s account under the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant withdrawn KRW 13:20,000 in cash from the counter of the SC Bank in Dong-dong, Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, which was located in Dong-gu, Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and sent the name of the party under the name of the bank to the person under whose control was waiting in the bank.
Accordingly, the defendant is able to deceive the victim by deceiving his nameless scaming staff.