The Supreme Court ruled that the act of transferring the money stolen from Lee Min-woo to his own account was an ‘unpunished ex post facto act’ that came with the crime of fraud, so he could not be charged with any additional charges.
The 2nd Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Kim Sang-hwan) sentenced Choi, a broadcaster who was indicted on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Attorney-at-Law Act, to 9 years in prison and ordered a collection of 2.6 billion won. It was announced on the 27th that the original judgment was overturned and the case was sent back to the Seoul High Court.
In June 2019, when the media reported that Lee Min-woo was booked on charges of sexually harassing two women, Mr. Choi received 1.6 billion won by deceiving people by saying, “I have connections within the prosecution, so I will get you acquitted,” even though he was not close to the prosecutors. He is accused of stealing a total of 2.6 billion won over 26 months.
Mr. Choi again approached Lee Min-woo, who was acquitted in December of the same year, and said, “The fact of the non-indictment should not be made known before the 10 days needed to conclude the case, but you were unable to prevent media reports, which caused a setback,” and offered more money. demanded.
Mr. Choi, who took over Lee Min-woo’s bank account, password, and security card, stole 1 billion won, including bank loans, using Lee Min-woo’s house as collateral, and also took 218 luxury goods. It is known that Mr. Choi was a friend of Lee Min-woo’s older sister.
Both the first and second trials found Choi guilty of the charges and sentenced him to nine years in prison. An additional collection of 2,636,397,400 won was also ordered.
However, the Supreme Court ordered the case to be retried, saying, “We misunderstood the legal principles regarding non-punitive posthumous acts.”
Since Mr. Choi was found guilty of deceiving Lee Min-woo into obtaining a loan under the pretext of requesting a prosecutor and then intercepting the loan, it was an ex post facto fact that he transferred the loan through Lee Min-woo’s other account to his own or someone else’s account. It’s just an act.
According to the Supreme Court, Mr. Choi transferred part of the loan from Lee Min-woo’s account where the loan was deposited to Lee Min-woo’s other account, which had a balance of 0 won. This money was deposited through four other accounts of Lee Min-woo and into Choi’s account and an account in the name of an unknown person.
The transfer times between each account were generally the same or similar, and a significant amount of the money in the account was a loan. It turned out that the amount of other money was not large.
In other words, the act of transferring the intercepted loan itself is not a new infringement on Lee Min-woo’s legal interests, so he cannot be charged with any additional charges.
The Supreme Court said, “The original trial should have further examined whether it can be seen that the transfer in question was a separate source of money, not the loan in this case, and that the defendant’s act of this part (transfer) increased or caused a new violation of the legal interests of the victim.” “It does,” he pointed out.
Economy Queen Reporter Kim Kyeong-eun Photo News 1
.