A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

167 days of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

A. Error of mistake

In light of the fact that the Defendant: (a) paid 00 million won to the Defendant for the sales of the instant sales store in the name of 00,000 won; (b) the sales store size of 00,000 won was 0,000 won; (c) the Defendant had 30,000 won claim regarding the sales of the instant sales store; (d) the sales store price of 00,000 won was 50,000 won, which was 60,000,000 won and was 0,000,000,000,000 won and was 0,000,000,000 won; and (e) the sales store price of 0,000 won was 0,000 won and was 0,000,000 won; and (e) the Defendant was 10,000,000 won and 70,0000 won; and (e) the Defendant was 1,74,0,000,0.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The decision of the court below against the defendant in light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, such as the fact that the means of false advertisements, etc. are not opened, that the defendant does not have a large amount of sales price and that a large amount of sales price has been paid, and that the defendant reflects the mistake in depth, is unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of performing the transaction, unless the defendant makes a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do741, Apr. 29, 2005).

원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, ① 피고인은 2004. 2. 18.경부터 한도코리아씨앤디 대표이사로, 2006. 1. 24.경부터 신촌민자역사스넥타운의 대표이사로 각 재직하던 자로서, 2004. 7. 16.경 성창에프엔디가 신촌역사 주식회사로부터 임차한 서울 서대문구 신촌동 74-12 등 지상에 지어질 지하 2층, 지상 6층의 신촌역사 상가건물 중 이 사건 점포들을 성창에프엔디로부터 2004. 8.경 전대보증금 및 선납차임, 개발비 등 합계 80억 원에 전차하여 전전대분양사업을 시행하기로 계획하고, 그 계약금 20억 원의 마련을 위해 타인으로부터 4억 원을 차용하는 한편, 동서귀금속의 대표이사이던 공소외 1로부터 2004. 8. 13. 및 같은 달 16. 전전대분양대금으로 투자원금을 우선 회수해 주고 투자수익을 반분하는 조건으로 16억 원을 투자받은 사실, ② 피고인은 공소외 1에 대한 위 투자원금 및 수익금 보장을 위해 2004. 8. 20.경 사업의 시행은 한도코리아씨앤디가 주관하여 분양 및 자금관리를 하되, 성창에프엔디와의 전대차계약상 전차인은 동서귀금속 명의로 하기로 약정한 사실, ③ 위 약정에 따라 동서귀금속은 2004. 8. 23. 성창에프엔디로부터 이 사건 점포들을, 전대보증금과 선납차임을 합한 56억 원 중, 계약금 20억 원을 계약 당일, 1차 중도금 8억 원을 2004. 10. 15., 2차 중도금 8억 원을 2005. 1. 15., 3차 중도금 7억 원을 2005. 7. 15., 4차 중도금 7억 원을 2005. 11. 15., 잔금 6억 원을 준공일로부터 3개월 전에 각 지급하고, 위 전대보증금 및 선납차임과 별도로 개발비 명목으로 24억 원을 2005. 4. 15.까지 지급하기로 하되, 약정된 납입기일에 대금을 납부하지 아니하는 경우 성창에프엔디가 해제권을 갖는 것으로 하여 전차한 사실, ④ 한편, 피고인과 공소외 1은 임대분양사업의 활성화를 위하여 신규법인으로 신촌민자역사스넥타운을 설립하며 그 대표자 및 이사는 한도코리아씨앤디와 동서귀금속 측 사람으로 각 1명씩 선임하기로 약정하고, 2004. 8. 25. 신촌민자역사스넥타운을 설립하여 공소외 1을 이사로, 한도코리아씨앤디 이사인 공소외 2를 감사로 각 선임하였고, 신촌민자역사스넥타운에게 이 사건 점포들에 대한 전전대차분양대행권을 준 사실, ⑤ 이후 동서귀금속이 투자금 16억 원을 모두 회수함에 따라 2005. 9. 23.경 공소외 1이 이사직에서 사임하고 한도코리아씨앤디 직원 공소외 4가 새로이 이사로 선임되었다가, 다시 2006. 1. 24.경 공소외 4가 이사직에서 사임하고 감사로 선임되는 한편 피고인이 스스로 이사로 취임한 사실, ⑥ 피고인은 신촌민자역사스넥타운을 통해 종합일간지 광고 등을 믿고 찾아온 피해자들로부터 2004. 8. 24.경부터 2006. 6. 27.경까지 합계 8,144,942,674원을 별지 범죄일람표 기재와 같이 전전대분양대금으로 교부받았으나, 피해자들로부터 입금되는 전전대분양대금 외에는 달리 조달되는 자금이 없었음에도 공소외 1과의 위 ①항 기재 약정에 따라 투자원금 명목으로 공소외 1에게 16억 1,300만 원을 우선 지급하고, 한도코리아씨앤디로 10억 원 상당을 인출하여 사용하는 등 분양경비 명목으로 20억 원 상당을 지출하였으며, 피고인의 개인적인 용도로 수억 원을 임의 사용한 사실, ⑦ 한편, 2005.말경 신촌민자역사스넥타운은 공소외 5가 운영하는 주식회사 리얼리치(이하 ‘리얼리치’라고 한다)에 수분양자모집을 위탁하고, 리얼리치는 미국에서 주식회사 윈베스트(Winvest Corp, 이하 ‘윈베스트’라고 한다)를 운영하는 공소외 6에게 수분양자를 모집하도록 하였는데, 공소외 6은 이 사건 피해자들 중 미국에 거주하는 피해자 공소외 7, 8, 9에게 별지 범죄일람표 기재 각 해당 분양호수를 분양하였고 이에 따라 리얼리치는 신촌민자역사스넥타운과 위 피해자들을 연결하여 신촌민자역사스넥타운과 위 피해자들 사이에 각 해당 분양호수에 대한 분양계약이 이루어지도록 하였으며, 분양대금은 공소외 6이 위 피해자들로부터 받아 이를 직접 신촌민자역사스넥타운 계좌로 송금한 사실, ⑧ 피고인은 성창에프엔디에 1차 중도금 지급기일을 넘겨 2005. 1. 26.에야 비로소 그때까지 6회에 걸쳐 8억 원을 완납하고, 2차 중도금 역시 그 지급기일을 넘겨 2005. 6. 3.까지 4회에 걸쳐 6억 원을 지급하였을 뿐 나머지 중도금은 물론 개발비의 지급조차 지체하였으며, 이에 성창에프엔디는 2006. 7. 하순경 위 지급지체를 이유로 전대차계약을 해제한 사실, ⑨ 그후 피고인은 사건의 수습을 외면한 채 1년여 가까이 이 사건 피해자들을 피해 다니다 2007. 7. 21.경 경찰에 체포된 사실이 인정된다.

In light of the above facts, if the Defendant was aware of the fact that the sales price was 0 billion won or less at the time of the above sub-sale, the Defendant had a claim for the amount of 50 million won with respect to the pre-sale of the office building, and the claim for the remaining amount of 300 million won with respect to the pre-sale of the office building was 40 billion won, and the Defendant had a claim for the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the office building to the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the 00 billion won, and the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the sales price to the pre-sale of the sales price.

B. Ex officio determination

Before deciding on the grounds of appeal on the defendant's grounds of unfair sentencing, the court below applied for changes in the indictment to "570,716,934 won" from "4,200,00 won of the victim non-indicted 8" in attached Form No. 21 to "570,716,934 won", and the court below was no longer maintained since the court below changed the subject of judgment by permitting it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

1. Each legal statement of the lower court by Nonindicted 1, 4, and 10 of the witness

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 1, 4, 11, and 12

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 8 and 13

1. The protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 4 by the police officer

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 1, 10, 14, and 15

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 7, 8, 9, and 11

1. Each complaint (including each statement of the victims attached thereto);

1. A detailed statement of passbook payments;

1. A copy of the contract for lease of a new village, station, shopping mall;

1. A copy of each deposit slip;

1. A certificate (3-55 pages of investigation records);

1. Copies of a contract for the sale of new village residents' houses, and business facilities;

1. Copy of each corporate register;

1. The investment agreement for the new village residents;

1. The KONNTTTN-based sales contract, etc. (3-59 through 227 pages of investigation records);

1. A contract for sales by proxy;

1. Certificates of subscription price receipt;

1. A list of payments to be returned;

1. Each social body;

1. A certificate of receipt of the sale price;

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the fraud committed against the victim Nonindicted 7, 8, and 9) and Article 347(1) of each Criminal Act (the fraud committed against the victims of money and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) concerning Non-Indicted 7 with the largest punishment and punishment for concurrent crimes prescribed in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment,

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

In light of each of the above evidence, the New Village Resident's Station at the end of 2005 entrusted the solicitation of buyers to the riice operated by Nonindicted Party 5, and the riice entrusted the solicitation of buyers to the Nonindicted Party 6, who operated the window. Nonindicted Party 6 sold each of the corresponding units specified in the list of crimes in the attached Table to the victim Nonindicted Party 7 and 8 residing in the United States among the victims of this case. The sale price was paid to the above victims to the Nonindicted Party 6, and Nonindicted Party 6 remitted this money to the New Village Resident's Private Corporation account directly, and between the victims of New Village Resident's Private Corporation and the Nonindicted Party 6, it is recognized that the KONEX paid the sales fee to the Nonindicted Party 6, and the victim's property transfer from the victims' fraud with the content of property acquisition was established by the victim's own, and thus, the victim's property infringement was not accepted by the Defendant's fraud (see the above Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74758, May 27, 2005).

However, in light of the fact that the defendant agreed with the majority of victims other than the victim non-indicted 7, 8, and 9 in the trial, and other various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, the circumstances and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined in accordance with the sentence.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Park Hong-woo (Presiding Judge)