(Fraud)

(b) Fraud;

(c) Forgery of securities;

(d) Counterfeitd securities events;

2.(a) B

3.c. D. C

Law Firm F, Attorney G (Defendant B)

Law Firm H, Attorney I (Defendant C)

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for three years for Defendant A and B, and for two years for Defendant C.

On May 4, 2016, Defendant A was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud at Suwon District Court, which became final and conclusive on February 1, 2017, and Defendant C was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) at the Seoul Central District Court on May 27, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 1, 2013, and was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment at the Seoul Southern District Court on December 3, 2015 as a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and that judgment became final and conclusive on June 25, 2016.

1. Defendant A and B

A. Fraud related to J-Acceptance's funds

From February 2, 2009, Defendants and K falsely stated that “Around the Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong, they acquired theJ of the corporation, issued bills in the name of the corporation if they received money as collateral and paid money as collateral to the representative of the victim L's L's L's L's L's L's L's L's L's L's L', and paid money as collateral, and repaid money after being listed J's J, and the funds for the clan's family funeral creation will also be provided free of charge.”

However, the Defendants and K did not think that they would use the money borrowed as the acquisition fund of JJ Co., Ltd., and there was no consent from N representative Director of JJ to issue bills, and even if they borrowed money from victims, they did not have the intent or ability to repay the money.

Defendants and K received from the victims the amount of money borrowed on March 11, 2009, KRW 50 million, and KRW 150 million on March 12, 2009, as Defendant A’s name bank account (O). (b) Fraud related to P acquired funds.

On March 23, 2009, Defendants and K concluded that “Around March 23, 2009, at the instant coffee shop in Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong, the said victims’ representative M would pay back the borrowed money immediately if they lend additional money to another company due to the difficulties of the KJ of the said company.”

However, even if the Defendants and K borrowed money from the victims, they did not have the intent or ability to repay the money borrowed from the victims after taking over the P.

Defendants and K received 478 million won as a loan from the victim on March 23, 2009, from the victim, in the name of one bank account in the name of Defendant A. 3)

2. Defendant C (securities counterfeited and forged).

On March 11, 2009, the Defendant stated that, in the form of a promissory note at the Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, the Defendant’s office in Seocho-gu, Schocho-gu, Scho-si, Scho-si, Scho-si, Scho-si, J in the issuer column and Q in the address column, respectively. On the same day, the Defendant posted a false promissory note to M who is unaware of the forgery at the same place.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising this, the Defendant forged a promissory note under the name of J, Inc., a securities company, and exercised it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Previous convictions: Each inquiry letter (A), investigation report (verification of criminal records of suspects), court rulings, etc., written judgments, statement of agreement assistance to cases (defendant A), written judgments of Suwon District Court (2016Do132 (2) and Supreme Court rulings of 2016Do1962 (3) (related to Defendant A);

[Paragraph 1] Defendant A, B

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and B

1. Each legal statement (or some legal statement) of the witness K (Defendant A and B), A (Defendant B), B (Defendant A), C, and M;

1. Some statements in the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution against K;

1. Responses to financial transaction requests, statements of transactions by account, material facts reports, written agreements, copies of each real estate register, promissory note, contract document concerning the creation and execution of real estate collateral, public disclosure of occurrence of charges of embezzlement, full certificate of the registered matters, certified copy of the register, and details of transactions;

[Article 2] Defendant C1. Part of Defendant C’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of K, A, B, and M (or a legal statement in part);

1. The suspect examination protocol of K by the prosecution;

1. Reports on material facts, promissory notes, certificates of contracts related to the establishment and implementation of real estate collateral, public disclosure of the occurrence of crimes of embezzlement, full certificate of registered matters, and certified copy of the register;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act: Defendant C: Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act (a) and Articles 217 and 214(1) (a) (a point of exercising counterfeited securities) of the Criminal Act;

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant A and C: The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. and P take over and takes up Defendant A as a director, and then borrowed money from the victim of the family to which he/she belongs as the acquisition fund, and did not attract or take part in fraud. Since he/she repaid the amount equivalent to KRW 970 million exceeding the amount of damage before the victim’s family complaint was filed, it cannot be deemed that there was a criminal intent of deception and fraud.

B. There is no fact that Defendant B did not participate in the fraud related to the P acceptance fund. In relation to the P acceptance fund, Defendant A asked Defendant A to borrow KRW 250 million for the P acceptance fund, but Defendant A merely borrowed money from Defendant A regardless of P acceptance, on the ground that only KRW 100 million was loaned to Defendant A, and Defendant A did not conspired or participate in the commission of fraud. Defendant CK, Defendant A, and Defendant A’s request, written each of the “State JJ” in the issuer column of the promissory note paper without any choice to be stated on the issuer column of the promissory note paper, and Gyeonggi-do-do Q in the address column, but the JJ letter was not affixed. Although K and Defendant et al. were to be discarded after keeping this mold only, they subsequently signed and sealed the seals of JJ at will and then did not effect notarial acts.

2. Determination

A. As to each of the crimes of frauds against Defendant A and B

1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged.

① The majority, the representative of the victim clan, consistently participates in the judicial acquisition by Defendant A, who is the representative of the clan, has consistently lent the acquisition fund of the clan real estate as collateral, he/she can be registered as an executive and received monthly wages, and he/she also lent money for the trust and acquisition fund by promising to provide the funds for the family funeral business of the clan, and thereafter, he/she borrowed money for another company as it is necessary to provide the funds for the acquisition of another company, and during that process, K and Defendant B, etc. also stated that the funds were more needed.

② Defendant C, who was seeking to raise the acquisition fund through K, etc. while promoting the takeover of J, was to prepare and deliver a promissory note in the name of J as stated in the above criminal facts at the time of borrowing KRW 300 million from the victim’s clan, which was conducted by K, Defendant A, and Defendant C’s repeated request. On the same day, Defendant C prepared a written agreement on the establishment and execution of M and real estate collateral (4 rights 69,70 pages of investigation record) at the hotel guest room in which Defendant B was able to do so. The content is that J was provided as collateral by the victim’s clan, and J issued a promissory note and delivered KRW 500 million to M and delivered it to the victim’s clan, and the obligation of the JJ is that Defendant C is the responsibility of Defendant C.

③ After Defendant A borrowed an additional amount of KRW 478 million from the victim’s clans, K, Defendant A, and B drafted a written agreement on the establishment and implementation of real estate collateral with M around March 25, 2009 (the 4th page of investigation record). The content is that P was provided as collateral by the victim’s clans, P was issued a bill of KRW 900 million and delivered it to M (However, P was decided to substitute the balance of KRW 3.9 billion since P was an acquisition due to a special agreement, it was decided to pay the balance of KRW 3.9 billion with the bill of exchange) to the victim’s clans. P’s responsibility is K, Defendant A, and B’s responsibility. Moreover, K, Defendant A, and B issued a promissory note of KRW 900 million with the face value of KRW 900 million and KRW 100 million with the promissory note on the same day and notarized on the same day by the issuer’s name on March 1, 2009.

(4) Of the borrowed money from the victim clans, there is no money actually used as the acquisition fund of J or P Co., Ltd. for the acquisition fund. Around March 11, 2009, Defendant B used 200 million won of cash borrowed as hotel expenses (3rd 179, 226, 228 pages), Defendant A used part of the amount individually (3rd 179, 227 pages of investigation records) and Defendant A remitted 50 million won of the amount to K. On March 23, 2009, Defendant A stated that Defendant B used 30 million won of cash borrowed from the victim’s clans (30 million won of investigation records) and Defendant A stated that Defendant B borrowed 30 million won of cash borrowed 30 million won of the borrowed money (30 million won of the borrowed money of KRW 478 million of the borrowed money of KRW 378 million of the borrowed money of KRW 300 million of the victim’s loan of KRW 300 million of the victim’s loan.

Ma filed a claim against the Defendant C for a payment order for the quasi-bill amount, and around August 2009, K, Defendant A, and B made a confirmation of the fact that, in fact, KRW 300 million loans to the Defendant C as security for the victim’s clans real estate to the Defendant C is the right transaction with K, Defendant A, and Defendant B, unrelated to the J acceptance, and the interest is paid at the rate of the interest rate, and the payment was made by K and Defendant B (No. 4 of the Investigation Record 166).

2) In full view of the above facts and circumstances, K, Defendant A, and B provided that, although there was no plan to use the funds as the acquisition fund of J or P Co., Ltd., in fact, they borrowed money directly to M for the acquisition fund of the company, they provided that Defendant C, who promoted the J acceptance of the company, requested to prepare a promissory note and a contract related thereto of the issuance of the J acceptance of the company. The above Defendants also prepared a contract that the borrowed money is related to the P acceptance of the company, and issued a promissory note and notarized it to M, and used part of the borrowed money in installments. In light of this, K, Defendant A, and B can be fully recognized that they conspired to acquire money for the purpose of acquisition by deceiving M.

3) Meanwhile, as seen earlier on March 23, 2009, the borrowed money was repaid on or around March 11, 2009, and according to the evidence submitted by Defendant A, the document was prepared to the effect that M was fully repaid by the Defendant’s wife, etc. after transferring the real estate (or shares) in the name of the Defendant’s wife, etc. to a person related to the Defendant’s clan, and that M was fully repaid by the Defendant’s clan. However, it is recognized that the document was written to the effect that M was fully repaid by the Defendant’s clan, but it is merely a normal reason after the establishment of the crime of fraud, and does not interfere with the establishment of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this court as to Defendant C’s crime of forging securities and the crime of exercising forged securities, Defendant C may be recognized as having forged securities by affixing the seal of the JB on a promissory note, which was issued to Defendant C, and exercised by delivering it to M.

① The entry of Defendant C’s part on the issuer of a promissory note was made at the law firm Taesan or its neighboring certified judicial office on March 11, 2009. The said promissory note was made in the democracy of the law firm on March 25, 2009. As to the place where J’s seal is affixed to the said promissory note, and the circumstances in which the act of authentication of a promissory note was not made in the law firm Taesan, it is somewhat unclear that M’s statement is somewhat unclear. However, Defendant C made a statement that Defendant C’s seal was stamped directly by the law firm, and Defendant A also affixed Defendant C’s seal to the promissory note. K did not have a clear memory in this court, but was stamped at the time of March 11, 2009, and was stated to the effect that Defendant C’s seal was affixed to the prosecution.

② After the preparation of a promissory note in this court, Defendant A stated that Defendant C demanded the face value of the promissory note by telephone, and KR also stated that it was difficult to treat the note because it was not recovered within this frame. If the note was not sealed on the note at that time, Defendant C’s above demand and the fact that K was not recovered is difficult to deem that there was a reason to brue the fact that the note was not recovered.

Defendant C had been promoting the acceptance of J at the time, and was registered as a director of the above company. Defendant C asserted that K had requested for the issuance of a bill by J and again. It appears that Defendant C was due to the fact that Defendant C had been in a position to use his seal as a director of J Co., Ltd. On the other hand, it is difficult to view that K et al. had to make the said request again to Defendant C, if K et al. had affixed his seal as Defendant C’s assertion.

④ As of March 11, 2009, the agreement on the establishment and performance of the real estate security (as of March 11, 2009, No. 4:69,70 of the investigation record) prepared by Defendant C entered into with the Defendant C, the J shall deliver the bill of exchange to the injured clan and recover it and deliver the original bill of exchange. The obligation of the J shall be the responsibility of Defendant C. Defendant C. Accordingly, Defendant C’s name and seal as the acting representative of J Co., Ltd. (which cannot be deemed contradictory to the agreement that did not affix the above company seal to the bill of exchange). This is naturally premised on the fact that the bill of exchange is issued under the name of J Co., Ltd. and the Defendant C bears the responsibility for the issuance of the bill of exchange, and that the bill is issued and sealed under the name of J Co., Ltd. as a matter of course.

⑤ As seen earlier, K, Defendant A, and B filed a claim against J, Inc. for a payment order of the amount of the Promissory Notes, and the fact that the amount of the loans from the clan C is unrelated to the acceptance of J Co., Ltd. (166 pages of investigation record) was written, but there was no indication that Defendant C’s seal was affixed on the promissory Notes.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

Defendants: Imprisonment of one month to fifteen years;

2. Scope of recommendations;

Defendant B4: General Fraud. Type 3 (at least KRW 500,000, less than KRW 5000) Basic Area (at least KRW 500,000,000)

3. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant A, B: 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor, and 3 years of suspended execution, the said Defendants, in collaboration with K, by deceiving the victim’s clan, thereby deceiving the victim’s clan in total. The amount of fraud is larger and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the details and methods of the crime.

However, Defendant B is merely a part of the actual use of the above money, the second fraud amount of KRW 478 million in front of the above money is repaid, and the entire amount of KRW 778 million cannot be deemed as damage to the victim’s clan. Defendant A made an effort to repay the above money, Defendant A does not want punishment, and Defendant A should consider equity with the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the previous conviction. In addition, the above Defendants’ age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be considered as favorable to the Defendants, and the punishment shall be determined as set forth in the order.

B. Defendant C: 10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution, Defendant C forged a promissory note under the name of J Co., Ltd., and avoided its liability even though it was exercised by delivering forged promissory note to M.

However, under the circumstances favorable to the defendant, the following should be taken into account: (a) the commission of K, etc. led to the crime; (b) the benefit therefrom is deemed not to have been obtained; (c) there is no property damage to J, a holder of the issuance title; and (d) the equity in the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the previous judgment, etc.; and (d) other factors such as the defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime; (e) the means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the

Part of Innocence (part against Defendant A and B)

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant A and B, through the same method as stated in Section 1-b (b) of the judgment at the location described in Section 1-b (b) of the judgment, deceiving the representative M of the victim L, and received KRW 50 million from the victim as the Defendant A’s single bank account.

2. Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted by this court, although the principal of the victim's clan borrowed from S as security the real estate owned by the victim's clan is KRW 50 million, the victim's clan obtained a total of KRW 4780 million after deducting the interest of his line from S and paid it as a loan to the defendant A. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the amount acquired by the victim's clan jointly by the defendant A and B as the above KRW 478 million, and even if the victim's clan bears the obligation to S with regard to the excess amount, it shall not be deemed that the defendant A and B acquired it from the victim's clan.

Therefore, under the premise that the money acquired by the Defendants from the victims is a total of KRW 50 million, the facts charged constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) shall be sentenced to not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of the facts charged. However, inasmuch as it is found that the Defendants guilty of fraud by deceiving KRW 478 million as stated in the judgment, it shall not be sentenced to separate

Judges Jong-jin

Judges Kim Jae-han

2) On March 11, 2009, the injured clan borrowed KRW 300 million from R from the bonds company as collateral and lent the real estate owned by the injured clan to the defendant A, etc.

However, R directly remitted the above money to Defendant A’s account.

3) On March 23, 2009, the total sum of the victims was to borrow 550 million won from S as collateral real estate owned by S from the bond company on a prior interest, etc.

The deducted cash of KRW 4778 million is received and lent to Defendant A, etc.

4) Defendant A is in a concurrent relationship under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the sentencing guidelines do not apply, but refer to this. Defendant C

In the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, the sentencing guidelines are not applied, and the crime of forging securities and exercising the same is based on the time of prosecution.

The sentencing criteria do not apply to this case.

5) Since it is a concurrent crime of the same kind, the type shall be determined on the basis of an amount calculated by adding the amount of profit of fraud, and if the type increases in one step as a result of addition

the lower limit shall be reduced by 1/3.