Attorney C, D

E. On December 21, 2015, the first 70 million won of the instant apartment loan contract was purchased from the F, G apartment and 102 Dong 302 (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) and the first 60 million won of the instant apartment loan contract was purchased from the F, and the first 70 million won of the instant apartment loan contract was purchased from the 300 million won of the instant apartment loan, and the third 60 million won of the instant apartment loan was purchased from the 600 million won of the instant apartment loan contract, and the third 60 million won of the instant apartment loan contract was purchased from the 1st 70 billion won of the instant apartment loan contract and the third 70 million won of the instant apartment loan contract was purchased from the 600 million won of the instant apartment loan contract, and the Defendant acquired the first 70 billion won of the instant apartment loan contract with the 600 billion won of the instant apartment loan contract and succeeded to the status of the 700 billion won of the instant apartment loan.

E is confirmed to have made a move-in report from N on July 28, 2016, but it is different to explain what relationship "............, because it is her relative, E is living free of charge.

It means that "no problem exists in granting a loan," and continuously "to send a certificate of free lease" from N in receipt of a request, "it is impossible to prepare a certificate of free lease because it comes to this country," and the defendant came to contact N on July 28, 2016, "I know that the relationship of the seller is transferred to the relationship of the seller," and "I want to leave from the seller because I know it. I want to enter and reside directly."

However, in fact, from November 26, 2015, the lessee was unable to obtain preferential payment right by making a move-in report based on a lease agreement with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 780 million for the instant apartment from November 26, 2015, and residing with the fixed date, and thus, the victim could not obtain preferential payment right by obtaining a fixed date. In such a case, it was impossible for the victim to lend the instant apartment amounting to KRW 635 million as security.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with E, K, and J, by deceiving the victim as above, and then deceiving the victim on July 29, 2016, the Defendant obtained the loan amounting to KRW 760 million from the victim, KRW 75,000,00 among the revenue stamp loans of KRW 6335,50,000 from the establishment of the right to collateral security, and KRW 70,620 among the national housing bonds, and KRW 70,620 on July 29, 2016, and acquired the remainder amounting to KRW 425,258,315 on deposit with the national bank account under the name of E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Copies of each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. A copy of each police suspect examination protocol of 0, K (part of), J (including part of K, K substitute part), P, Q, H, R (part), and S;

1. A copy of each police statement of M or N (including part of the E statements);

1. A copy of the K's partial statement;

1. Copy of the complaint;

1. A copy of the management date, receipt, each real estate sales contract, recording book, data submitted (the details of perusal by transferred households, the whole certificate of a registry company, details of passbook transactions, etc.), certificate of account transaction, certificate of loan transaction, agreement on loan transaction, agreement on collateral security, agreement on deposit transaction, statement of deposit and withdrawal, public statement, respectively, lease/field investigation report, details of transfer households inspection, apartment lease contract, A conditional loan management records, and one copy of each transaction document;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

2. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1119, Feb. 1, 20

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months to fifteen years;

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

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud. Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won)

[Special Convicted Persons] The victim is also liable for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment of one year and six months to four years

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant did not have the same criminal history, accepted some co-offenders' proposal in economic difficult circumstances, and participated in the instant crime. In light of the result of the distribution of benefits among co-offenders, it is difficult to view that the degree of benefits the Defendant earned by the instant crime was significant. The Defendant deposited 10 million won for the victim after the closing of argument, and the victim did not properly confirm the legal relationship between the real estate provided as collateral for the loan and the financial institution, and there is no extenuating circumstance to consider the Defendant as an important cause for the occurrence or expansion of damage. However, the Defendant shared planned and systematic roles with E, K, and J to assess the capacity of collateral and collateral value of the instant apartment, and made it difficult for the Defendant to take into account the fact that there is no need to take into account the circumstances such as the seller and the lessee to take charge of the instant crime by deceiving the employees of the victim, and thus, it is difficult to see that there is considerable need to take into account the fact that the Defendant did not have any significant harm to the seller and the buyer of the instant apartment complex.

Judges Choi Dong-hwan

Judges Kim Gin-han