Of the facts charged in the instant case, the fraud against the victim Nonindicted 4 is acquitted.

1. Fraud against the victim non-indicted 1

Around April 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the △△△△△△△△△△ located in the Sinnan area of Australia, stating, “The Defendant would allow 4 family members to receive the citizenship of the head of Australia within three months from the 100,000 square meters of Australia on the pretext of expenses, because there are many persons who want to move to the head of the household,” to the victim Nonindicted 1 and his husband Nonindicted 3.

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to obtain the family citizen's right normally from the victim's family members within three months.

Around May 9, 2008, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as such, received in cash the amount of USD 25,000 from the victim; (b) around May 9, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 102,647,315 ("102,617,315 won" stated in the indictment appears to be erroneous in calculation) from the victim; (c) received KRW 102,647,315 ("102,617,315 won" stated in the indictment) from the victim under the same name of 23 times from the time to February 21, 2013; or (d) received money from the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant.

2. Uttering a falsified investigation document;

From May 9, 2008 to July 25, 2008, the Defendant was not issued with the citizen rights of Australia as promised by Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 1 to receive a total sum of USD 53,500 from the above Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 1. Accordingly, around the end of January 2009, Nonindicted 1 demanded the Defendant to urge that “In order for the Defendant to enter a high school of Australia by February 2, 2009, the citizen rights need to be exercised, and the commitment should be observed.” The Defendant forged and created the citizen rights of Australia under the name of Nonindicted 2 of the above Nonindicted 1, as soon as the Defendant was acute to the above Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 1 gathered to exercise the citizen rights of the Defendant and the Australia by accepting it.

피고인은 2009. 1.말경 호주 시드니 파라마타 지역에 있는 △△△△에서 공소외 1을 만나 그 무렵 피고인이 불상의 방법으로 위조하여 온 공소외 2에 대한 호주 이민청 장관(Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) 명의로 발급된 2007. 3. 6.자 호주 시민권증서(Evidence of Australian Citizenship) 1장을 공소외 1에게 건네주었고, 공소외 1은 2009. 1.말경 호주 시드니에 있는 ◎◎◎◎◎◎ 고등학교에서 아들인 공소외 2의 학교 입학을 신청하면서 위조된 위 시민권증서를 그 위조 사실을 모르는 위 학교에 근무하는 성명불상의 담당자에게 교부하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, exercised one copy of the Australian citizenship certificate against Nonindicted Party 2, which was made in the name of the Minister of Justice of the Immigration Office of Australia, which is a private document regarding a forged fact-finding.

3. Violation of the Resident Registration Act.

On March 14, 2013, the Defendant filed a false report on the resident registration with the public official in charge of resident registration as if the Defendant was living in the actual place of residence, even though the Defendant did not have transferred the fact in the office of Suwon-gu, Busan, Suwon-gu, Busan ( Address 2 omitted) to the ▽▽▽△△ 204.

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 3 and 10

1. Some of the suspect interrogation records of the defendant by prosecution;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 3

1. Each police statement against Nonindicted 3

1. The statement of Nonindicted Party 1 (Evidence No. 433 pages)

1. A set of copies (Evidence of 504 pages);

1. Details of each account (Evidence of 440 pages, 646 pages), details of account transactions (Evidence of 491 pages);

1. A copy of the Australian citizenship certificate and a forged citizenship certificate;

1. Criminal records;

1. Investigation report (Evidence records, 390 pages);

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud, Selection of Imprisonment), Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the use of a falsified document, the choice of imprisonment), Article 37 Subparag. 3 of the former Resident Registration Act (Amended by Act No. 12279, Jan. 21, 2014); and Article 37 Subparag. 3 of the former Resident Registration Act (Amended by Act No. 12279, Jan. 21,

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the amount received from the victim is the amount received for the purpose of extending the visa, or the amount received from the business relationship with the victim with the business relationship with the victim, and that it is not the amount received by deceiving that they received permanent residence rights.

2. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, it is reasonable to determine that the victim paid money to the defendant for the purpose of obtaining permanent residence rights, not only for the purpose of raising the visa but also for the purpose of obtaining permanent residence rights, and that the defendant deceivings the victim to obtain permanent residence rights.

(1) The defendant has received illegally permanent residency from those who wish to obtain permanent residency in Australia without any qualification certificate to vicariously file an application for permanent residency in Australia.

② Around December 13, 2002, the victim entered Australia as a tourist visa and was dismissed in around 2005, and was introduced to the Defendant during the appeal procedure.

③ At the time, the victim was in need of citizenship or permanent residence to enter the school of his child at that time.

④ Nonindicted 3, who is the husband of the victim, stated that the court and investigation agency of this case paid money to the defendant as shown in the annexed crime list, and the victim prepared a written statement with the same content.

⑤ From April 2008, the Defendant stated that there was a deficit in performing the duty of extending the visa of the victim, and that there was a receipt or remittance of cash including the receipt of cash twice from the victim on the pretext of expenses for extending the visa, etc.

6) It is difficult to view that Nonindicted 11’s e-mail (Evidence 2) submitted by the Defendant alone does not constitute money that the Defendant and the victim would pay to the Defendant.

According to the above evidence, the defendant received money from the victim from April 2008, acting as an agent for the victim's family members to apply for permanent sovereignty, and as seen above, the victim must have citizenship or permanent residence to enter the victim's children. In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to determine that the defendant issued a forged citizenship certificate as stated in the judgment.

around March 208, Nonindicted 4 introduced “Nonindicted 7” and “Nonindicted 8” as a person eligible to receive the permanent residence of Nonindicted 4’s family through Nonindicted 9. The aforementioned “Nonindicted 7” and “Nonindicted 8” and “Nonindicted 8” in the coffee shop located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on March 2008, they may receive permanent residence rights from Nonindicted 4 on the part of Nonindicted 4 when they enter the Australia (the Defendant) at the coffee shop located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. On the other hand, Nonindicted 4 made a false statement to the effect that “If they enter the Australia as a three-month holiday, they shall send USD 60,000 for the expenses incurred therein.”

However, even if the defendant or the above "Nonindicted 7" and "Nonindicted 8" receive money from Nonindicted 4, they did not have an intention or ability to obtain permanent residence from the victim's family members.

In collusion with the above “Nonindicted 7” and “Nonindicted 8”, the Defendant deceivings the victim as such, and he received USD 60,000 (limited to KRW 49 million) from the victim through Nonindicted 9 on April 3, 2008, thereby deceiving the victim.

2. Determination

The Defendant asserts that there was no receipt from Nonindicted 4 of 60,000 as stated in the above facts charged, and that there was no deception that Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 7 conspired with Nonindicted 7 that they received permanent residence rights.

According to Non-Indicted 5’s legal statement, the witness stated that Non-Indicted 4, the husband, paid 60 million won directly to the Defendant at the time of the preparation of the written complaint against the Defendant. Non-Indicted 4, the witness, at the court and investigation agency of this case, remitted 49 million won to Non-Indicted 9’s account, and thereafter, he made a statement that the Defendant was paid 30 million won from the Defendant, and Non-Indicted 4 made a statement that he paid 60,000 won to the Defendant. At the time of the police investigation, Non-Indicted 4 made a statement that the Defendant was only one time on August 2009 at the time of the police investigation, and Non-Indicted 4 made a statement that was about 30,000 won to Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 99, Non-Indicted 4, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Non-Indicted 97,000 won was paid to Non-Indicted 4,000 won other than the Defendant’s account.

In light of these circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was paid 60,000 dollars from Nonindicted 4 solely on the above circumstance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above facts charged is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

【Scope of Recommendation】

General Fraud> Type 2 (at least KRW 100, but less than KRW 500,00) > Basic Area(1-4 years)

【Special Convicted Persons】

None

Second Crimes (private documents)

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 1 (Counterfeit, Alteration, etc. of Private Documents) : Basic Area (6-2 years from June to 2) of the Act on the Forgery, Alteration, etc.

【Special Convicted Persons】

None

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: 1 to 5 years

【Determination of Sentence】

Considering the fact that the defendant does not reflect, that the victim is punished, that the defendant obtains a large amount of money in connection with his/her permanent residence from abroad, and that the crime is very poor, such as the issuance of a forged passport.

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

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Ha fixed-si