Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Seized evidence referred to in subparagraphs 1 and 4 shall be confiscated.

A. Defendant

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment in exchange for the purpose of changing the facts charged in the trial, and the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained as the case was permitted by this court.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act by omitting the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal. It is so decided as follows.

【2018 Highest 1147】

1. False entry into public electronic records, and any event such as false entry into public electronic records;

(a) A crime on June 1, 2017;

In collusion with Nonindicted Party 1 on June 1, 2017, the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 paid the total amount of investment for the establishment of Nonindicted Company 2, the Defendant: (a) in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, the Incheon District Court’s registry around 163-ro 163-ro, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City. However, even though Nonindicted Party 1 did not have paid the total amount of investment for the establishment of Nonindicted Company 2, Nonindicted Party 2, the head office of the company, Incheon Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted); (b) the total amount of capital, “15,00,000,000”; (c) the purpose of the “1. Clothing and clothing miscellaneous, clothing Do, Do, 2. Do, Do, Do, Do, and Do, 3. The pertinent distribution business; (d) the director’s application for the establishment registration of a limited liability company; and (d) had a public official in charge of the registration of the electronic data processing system enter it in the said commercial registration system.

(b) Crimes around October 19, 2017;

On October 19, 2017, the Defendant conspired with Non-Indicted 1, which was located in Suwon District Court as the court of the Gyeonggi City, 65, the Suwon District Court of the Republic of Korea. Although Non-Indicted 1 did not have paid the total amount of investment for the establishment of Non-Indicted 3, Non-Indicted 3, the Defendant entered the trade name in the corporate register of the non-Indicted 3, the head office of the non-Indicted 3, the Gyeonggi-do (name 2 omitted), the amount per investment, the amount of KRW 5,00,000, the total amount of the capital, the purpose of which is “10,000,000,000,000,000,000, such as clothes, bagss, shoess, shoess and electronic commerce, mail orders and electronic commerce related to each subparagraph of the subparagraph of the above subparagraph, and the director’s “non-Indicted 1” into the above corporate register and had a public official in charge of the commercial electronic data processing system enter it falsely at the time.

【2018 Highest 1923】

6. Crimes committed on April 18, 2016;

On April 18, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for establishment of a false corporation registration with respect to non-indicted 4 limited liability companies even though the Defendant did not have paid the total amount of investment for the establishment of non-indicted 4 limited liability companies, and had the public officials in charge know of such fact enter the above application in the corporate register of the commercial registration electronic data processing system, and exercised it by allowing the public officials in charge to display the commercial registration electronic data processing system that states the fact of such fraudulentness at that time.

7. Crimes committed on May 10, 2016;

On May 10, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for establishment of false corporate registration with respect to non-indicted 5 limited liability companies even though the Defendant did not have paid the total amount of investment for the establishment of non-indicted 5 limited liability companies, and had the public official in charge know such fact enter the contents in the corporate register of the commercial electronic data processing system, and exercised it by allowing the public official in charge to keep the commercial registration electronic data processing system in which such non-performance is entered.

Articles 347(1) and 32(a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 228(1), 30(a), 229, 228(1), and 30(a), and 228(1), and 30(a), and 228(1), and (7) of the Criminal Act (the fact at the time of sale) of each Criminal Act; Articles 228(1) (the fact of crime at the time of sale; Articles 6 and (7) of the Criminal Act); Articles 229, 228(1) (the fact of crime at the time of sale; Articles 6 and 328(7) of the Criminal Act; Articles 314(1), 313, and 30(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 49(4)2 and 30(3)(3) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Articles 6(3) and (6)(3) of the same Act of each Criminal Act;

1. Aid and mitigation;

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (with respect to the crime of aiding and abetting fraud)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

However, in the trial, the defendant recognized the crime of this case in the trial and against his mistake, the court below agreed with the victim non-indicted 6, non-indicted 7, and non-indicted 8 in the trial, and agreed with the victim non-indicted 9 in the trial court, and for the remaining victim non-indicted 10, the defendant deposited KRW 6 million in the court for the victim non-indicted 9, and there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, part of the charges against the defendant, and other favorable circumstances, such as the circumstances after the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, and environment, and the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case shall be determined as ordered

【2018 Highest 1147】

(a) A crime on June 1, 2017;

In collusion with Nonindicted Party 1 on June 1, 2017, the facts in the Incheon District Court’s registry No. 163-ro 17, the Defendant had no fact that Nonindicted Party 1 established Nonindicted Company 2, the head office of which is “Nonindicted Company 2,” “ Incheon Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted),” the total amount of capital, 15,000,000 won,” the purpose of which is “15,000,000 won,” “1,000 clothes and clothing miscellaneous, clothing bad faith, bad faith, wholesale and retail, 2, children’s clothing and child miscellaneous, 3, the related distribution business, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 100, 100, 15,000 won, 15,000 won, 1,000,0000,0000,000 won, and 3,000,000.

(b) Crimes around October 19, 2017;

On October 19, 2017, the Defendant conspired with Nonindicted Party 1, at the Suwon District Court, which was located in the jurisdiction of the Silsan City of Gyeonggi-si, on the 65th day of the establishment of Nonindicted Company 3, even though Nonindicted Party 1 did not have established Nonindicted Company 3, the Defendant had the name “Nonindicted Company 3”, the head office of the company “Seoul-do,” the amount per investment amount of KRW 5,000,000, the total amount of capital, “10,000,000,” the purpose of which is “1.” Do, such as clothes, bags, shoes, news, books, and paintings, wholesale and electronic commerce related to each subparagraph, 2. 3.”, and 1. The Defendant had a public official in charge of the establishment registration of a limited liability company, who is not aware of such establishment, enter the same in the corporate register of the electronic data processing system, and had the said public official enter such false information in the electronic data processing system.

【2018 Highest 1923】

(a) Crimes around April 18, 2016;

On April 18, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for the establishment of a false corporation registration with respect to non-indicted 4 limited liability companies even though the Defendant did not establish a non-indicted 4 limited liability company, and had the public official in charge enter the entries in the corporate register of the commercial registration electronic data processing system and exercised it by allowing the public official in charge to enter the above mentioned matters in the corporate register of the non-indicted 4 limited liability company and to keep the commercial registration electronic data processing system that contains false facts around that time.

(b) Crimes around May 10, 2016;

On May 10, 2016, the Defendant submitted an application for the establishment of a false corporation to the public official in charge of Nonindicted 5 limited liability companies even though the Defendant did not have established Nonindicted 5 limited liability companies, and had the public official in charge know of such false establishment enter the above application in the corporate register of the commercial registration electronic data processing system, and exercised it by allowing the public official in charge to keep the commercial registration electronic data processing system containing such false establishment.

2. Determination

Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act is a crime, the legal interest of which is to guarantee the public credibility of public documents recognized as special credibility, and is established by having a public official make a false report contrary to the truth with respect to a public official, and enter or register any false fact inconsistent with a special media record, such as the original of a notarial deed or the same electronic record. Thus, even if there is no matter stated in the original of a notarial deed, etc. or there is a defect that is invalid even if there is an appearance, such entry constitutes a false entry (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do9402, Mar. 10, 2006; 2006Do8488, May 31, 2007, etc.).

However, in relation to the act of collective law, such as the establishment of a limited liability company, in order to uniformly determine the invalidity of the act in order to ensure the safety of transaction, even if there exists legal grounds for invalidation, such invalidation may be asserted only by a lawsuit within two years from the date of the establishment of the company, and the person entitled to file the lawsuit shall also be restricted, and even if the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the judgment shall be effective only in the future (Articles 52 and 190 of the Commercial Act). In such cases, on the ground that the establishment of the company reported to the public official in charge of the establishment of the company before the judgment becomes final and conclusive as prescribed by the provision, and thus, the act did not constitute a false report with respect to the public official or an omission in the certified corporate register (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do19133, Feb. 3, 2017, etc.).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant is acknowledged to have made an accomplice prepare false documents without the intention to establish and operate a corporation, or he made a false application for the establishment of a corporation by preparing documents. However, even though the defendant did not have an intention to operate a corporation in accordance with the purpose stipulated in the articles of incorporation, the defendant was at least willing to establish a company and to open an account in the name of the company, and it cannot be deemed that there is no company insofar as the company was actually established and the account in the name of the company was established. In addition, since the establishment of the company as stated in the facts charged was not finalized by judgment, it cannot be said that the defendant had recorded false facts

The charges in this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of facts constituting a crime. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of each crime of false entry in public electronic records, etc. and each crime of uttering of false entry in public electronic records, etc. due to the best payment in the judgment related to the crime

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)