name of the crime: Embezzlement), fabrication of private documents, uttering of a falsified document, and a certificate of perjury;

【Criminal Power】

On April 13, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Suwon District Court, and was released on November 30, 201 and the parole period expired on March 20, 201. On October 31, 2014, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced two years and eight months of imprisonment for fraud, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Embezzlement;

On June 22, 2012, through D, the Defendant sold one of the F Cheongcheon-si Office C’s “C” owned by the victim E from the victim E through D, and paid KRW 500 million out of the sales proceeds to the victim. The amount that the Defendant received in excess of KRW 500 million is entrusted to the Defendant and D, and the Defendant kept the said main electronic for the victim. On July 2, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from H from Daegu-gu G to deliver the said main electronic security.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

2. Forgery of private documents and the display of private documents;

(a) Forgery and events of a written security for goods;

On May 17, 2012, the Defendant had money to receive from a person who was in an internal-related relationship, and agreed to purchase a commercial building located in Bantan instead of money.As a situation is not possible to purchase a commercial building directly, the Defendant demanded the person’s certificate of personal seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression and the certificate of personal seal impression received from I on May 17, 2012.

On May 17, 2012, the Defendant received a request from D to provide collateral against an accident, such as the loss of goods, at an officetel located in Jongno-gu Seoul, and requested D to sell the goods. On May 17, 2012, the name of the goods without authority for the purpose of exercising the right: Before the Joseon Dynasty, the name of the goods: 10 million won per day: J (1050 square meters), and real estate indication: on the security of the said real estate (ownership of joint and several guarantors) by deposit (100 square meters in Gyeonggi-do) by May 23, 2012; on the security of the said real estate (100 square meters in the early May 23, 2012), the Defendant returned the goods that the said goods could not be sold until the said date and returned the real estate to the owner of the property at will, at the time of an accident, the mortgagee of the security right at time of disposal, establishment of the collateral security (hereinafter referred to as "D's name and joint and several (1000 square meters).

Accordingly, the Defendant forged a letter of security in the name of the I, which is a private document on rights and obligations, and exercised it.

(b) the proxy forgery and uttering;

Around December 2012, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 80,000 from H as security; (b) provided Cheong-man’s disease as security; (c) provided Cheong-man’s disease with a liaison with H that Cheong-man’s disease to pay and recover money; (d) however, it became impossible to recover Cheong-man’s disease with a full amount of KRW 80,000 won. On January 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) provided that I would sell N-man’s forest land to I; (b) demanded I’s certificate of personal seal impression and seal impression; and (c) received his/her certificate of personal seal impression and seal impression from I on January 9, 2013.

On January 10, 2013, the Defendant offered real estate as collateral at the request of H at the office of a P judicial scrivener located in Suwon-gu, Daegu, as well as at H on January 10, 2013, and without authority, the indication of real estate for the purpose of exercising the right: 3,469 square meters of Nforest in the Innju-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and the grounds for registration: Contract on January 10, 2013, establishment of a mortgage, establishment of a maximum amount of debt: the debtor: 10 million won, the debtor: K Apartment Lho-si, Gyeonggi-do, I: I: I; I; I; and I; I; I; I; and I; and I’s personal seal imprint; and I was issued as if it was duly formed with H, without knowledge of forgery.

Accordingly, the defendant forged a letter of delegation in the name of the I, which is a private document on rights and obligations, and exercised it.

3. A perjury;

On January 16, 2015, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath at the court of Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court No. 457, Seocho-gu, Seoul Central District Court No. 457, at the above court of 2014da72188 (hereinafter referred to as "related civil litigation") as a witness of the above court's 2014da72188 (hereinafter referred to as "the above case"), and subsequently, a judge who is under the trial of the above case. The defendant testified that "I would make a DNA guarantee to I, stating that I will write the DD guarantee, and accordingly I will write the above written statement and affix I seal." At the time of the preparation of each written statement, the Defendant testified to the effect that "A mobile phone and telephone was made before D, and then changed D after dialogueing D with D."

However, in fact, the defendant received a certificate of personal seal impression and a seal impression under the pretext of the purchase of a commercial building in the same coal, and the defendant did not have obtained a permit from I for the above guarantee, and there was no memory with the defendant either made a currency with him or made him/her make a conversation with D at the time of the preparation of the above letter.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement (or partial statement) of E, I, and D;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A calendar of the calendar of the month (70 million won) (No. 3 of the evidence list);

1. A copy of a record of recording (No. 7 of the evidence list);

1. A power of attorney (No. 12 No. 12 of the evidence list);

1. F major electronic apparatus (No. 15 No. Serials of evidence list) of an applicant for consideration of a certificate of storage of goods;

1. Investigative report (A, Seoul Southern District Detention Center's Recording Note) and a record sheet attached thereto (Evidence No. 64-91 No. 51);

1. Previous conviction: Two copies of criminal records, current status of confinement by individual, report on investigation (verification of concurrent relations under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act), and judgment attached thereto, two copies of investigation reports (where judgment is attached to a suspect's same crime and summary order), and one copy of judgment attached thereto

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (Embezzlement, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act, Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (the use of perjury and the choice of imprisonment) (the selection of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of each Criminal Code (the crime of embezzlement, the crime of forging each private document, and the crime of uttering of each private document, since the parole period has expired on March 20, 201)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (each of the crimes stated in the facts of crime and fraud, etc. for which judgment becomes final and conclusive on January 29, 2015)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the severe penalty and the nature of the crime)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant: (a) stated that it is necessary for the joint and several sureties’s joint and several sureties’s consignment; (b) received a certificate of the personal seal impression and a seal imprint; and (c) confirmed that I had the intent to guarantee in direct conversations with D at the time of the preparation of a certificate of the goods security (Article 2-A of the facts of crime). In the relevant civil litigation, the Defendant testified in accordance with his memory (Article 3).

2. Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant is sufficiently recognized to the effect that the defendant has obtained a certificate of the personal seal impression and a seal impression in the name of I to use the same store in the purchase of the same building in the name of I, but forged the certificate of the personal seal impression and the certificate of the personal seal impression, and used it to deliver it to D without knowing the forgery (Article 2-A of the facts of the crime). In the related civil procedure, the defendant was allowed to prepare the certificate of the personal seal security to "in violation of his/her memory," and the defendant's assertion is not accepted (Article 3 of the facts of the crime).

1) The circumstances where the Defendant and D perjury consultation is held

A) D) On November 14, 2013, the Defendant was arrested and detained on an emergency arrest as stated in the above criminal records, and the Defendant visited the Defendant as a detention house at least 26 times in the relevant civil procedure until he/she testified on January 16, 2015. Of them, the Defendant visited the Defendant at least 10 times in the process of the relevant civil procedure and the 10 times in the presence of the witness by informing the Defendant of the present situation of the relevant civil procedure and the 10 times in the presence of the witness. 1)

B) In particular, D pressured several times to the effect that “If the Defendant uses his personal seal impression and seal impression as alleged in D, the Defendant is bound to file a complaint for forgery of private documents or fraud” (Article 535, 603, 603, 658, 667, 676, and 739 of the Investigation Records). Accordingly, the Defendant lost his/her judgment against I as to whether he/she is dissatisfied with D in the relevant civil procedure or not. We will resolve the problem after the discharge of his/her internal document. I would like to resolve the problem after the discharge of his/her internal document. I would like to say that the Defendant would be able to win the sentence (D) by using a letter to the effect that “I will not execute the execution of the real estate of Do 1 as the party,” and I would like to say that “If you live in the investigation record, I would like to know the Defendant’s life (Article 553, 603, 650, 658, 736, 781).

C) If the defendant uses it for the preparation of the certificate of the seal impression and the certificate of the seal impression related to the consignment sale, and the fact that I and D directly communicates at the time of the preparation of the certificate of the seal impression and the certificate of the goods collateral, there is no reason to make the defendant to make the above request. Also, as D, the defendant is a common response to the defendant's memory. It is not easily understood that it is difficult to force the defendant to file a complaint if he gives testimony differently without such a request.

라) 한편 2014. 10. 8. 접견시 D가 '물품담보각서 작성 당시 피고인이 I와 통화하였고, 피고인이 바꿔줘서 나도 I와 통화하였다.'라고 말하면서 이에 대한 동의를 구하자 피고인이 "나 정말 하나도 생각이 안 나는데, 형(D)이 자세히 써준 편지를 보니 생각이

B. Although the defendant responded to "I had different words of punishment (738 pages of investigation record)" (the above 738 pages), it is reasonable to view that D used to mean that "I had a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of seal impression in the related civil procedure that I had sold the land in the same coal," before the above dialogue, "I had a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of seal impression." In light of the fact that "I had a answer to "I have the end." (738 pages of investigation record), the above answer of the defendant means that "I have no choice but to comply with D's argument rather than examining one's memory as it is, (in light of the recording, it seems that the defendant and D had discussed not only the related civil procedure but also several questions through several interviews)."

마) D는 2014. 5. 10. 접견 시에는 피고인에게 '물품담보각서 작성 당시 네가 와 통화하는 것을 내가 옆에서 직접 들었다. 그러니 당시 네가 와 이야기 했던 것을 편지에 자세하게 써서 나에게 보내라.'고만 말하였는데(수사기록 603쪽), 피고인이 관련 민사소송에서 증인으로 채택된 후인 2014. 10. 8. 접견시부터는 '당시 네가 바꿔줘서 나도 I와 직접 통화하였다.'고 말을 바꾸었다(수사기록 738쪽). 자신이 와 직접 통화했는지 여부는 직접 경험한 사실로서 혼동하기 어려운 부분인데, 이처럼 매우 중요한 부분의 기억이 변경된 경위가 쉽게 이해되지 않는다.

2) Defendant’s attitude of testimony in the related civil procedure

A) On October 8, 2014, the Defendant, at the time of the meeting, stated to the effect that “D(D) is different. I would like to answer the question as to whether he/she would be given a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression by demanding I to present the witness two times or refuse to attend the meeting in the relevant civil procedure, and ultimately, on January 16, 2015, he/she testified that I would be appropriate to receive a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression. This is the same as I stated that I would be issued a certificate of D'. Accordingly, the documents that he/she had within the meeting are corresponding to D. The same is the same as those that correspond to D.) without himself/herself (the investigation record23 pages).

B) This seems to be due to the fact that the Defendant, who was a principal electronic embezzlement (crime 1), proxy forgery and uttering (crime 2-b) of the Defendant’s primary electronic embezzlement (crime 2-b), had caused considerable damage to I, who had been in an internal relationship, made a false statement in the presence of I in order to avoid his punishment, and caused additional damage to I. The Defendant also made a statement to the same effect at an investigative agency (criminal record 455 pages).

3) The credibility of the Defendant’s statement

A) From the beginning at an investigative agency, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the forgery and exercise of a goods security memorandum; and (b) the testimony in the related civil procedure is already being taken place in other crimes; and (c) made a false statement as D’s wishes by taking account of D and E as the primary electronic embezzlement case; and (d) made a false statement. The background leading up to the perjury is consistent with the content of the record of the detention house; and (e) is sufficiently acceptable even in light of the situation of the Defendant’s custody at the time of testimony.

B) Around March 2017, the Defendant first acknowledged the crime of forging and uttering of a written statement to I (15 pages of investigation records). The above crime was committed in a situation where the Defendant did not have a person, and it was in fact difficult to discover it, and rather, it was at risk of criminal punishment by recognizing it. However, the Defendant consistently and specifically led to a consistent and specific confession of the crime to the date of the fourth trial following the preparation of the written statement, it is not difficult to view that the Defendant’s statement was of high credibility [I’s intimidation to make the Defendant prepare the above written statement]. Rather, I’s father embezzled the Defendant’s primary electronic, which was subject to civil litigation from E and was subject to seizure from E, but around December 2016, I would reduce the Defendant’s agreement to KRW 350,000 (or KRW 340,000,000) to KRW 1460,000,000,000).

C) The Defendant, by changing his attitude from the fifth trial date, denied the charge of forging and exercising goods security awareness (Article 2-2(a) and perjury (Article 3(3) of the facts of crime), but if it appears that it would be possible to reach a monetary agreement between I and E during a trial, and if such agreement is reached only, it would not be significantly contrary even if he denies the above facts of crime, and thus, it would be deemed that his criminal liability would be mitigated even if he denies it.

D) The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on October 31, 2014 by committing the crime of forging and uttering three private documents, which was committed around 2013, which was the time adjacent to the crime of forging and uttering of the instant goods security memorandum, as indicated in the record of the criminal records. The Defendant, at the time of trial, led to the confession of all the above criminal facts, and the other party to the crime of uttering of the said private documents, among which the Defendant was led to D as indicated in the instant case. In addition, Article 2-b of the criminal facts of the instant case, which the Defendant led to the Defendant’s confession, is the same as the instant case, in that the crime of forging and uttering the I’s certificate of seal impression and the seal imprint

4) The credibility of I’s statements

A) [The defendant from the relevant civil procedure to this court] consistently stated that "it was only a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression around May 17, 2012, on the ground that he/she purchased a building in his/her name, and that he/she did not know at all the fact that the certificate of personal seal impression was prepared in his/her name until he/she was served with D a payment order issued by D on December 6, 2013." (Investigation Record 24, 27, 69, 137, 167, 285, 387, 462).

B) On the grounds that the Defendant had been served with the above payment order, around December 2013, I sent 1 to the effect that “I would like to resolve the case after having been released.” However, without any explanation, I would like to keep the Defendant in mind after having been released. I would like to know how I would have been detained by the Defendant and how I would like to present the same case. I would like to keep the Defendant in mind for the purpose of preparing a statement to the investigation agency for the first 4th anniversary of having to know that I would like to resolve the case at the time when I made a statement to the effect that “I would not have been detained by the Defendant,” and that I would have to have to keep the Defendant’s statement to the effect that “I would have been released until I would have been released because I would have been the only evidence in the related civil procedure, but I would have to have been aware that I would have been able to resolve the case at the time of the release, I would have to consistently submit a statement to the investigation agency for the purpose of 15th of criminal investigation (4th of 201).

C) From May 22, 2013 to 2013, I believed that the defendant was in an internal relationship with the defendant (I did not file a complaint against the defendant even though he had already known of the crime No. 2-B, which was prior to being detained by the defendant on May 22, 2013, and rather, he would have resolved the case by borrowing KRW 90,000,000 to H. The investigation records 286,290), and before receiving a complaint from E in early 2017, "I will resolve the dispute with E or D with a civil agreement," and it appears that the criminal complaint was not considered in mind (I, even after filing a complaint against the defendant, may withdraw the complaint if only E and the agreement were reached even after receiving a separate complaint). In light of all the circumstances such as the investigation records, I still agree with the following reasons.

5) The credibility of D’s statements

A) In this Court, D stated to the effect that “as at the time of the preparation of the goods security memorandum, D was asked whether it was sent with I for the purpose of guarantee by directly communicating with I.” However, D’s statement is difficult to believe because there are many parts that are difficult to obtain, such as not being completely consistent or contradictory as follows.

나) D는 위 1)에서 본 바와 같이 피고인과 접견시 처음에는 '물품담보각서 작성 당시 피고인이 I와 통화하는 것을 옆에서 들었다.'라고만 말하였다가, 나중에는 '피고인이 바꿔줘서 나도 와 직접 통화하였다.'라고 말을 바꾸었다.

C) It is difficult to understand that D merely asked “I to have a certificate of personal seal impression and a certificate of personal seal impression affixed to the Defendant,” and that “I did not specifically confirm whether the Defendant intended to guarantee the consignment sale on the port of the month.” (No investigation record 165 pages) If the Defendant was unable to be trusted and directly confirmed to I, it would accord with the empirical rule to clarify whether it was the purpose of guarantee on the consignment sale on the port of the month. However, it is difficult to understand that D did not ask I specifically even if it is not any difficult to ask for any question. D is asked in this court that “I has sent a certificate of personal seal impression.” However, it is difficult to believe that D has changed the statement to “I has received the confirmation” (No record 31 pages), but it is difficult to believe that there was a change in the material part of the statement without any justifiable reason to obtain it.

D) D) At any time contact with the Defendant’s signature as a custodian on the custody certificate that he had no awareness of consciousness from the Defendant, and asked the whereabouts of the said main electronic body. However, even though it is not difficult to ask the whereabouts of the navigational registry on November 12, 2013, D did not ask the Defendant on the recording prior to the application for a payment order on November 28, 2013 (I letter 6, investigation records 354 pages), D stated that the land was secured as a security and did not know any other matters than the main electronic body of the Defendant. However, D’s statement that it was difficult to obtain money from the owner of the land that was actually provisionally seized until November 13, 2013, and that it was difficult to secure the amount of money from the owner of the land until November 21, 2013.

E) Around January 2013, D prepares a loan certificate to a beneficiary, and the Defendant obtained one’s certificate of personal seal impression and seal imprint from the Defendant and entered I as a joint and several surety. At this time, it is recognized that I did not directly verify the intent of the joint and several surety (the investigation record 505 pages). At the time, since the Defendant was missing for six months since he did not disclose the primary electronic system of the considerer, the Defendant did not trust the Defendant, and even urging the beneficiary from time to time due to the primary electronic problem of the considerer, it is not entirely difficult to confirm the intent of the joint and several surety, and it is difficult to understand that I did not confirm the intention of the joint and several surety even after the fact that I did not confirm the intention of the joint and several surety.

F) It is difficult to believe D’s legal statement related to criminal facts(1).

D It is clear in this Court that the consignment sale of the main agent of Korea-U.S. in this Court made a statement to the effect that it is not a defendant but a defendant, and that it would not have been known if the defendant would change the main agent of Korea-U.S. The defendant would not engage in any mutual transaction with the defendant (S. 6. 21 pages). However, on January 20, 2015, D shall not attend as a witness of the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014No. 1832 Decided January 20, 2015 (S. 247 of the Investigation Record). The witness responded to the question that "A does not go beyond the main agent of Korea-U.S. in receipt of a custody certificate under the name of the wife of the defendant-U.S. (S.)" (S. 247 of the Investigation Record), and that D's request the defendant for the consignment sale on May 17, 2012.

(No. 40 pages) The statements of D are inconsistent and inconsistent in important parts.

D made a statement that T would go through a direct telephone and sell the main electronic of the Korea Agency for consideration, and that I would request the above main electronic consignment sale to I (hereinafter referred to as 6 pages). However, even though I had been operating a steel-related business at the time, it seems that there was no economic need to receive import through the sale of high art products. However, it is not easy to understand that I, who did not have knowledge or sales experience in high art works, actively asked for the consignment sale.

D and E, upon being subject to the fact-finding survey conducted by the investigative agency with the Defendant and with the Defendant, sent 50 million won to E out of the sales price, and the remainder was divided into the Defendant and D. (Investigation Records 169,171). This shows that the actual subject requested the main electronic consignment sale is the Defendant and I are merely the custodian under the name of the Defendant. D denies the above contents in this court, and only 550 million won for E if I sold the said main electronic. The remainder is all I. The remainder was 50 million won. It is difficult to believe that he made a change in the statement that he received 5-10% fee from E, but it is difficult to understand that there is no obvious possibility of confusion about the part that he made a statement about the said main electronic consignment sale.

D's investigative agencies and court statements generally mean that the defendant's primary electronic embezzlement crime is involved in the defendant's primary electronic embezzlement crime, or there is no reason to participate in the above embezzlement crime for the purpose of the defendant's non-existence of financial capacity and the benefit of the amount of detention.

In light of the fact that there is no circumstance to see, and rather, it is difficult to accept the argument of D in light of the fact that damage caused by seizure, auction, etc. due to the words of a civil or criminal dispute over several years. Rather, there is sufficient room to deem that E and D have made the above argument with a view to compensating for damage by sufficient self-sufficiency rather than Defendant I (I merely interfered with a private person on July 5, 2013 because there is no problem between “the Defendant” and D, and D merely interfered with a private person on the custody certificate because they met with the correspondence every day, and D continued to call for the main electronic issue of the party, which is lost, while D sent a text message that reads that “The time of sending the above message was the time of provisional seizure from E, etc., and that the main electronic issue of the investigation record was not the legal dispute between Korea and Japan, the credibility of its content is sufficient.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than 15 years;

2. The scope of recommending sentencing guidelines according to the application of sentencing guidelines: Each of the instant offenses is not subject to the sentencing guidelines, since the judgment was finalized on January 29, 2015, which stated the criminal records, and the latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

3. Determination of sentence: Two years of imprisonment;

The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by abusing that the holder of a title deed with which the Defendant had internal relations with him was wholly trusted to commit the crime of forging and uttering of private documents, and by making false statements in the relevant civil procedure in order to avoid his punishment, and by arbitrarily disposing of the instrument itself entrusted by the victim with the guarantee of the holder of the title deed, and embezzlement is not very good for the crime to be committed.

The Defendant completed the execution of punishment due to the same crime, and committed the crime of embezzlement of this case again during the repeated crime period. Damage to the crime of embezzlement of this case was limited to the restoration of part before the pronouncement date of the judgment of this case where six years have passed, and due to the forgery and use of the private document of this case, the title holder of the document was suffering from considerable pain due to the prolonged criminal dispute over the private or criminal dispute for a long time. Such circumstance is unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, the circumstances that consider the equity between the criminal facts of this case and the criminal facts of this case, together with the criminal facts of the previous offense under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, should be considered, are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, in comprehensive consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence shall be imposed as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

On June 22, 2012, the Defendant sold the main electronic point of KRW 500 million in consideration of the market price of the victim E from the victim E through D, and paid KRW 500 million out of the proceeds of sale to the victim. The amount received in excess of KRW 500 million, upon request from the Defendant and D, kept the said main electronic unit for the victim. On July 2, 2012, the Defendant embezzled the victim’s property by borrowing KRW 300 million from H from the Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul, to provide the said main electronic unit as security.

2. Relevant legal principles

The crime of embezzlement under Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who keeps another's property has embezzled or refused to return the property, and the amount of the property is not much at issue. However, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (i.e., the value of the embezzled property is at least KRW 500 million or at least KRW 5 billion) is part of the constituent elements of the crime, and the punishment for the crime is aggravated depending on the value of the embezzled property. Therefore, in applying this, the principle of balanced punishment and punishment that the appropriate balance between the crime and the punishment should be achieved by strictly and carefully calculating the value of the embezzled property, should be based on the responsibility and proportional liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2857, May 9, 2013).

3. Determination

A. The prosecutor indicted this part of the facts charged as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) on the premise that the market price of the main electronic of the Korea-Japan is KRW 50 million

B. However, considering the following facts and circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the market price of the above main electronic is KRW 500 million, beyond a reasonable doubt.

1) The value of high-tech art, such as the main organ of the Korea Creativeist, is derived from rare value, and as the transaction is not frequent in the open market, the specific price calculation at the time of the transaction has a characteristic that greatly serves as the main value of the claim assessed by the owner and purchaser respectively. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the objective market price in essence.

2) In this court, the victim E also responded to the question of how the amount of KRW 500 million stated in the certificate of storage of goods is determined by the price of art goods. The price of art goods is not determined. There may be a large change in the market price depending on the economic situation of the game or the owner at the time. In other words, the victim E respondeds to the purport that “the market price has not been determined with respect to the main electronic of the audience in consideration (3-4, 10 pages).” In other words, even according to the victim’s statement, there is no fixed price for the said main electronic. The Defendant also stated that “the amount of KRW 50 million is not the market price but the desired price of the victim.” (hereinafter the record)

3) The victim stated that “the victim purchased 1.5 billion won prior to 15 years prior to the thickness of the 15th century, and that at the time of the instant case, annoyed response would be caused and cash would be required to lower the price,” but it is difficult to readily conclude that there is no possibility of trading at a lower price if the goods traded in KRW 1.5 billion, such as the victim’s statement, can be sold even at KRW 500 million.

4) In fact, around July 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from H, and delivered the said main electronic as security, and H sold the said main electronic in KRW 350 million as the Defendant did not fully repay KRW 300 million (Defendant’s transcript 7-8 pages).

Conclusion

This part of the facts charged shall be pronounced 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 crime. However, inasmuch as the accused is found guilty of embezzlement in the relationship of such crime,

Judges Gin-type money

Judges Shin Jae-ho