147 days of detention before this judgment is sentenced shall be included in the above sentence.

1. The facts at the office of the non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. located in Changwon-si (hereinafter omitted) around November 11, 2003, notwithstanding the fact that even if the goods were supplied from the customer due to the above financial condition, they did not have the intent or ability to pay the price properly. However, by showing the attitude that the representative director of the non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd. would be able to pay the price of Alumin raw materials to the non-indicted 3, a representative director of the victim non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd., the member received from the above victim company the delivery of the amount equivalent to KRW 93,520,00 in the market price of Alumin raw materials from the above victim company, that is, from around that time to April 16, 2004, he shall acquire them by acquiring the total amount of KRW 3,141,642,524 won from the market price of Alumin raw materials in the attached Table

2. On December 18, 2003, the office of the victim non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd. located in Changnam-dong (hereinafter omitted) received a discount from the victim company due to the above financial condition, and the fact is false to the effect that "to pay for the bill on the face of the payment on the face of the bill at a discount" was received from the victim company 97,329,100 won under the pretext of the discount of the bill from the victim company, i.e., the amount equivalent to KRW 97,329,100 from that time until April 13, 2004, and acquired it by receiving the total amount of KRW 792,203,850 under the pretext of the discount of the bill from the victim company for eight times in total as shown in the attached list of crimes (2) from that time to April 13, 2004;

3. Around March 22, 2004, at the original branch of the Victim Credit Guarantee Fund located in Chang-si, Chang-si, and the facts, despite having no intention or ability to repay the principal and interest of the loan even if a new loan was made from a financial institution due to the above financial condition, notwithstanding the fact, Nonindicted 4, an employee of the victim, who is an employee of the victim, presented the financial statements of Nonindicted 2, who operated as if the net income for the business year of 2003 was 60 million as if the net income for the 2003 business year was a good financial condition of Nonindicted 2, and then it was done as if the above financial condition of Nonindicted 2, which was 1 billion won, around April 26, 2004, after obtaining a credit guarantee certificate from the original branch of the Industrial Bank of Korea as a collateral and obtained a loan equivalent to KRW 1,250,000,000 from the original branch of the Industrial Bank of Korea as collateral and caused the victim to make a default on April 27, 230004.

1. The witness Nonindicted 3’s legal statement and the witness’s partial legal statement

1. Entry of each protocol of suspect interrogation of the accused by the prosecution and each protocol of suspect interrogation of the police;

1. The prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 3 and each police’s statement

1. Each statement made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 7 and 4

1. Entry of an audit report on Nonindicted Co. 2 prepared by the vice-accounting firm;

1. Entry of a copy of the text of the judgment of the Changwon District Court 2006 Godan1214; and

In relation to the criminal facts of the judgment, the Defendant and his defense counsel denied the criminal intent of defraudation by asserting that the Defendant did not acquire the goods and money of the victim company, since the Defendant received goods or discount money from the victim non-indicted 1 corporation is a normal commercial transaction between the company and the company and the non-indicted 3, the representative director of the victim company at the time of such transaction, is sufficiently aware that it is difficult for the Defendant to do so.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, contents of the crime, the process of transaction, and relationship with the victim, unless the Defendant makes a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2630, Jan. 20, 1998, etc.).

B. In the instant case, the following facts are acknowledged according to each of the above evidence.

(1) Nonindicted Co. 2’s operation of Defendant 2 is a company with approximately 320 employees, including the number of external employees. Since 2002, there occurred a large amount of KRW 2 billion each year since 2002, and sales performance has been reduced due to the low-processing rate of Chinese products in terms of Japanese exports in 2003. From October 2003, the export supply price to be received from the U.S. has not been recovered by half every month.

(2) Accordingly, as of the year 2003, the assets of Nonindicted Co. 2 were approximately KRW 25 billion including land, factory buildings, equipment, etc., and the liabilities amounting to approximately KRW 60 billion including the loans of financial institutions and the cost of goods.

(3) The Defendant, due to such pressure on funds, has delayed the maturity of bills issued and supplied by the Defendant for a period of more than one month. The three-month industries and friendly metals, etc., which were traded with the Defendant, were either suspended the transactions of goods from 2003 or significantly reduced the supply volume, knowing such financial situation of Nonindicted Co. 2.

(4) In addition, from around 2003, the settlement of a bill with its maturity due to the price of supply recovered on the date of maturity, or with a discount by issuing a new bill and receiving a discount from another transaction, and such settlement has frequently increased the risk of default by the company due to the frequent occurrence of the same, such as the settlement being made at the closing of the business of the bank.

(5) The Defendant failed to pay monthly wage and four major insurance premiums, electricity charges and gas charges necessary for factory operation from January 2004, due to the aggravation of such financial situation.

(6) Meanwhile, the Defendant traded goods with the victim non-indicted 1 corporation since 2001. At first, the Defendant supplied goods worth KRW 200 million on an average monthly basis from the victim, but the volume of goods supplied from the victim due to the circumstances, such as the discontinuance of the transaction with the Defendant by other traders, etc., led to an increase in the volume of goods supplied from the victim to KRW 50 million on an average monthly basis.

(7) Nonindicted 3, the representative director of the victim company, did not refuse the discount of the bill in relation to the defendant company and gave discount to the victim company's name. From the last half of 2003, it was difficult for the defendant to receive a bill with the maturity of one month more late from the defendant, but the bill was settled, and thus the defendant's company continued to supply the goods without considering that it would be the date of the defendant's default. On December 2, 2003, when the defendant's financial situation is not good, the amount of approximately KRW 1.2 billion is equivalent to KRW 1.2 billion, even on February 2004, and around KRW 50 million was even supplied to the non-indicted 2, even before the date of default or around 10 days.

(8) On April 27, 2004, the day when the Defendant defaulted, the Defendant was able to settle a bill of KRW 4,70,000,000,000, which is due on the day when the payment was made. However, considering the amount that must be settled on the following day, the Defendant failed to settle the bill on April 27, 2004, and thus, Nonindicted Co. 2 was able to settle the bill on April 27, 2004.

C. In light of all circumstances, such as the economic situation of the defendant at the time when the goods were supplied or the bill discount money was received from the victim revealed the above facts, the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the circumstance and amount of delivery of the victim's goods or the bill discount money, the intention of the non-indicted 3 at the time, the method of settlement of the price for the goods of the defendant, the circumstance of default, etc., the defendant, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the price for the goods and the bill discount money at the time due to the aggravation of the financial situation at the time when the goods were supplied or the bill discount money was received from the victim, the defendant obtained the bill discount money which was continuously supplied by the victim company by omitting the non-indicted 3 on his ability or intent of performance, thereby

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's arguments are not accepted.

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

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (each crime and each judgment in the market shall be sentenced to separate punishment for each crime and each crime in the judgment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-ho and Kim Jong-su