Note 2) Events such as false entry and public electromagnetic records;

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Of the facts charged in this case, the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the fraud committed on December 29, 2010, and the fraud committed against Nonindicted 7 are acquitted, respectively.

Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 14, Non-Indicted 15, the managing director, and Non-Indicted 1, etc., who are the representative director of Non-Indicted 17 corporation, have access to the seller Non-Indicted 28, even though there is no intention or ability to purchase the land, and purchase the land owned by the victims after purchasing the land. However, as a safety device to prevent double selling of the land to the victim Non-Indicted 28, who has no knowledge of the business, such as the provision of security, etc., by deceiving the victim of the right to collateral security, and have the victim sign a document establishing the right to collateral security, etc. on the land. The Defendant borrowed funds from the bond business operator using the right to collateral security, and

Around June 28, 2011, the Defendant, upon Nonindicted 1’s order, concluded a sales contract with the victim Nonindicted 28 at the office of Nonindicted 17 Co. 28, the victim Nonindicted 28, at the time of the return of knsung (hereinafter “Sknsung”) on the condition that the purchase price of KRW 420 million, the down payment of KRW 60 million, and the balance of the purchase price of KRW 853 square meters, which is the victim Nonindicted 29 owned by Nonindicted 29, the victim Nonindicted 28 and the victim Nonindicted 28 were paid within four months. The Defendant concluded a sales contract with the victim Nonindicted 28 on the condition that “it would not immediately move the sold land because the land was a land transaction permission zone, and set up a collateral security right to prevent double selling until the balance is paid with the land transaction permission zone.”

However, the defendant and the above non-indicted 1 did not have the intention or ability to purchase the above land from the victims, and they thought that they borrowed money from the bond company after being provided with the documents establishing the right to collateral security from the victims.

The Defendant and the above Nonindicted Party 1, as such, deceiving the victim Nonindicted 28, received from the victim Nonindicted 28 a written contract to establish a collateral security agreement, etc. on each of the above lands from the victim Nonindicted 28, and on the same day, set up a collateral security for 350 million won for each of the above lands owned by the victims as joint collateral, and borrowed KRW 20 million from the above Nonindicted 35.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with the above non-indicted 1, etc., and acquired profits equivalent to the security value of each of the above land from the victims.

" 2015, 57"

The defendant and the non-indicted 6 had the right to use the forest land as collateral with the amount of 635 square meters in the wife population ( Address 7 omitted) at the time of permission of the non-indicted 7 (the age of 62), and had the right to use the forest land as collateral for the payment of the down payment to the non-indicted 7, who received the power of attorney and received another power of attorney and received the right to receive the loan additionally, and the non-indicted 6 led the contract with the non-indicted 7 and the defendant gathered to offer the name necessary for the contract.

1. Forgery of private documents;

피고인, 공소외 6은 2011. 4. 7.경 용인시 (주소 13 생략)에 있는 수원지방법원 ◁◁등기소에서, 위 피해자의 인감도장이 날인된 백지 위임장 채권최고액란에 ‘120,000,000원’, 채무자란에 ‘피고인’, 근저당권설정자란에 ‘공소외 7, 용인시 처인구 (주소 14 생략) ▷▷마을 ♤♤♤♤♤아파트 (동, 호수 1 생략)’, 근저당권자란에 ‘공소외 9, 파주시 (주소 15 생략) ◈◈◈◈ ◐◐마을 (동, 호수 2 생략)’라고 기재하였다.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 6, the Defendant forged a letter of proxy in the name of Nonindicted 7, a private document on rights and obligations.

2. Uttering a falsified investigation document;

In collusion with Nonindicted 6, the Defendant, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), submitted a forged power of representation to the above-registered public official on his name as if it were duly formed.

3. Note 5) False entry into public electromagnetic records.

The Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 6, had a registry official, who registered the above real estate, enter false facts in the official electronic record identical to the register of real estate, by making a false report on the public official on the establishment registration of a mortgage on the said real estate, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 120,00,00,000, the debtor, the defendant, and Nonindicted 9, in collusion with Nonindicted 6.

4. Note 6) Any event, such as false entry and public electromagnetic records.

In collusion with Nonindicted 6, the Defendant committed an event by having him keep public electronic records containing false facts at the time and place specified in paragraph (1).

" 2015, 58"

1. Joint criminal conduct by the Defendant and Nonindicted 6

A. Fraud against the victim Nonindicted 30

Defendant and Nonindicted 6 had the victim Nonindicted 30 (year 68 omitted) borrow and use money as security (name 16 omitted) and had the victim stand joint and several surety within the scope of the purchase price for the payment of the purchase price, and had the victim take a joint and several surety for the amount that is larger than the purchase price, thereby having the victim take the remainder other than the amount delegated by the victim, and Nonindicted 6 took the lead in the contract with the victim, and the Defendant came to gather the name necessary for the contract.

On February 10, 2010, the defendant and non-indicted 6 made a false statement that "The defendant and non-indicted 6 would not incur any damage to the repayment of the borrowed money within three months because they want to purchase the above amount of KRW 70 million because there is a lack of money in order to purchase the above amount of KRW 17 million," and that "the defendant and non-indicted 6 did not intend to purchase the above amount of KRW 70 million." However, the defendant and non-indicted 6 did not intend to purchase the above amount of the victim.

The defendant and the non-indicted 6 accused the victim and caused the victim to borrow KRW 120 million from the non-indicted 36 to the non-indicted 36, and around that time, the defendant and the non-indicted 6 had their joint and several sureties carry out the joint and several sureties, who received the borrowed money, paid KRW 70 million as agreed to the victim, and used the remainder KRW 50 million as agreed to the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant and the non-indicted 6 acquired the property interest of KRW 50 million equivalent to the guaranteed debt amount from the victim in collusion.

B. Fraud against the victim Nonindicted 31 note 8)

Defendant and Nonindicted 6: (a) had the victim Nonindicted 37 (years 53) managed by Nonindicted 31, who borrowed and used the money as security ( Address 18 omitted); (b) had Nonindicted 37 used the money as security for the payment of the purchase price; and (c) had the victim use the money as security; and (d) had the victim use the money as security more than the scope of the actual delegation; (b) had the victim receive the difference by receiving the loan; (c) Nonindicted 6 took the lead in the contract with Nonindicted 37; and (d) had the Defendant gathered to offer the name necessary for the contract.

피고인, 공소외 6은 2011. 1. 12.경 광주시 ■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■에서, 공소외 37이 관리하는 그의 부 피해자 명의의 위 답을 16억 5천만 원에 매입하는 매매계약을 체결하면서 공소외 37에게 “계약금 4억 원의 일부인 3억 5,000만 원을 지금 주겠으니, 계약금을 담보하기 위해 위 토지에 근저당권을 설정해주면 2011. 2. 22.까지 나머지 계약금 5,000만 원을 지급하고 2011. 5. 30.까지 잔금 12억 5,000만 원을 지급하겠다.”고 거짓말을 하였다. 그러나 사실 피고인, 공소외 6은 위 토지를 매입할 의사가 없었다.

Defendant and Nonindicted 6, as such, by deceiving Nonindicted 37 as such, obtained documents necessary for the creation of the right to collateral security from Nonindicted 37 on January 12, 201, and borrowed KRW 550 million in total from the said answer, setting the right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 1.1 billion.

Accordingly, the defendant and the non-indicted 6 acquired profits from the victim's property share equivalent to the security value of the land.

2. Around December 23, 2009, the Defendant purchased the instant sales contract at a mutually incomprehion located near Gwangju-si ( Address 19 omitted), jointly with Nonindicted 38 on the part of the victim Nonindicted 32 (Age 54), 2,397 square meters, and around February 2010, the Defendant, who was requested by the victim to cancel the said contract, was in the same manner as he/she was entitled to cancel the said contract on his/her own. However, the Defendant did not have been delegated the right of rescission by the said Nonindicted 38, and the said Nonindicted 38 did not waive the ownership of the said reply.

On March 2, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained 40 million won from the victim for the cancellation of the sales contract on March 2, 2010 and acquired the refund amounting to 40 million won.

" 2015, 59"

On October 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 17:15, in front of the police box in Suwon-si, the Defendant issued to Nonindicted 3, the victim Nonindicted 3, “(vehicle number omitted) to sell the BMW vehicle at KRW 23.5 million. Of the purchase price of the vehicle, the Defendant first paid KRW 10 million out of the purchase price of the vehicle, and the remainder KRW 13.5 million to whom the sales price is actually paid.”

As a result, the Defendant sold the above vehicle to the head of Ansan-si whose personal information is unknown on the same day and embezzled it under the name of his personal debt repayment and living expenses while receiving KRW 21 million in the name of the purchase price of the vehicle from the head of the Tong of Bront Bank (Account Number omitted) in the name of Non-Indicted 39 used by the Defendant.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 28 and Nonindicted 40

1. A complaint (Nonindicted 28);

1. A copy of a real estate sales contract, a copy of a distribution schedule, a copy of a written decision on auction of real estate, a copy of a full certificate of registered matters;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of the judgment of the case such as Defendant's fraud, etc.);

" 2015, 57"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Part of the legal statement of Nonindicted 6

1. Some statements among the suspect interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 6 by the prosecution

1. Part of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant against non-indicted 6 statements

1. Each police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 22 (including the statements made by Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 20)

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 21, and Nonindicted 8

1. Statement made by the complainant;

1. Complaint;

1. A certified copy of the real estate register, special agreement made pursuant to a real estate sales contract, application for registration of establishment of neighboring mortgage, each receipt and promissory note, and each loan agreement

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 4, 5, 6, 7, 32 in the list of evidence);

" 2015, 58"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Part of the legal statement of Nonindicted 6

1. Part of the interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 6 by the prosecution concerning Nonindicted 6

1. Prosecutorial suspect interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 41

1. The prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant against non-indicted 37 statements

1. Part concerning Nonindicted 6’s protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 42 in the prosecutor’s office

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 43 Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 44, and Nonindicted 37

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 41, and Nonindicted 32 note 11), and Nonindicted 45

1. Among each police interrogation protocol against the defendant, the statement made by Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 44, and Nonindicted 36

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 30 and Nonindicted 38

1. Each complaint;

1. Recording notes;

1. A detailed statement of transactions in each passbook, an application for registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, power of attorney, certificate of personal seal impression, real estate sales contract, loan certificate, each copy of each real estate register, each receipt, each real estate sales contract, a copy of each real estate sales contract, a copy of each promise execution statement, a copy of a certificate of personal seal impression impression, a copy of a copy of a bankbook, a copy of a civil works and construction design service contract, a copy of a certificate

1. An investigation report (attached documents for the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage), each investigation report (Evidence List Nos. 64,66);

" 2015, 59"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 33

1. Automobile registration certificate;

1. Each investigation report (the Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 19 of the evidence list) and each internal investigation report (the No. 10, 13, 14 of the evidence list);

As to the facts of “2014 High 693”, the Defendant provided the name of the debtor in reliance on Nonindicted 1’s horse and the name of the debtor. However, Nonindicted 1 was unaware of the plan to acquire the loan after the establishment of the right to collateral security, while Nonindicted 1 was unaware of the plan to acquire the loan.

Even if the Defendant conspireds with Nonindicted Party 1, etc., it is merely aiding and abetting the Defendant to offer the name of the debtor.

2. Determination

A. As to whether Non-Indicted 1 et al. conspired to commit fraud

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant may fully recognize that Nonindicted 1 conspired with Nonindicted 1, etc., knowing that he/she was planning to acquire the loan after establishing the right to collateral security.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

① When entering into a sales contract with the victims, the Defendant stated that “in order to prevent double selling, the Defendant would pay the balance within four months from the date of the preparation of the documents establishing the right to collateral with a safety device until the balance is paid, because it is impossible to make a registration immediately as an area subject to land transaction permission” to the victims Nonindicted 28, and there was no demand that the Defendant pay the balance within four months. Accordingly, the victim Nonindicted 28 was aware that the Defendant set up the right to collateral with the Defendant as a collateral.

② However, the Defendant demanded Nonindicted 40 to lend KRW 200 million to Nonindicted 40 million as collateral, and borrowed KRW 200 million from Nonindicted 40 to Nonindicted 40, and set up a collateral under the name of Nonindicted 35 (the husband of Nonindicted 40) on the victim’s land. In light of the foregoing, it seems that the Defendant was well aware that Nonindicted 28 of the victim’s deception to provide the victims’ land as collateral.

③ The Defendant changed that Nonindicted Party 1 responded to Nonindicted Party 1’s demand by Nonindicted Party 1 to make a purchase and sale contract with the victims under the name of the Defendant, and to borrow money from Nonindicted Party 40, with the purchase and sale of money. However, the Defendant, upon Nonindicted Party 1’s demand on November 20, 2010, concluded a purchase and sale contract with Nonindicted Party 2 to receive a reduction of KRW 10 million in cash from Nonindicted Party 1, and it is difficult to believe that Nonindicted Party 1 responded to the above demand on December 29, 2010 upon Nonindicted Party 1’s demand to receive a reduction of KRW 10 million in cash, while Nonindicted Party 1 stated that he had entered into a forest sales contract with Nonindicted Party 4 around December 29, 2010.

④ On January 4, 2010, the Defendant has been convicted of a four-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the same method of fraud from this Court (2009No4251).

B. As to whether aiding and abetting constitutes an act

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and examined by this court: (a) the Defendant directly purchased money from the victims and entered into a sales contract with the victims; (b) the Defendant borrowed money from Nonindicted 40; and (c) the Defendant was essential and important in committing the instant crime; (b) the Defendant requested the victim Nonindicted 28 to establish a right to collateral security to prevent double selling; and (c) the victim Nonindicted 28 only accused the Defendant; (d) the Defendant did not file a complaint; and (e) the police investigation did not fully mention Nonindicted 1; and (e) Nonindicted 40 also did not make any statement about Nonindicted 1 in the police investigation, the Defendant can be deemed to have been in a joint principal position beyond mere aiding and abetting.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

Articles 347(1) and 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) and 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 231, Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 231, Article 30(3) of the Criminal Act, Article 231, Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 234, Articles 231, and 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 228(1), Article 30(2), Article 229, Article 228(1), Article 30(2), Article 229, Article 228(1), and Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1)(the choice of imprisonment, Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 35(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 35(3) of the Criminal Act (the selection of imprisonment with labor, Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes with Punishment and Punishment provided for in Fraud against Non-Indicted 31 who is the most severe victim)

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

(a) Note 12) Fraud

[Determination of Punishment] Form 1 (less than KRW 100,00) of the Organizational Fraud Act>

【Special Convicted Person】

[Decision of Recommendation] Basic Field

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months to 3 years

(b) Crimes of forging private documents and uttering of falsified private documents;

[Determination of Punishment] Forgery, Alteration, etc. of Private Document Crime Group :

【Special Convicted Person】

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Six months to two years of imprisonment

(c) Crimes of false entry into public electronic records, etc. and uttering of false entry into public electronic records;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (Non-business, Non-Organization) of the Act on the Forgery, Alteration, etc. of Official Document Crime Group :

【Special Convicted Person】

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from 8 months to 2 years

(d) Embezzlement;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) for Embezzlement/Misappropriation Crime Group 1

【Special Convicted Persons】 Members not subject to punishment

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from one month to ten months

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, along with Nonindicted 1, by deceiving the victim Nonindicted 28, provided the victim Nonindicted 28 and Nonindicted 29’s land as security by deceiving the victim Nonindicted 1, etc., to offer the victim Nonindicted 28 and Nonindicted 29’s land as security, by forging the power of attorney with Nonindicted 6, thereby creating a false mortgage on the land of Nonindicted 7, and by inducing the victim Nonindicted 30, by deceiving the victim Nonindicted 30, thereby making the joint and several sureties take money from the bonds company, and allowing the bonds company to offer the victim Nonindicted 31’s land as security. In addition, the Defendant acquired money from the victim Nonindicted 32, and embezzled the proceeds of sales of the vehicle of the victim Nonindicted 33, and the Defendant embezzled the proceeds of the instant crime.

Considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant had been convicted of having committed a similar real estate fraud and had been under the suspension of execution, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he had been under investigation by the victim Nonindicted 30, etc. even though he had been under investigation by the victim, and that there was a history of having been punished several times due to fraud, etc., and that there has yet to be a history of punishment for the victim, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 30, and Nonindicted 32.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant’s confession that most of the instant crimes were led by the Defendant, the fraud committed against the victim Nonindicted 28 is difficult to view that the Defendant led, and the fact that Nonindicted 31 and Nonindicted 33 agreed smoothly with the victim, etc., the Defendant shall be considered as favorable to the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant shall be punished as per the disposition, taking into account all the circumstances,

A. Summary of the facts charged

The representative director of Nonindicted Co. 17, the managing director, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 15, and Nonindicted 15, the managing director, and Nonindicted 1 et al., who had no occupation, are in progress, and the Defendant, etc., who had no intention or ability to purchase the land, purchased the land and developed the land as the site of electric source after obtaining permission or capacity to conduct land transaction permission, development permission, and division procedures, without any intention or capacity to purchase the land, and after obtaining a seller’s consent or capacity to do so, the victims’ land was purchased. The victims’ land was purchased after deceiving the victims who had no knowledge of business such as the provision of collateral and permission for land transaction, etc. by deceiving them as necessary documents for the land transaction permission, etc., and made them sign the documents, etc. for the establishment of a collateral security on the land by using the collateral security, and the Defendant

1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in December 3, 2010

On November 2010, Nonindicted 1, 14, and 15 suggested the victim Nonindicted 2 to purchase five parcels of land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Nonindicted 2’s land”), including the purchase price of KRW 2 billion, KRW 30 million, KRW 30 million, and KRW 1,577 square meters, KRW 869 square meters, KRW 869 square meters, KRW 370, and KRW 12,812, and KRW 12,000,000, KRW 200, KRW 300,000, and KRW 300,000,000, and KRW 4 months after the completion of the civil engineering works, which were owned by the victim. The consent of the victim was obtained.

On November 29, 2010, the aforementioned Nonindicted Party 1, etc., at the Office of “○○ wave” operated by Nonindicted Party 16, a credit service provider located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area, around November 29, 2010, the Defendant applied for a loan to Nonindicted Party 16 as a debtor according to the above public offering, although Nonindicted Party 1, etc. knew that “The above land was located within the land transaction permission zone, and thus, is likely to obtain land transaction permission, and is likely to obtain land transaction permission, and in order to develop it into a electric source housing site, the above land, the average number of which is about 5,906 square meters, is about 90 square meters in several names, and may commence the civil construction work and pay the purchase price. The land transaction permission, development permission, and division procedure, etc., and actively cooperate with the preparation of documents necessary for the above procedure.” The Defendant received the request from Nonindicted Party 1, etc. upon being aware that there was no intention or ability to proceed with the land transaction permission, development permission and division procedure.

On December 3, 2010, the Defendant and the aforementioned Nonindicted Party 1, etc. deceiving the victim as such, presented the right to collateral security and superficies creation contract, etc. prepared in advance by the victim to the victim or the victim at the △△ Man-dong located in the wife Kim Jong-dong on December 3, 2010, and explained that it is necessary for the land transaction permission, etc. explained by the said Nonindicted Party 1, and received signatures from the victim who caused mistake on the right to collateral security and superficies establishment contract, and received the certificate of seal impression and seal impression along with the certificate of seal impression, and borrowed KRW 70 million from the above Nonindicted Party 16.

Accordingly, in collusion with the above non-indicted 1, 14, and 15, the Defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 700 million from the victim.

2) Fraud on December 29, 2010

On December 29, 2010, Nonindicted 1 explained the same purport as the above paragraph (1) to the victim Nonindicted 4, and required the victim Nonindicted 2 to prepare for a seal imprint and a certificate of personal seal impression. The victim Nonindicted 2 applied for a loan to Nonindicted 16 as an obligor in the manner described in the above paragraph (1) by suggesting an agreement on land transfer prepared in advance to the victims, and by carrying out a land transaction permit and a permission for development of Nonindicted 4’s land with Nonindicted 4’s forest land use consent (hereinafter “the forest land”) with the 4,288 square meters (hereinafter “Nonindicted 4”) located in the Gando-si-si-si-si-si-si (hereinafter “Nonindicted 4”).

However, the defendant and the above non-indicted 1 et al. did not have the intent or ability to conduct the procedure of land transaction permission and development permission in order to purchase the land from the victim, and the documents signed by the victims were not documents necessary for land transaction permission, but the loan repayment agreement, etc. serving as the basis for establishing the right to collateral security.

The Defendant and the above Nonindicted Party 1, etc., by deceiving the victims as such, signed by the victims in writing on the loan repayment agreement, and obtained each seal imprint certificate and a certificate of seal impression, set up a collateral on the same day with the maximum debt amount of KRW 180 million as a joint collateral, and borrowed KRW 120 million from the above Nonindicted Party 16.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with the above Nonindicted 1, 14, and 15, acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 120 million from the victims.

B. Determination

1) Legal principles

Since fraud is established by deceiving another person and omitting his/her dispositive act by inducing such dispositive act, the act of dispositive act here means property dispositive act. It requires that the defrauded, subjectively, recognizes the consequences of dispositive act, namely, the dispositive intent, and is in an objectively controlled intent. Even if the Defendant received a certificate of seal impression for sale of real estate and a certificate of registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant, etc., and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant, etc., it cannot be said that there was a dispositive act regarding the victim’s real estate, and therefore, it does not constitute fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do1289, Jul. 13, 2001; 201Do769, Apr. 14, 2011).

(ii) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① Around November 29, 2010, Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 1 entered into a sales contract with Nonindicted Party 2 to sell Nonindicted Party 2’s land in KRW 2 billion, and to receive KRW 300 million as a down payment at the time of the contract. The said sales contract is a special agreement, and the remainder shall be paid within four months after the completion of civil engineering works. The seller provides a buyer with a written consent to land use and a security necessary for the establishment of a written consent to land use at his/her own request. The seller provides all necessary documents, etc. at the time of the construction permission and registration to the maximum extent possible.

② Meanwhile, around December 2, 2010, Nonindicted 3, 10, 11, 12, and 13 loaned the sum of KRW 700 million to the Defendant through Nonindicted 1, an operator of Nonindicted Company 17, through Nonindicted 1, who operated the credit business and the loan brokerage business, under the trade name of Nonindicted 16, which was “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” and, as a security, set up a collateral and superficies on the land of Nonindicted 2.

③ On December 3, 2010, Nonindicted 16 remitted KRW 700 million to the Defendant via the account with Nonindicted 23, an employee of Nonindicted 23, who was an employee of ○○ wave.

④ Around December 3, 2010, Nonindicted 2 signed the respective collateral security and superficies creation agreement on the land of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 16, etc., or on Nonindicted 2’s written confirmation, and delivered the said documents, seal imprint, seal imprint, and seal imprint to Nonindicted 1.

⑤ On December 24, 2010, Nonindicted 4 sold Nonindicted 4’s forest land to KRW 165 million between Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 1, and entered into a sales contract with the effect that Nonindicted 4 would receive KRW 20 million as a down payment at the time of the contract. The said sales contract is a special stipulation, and the remainder payment shall be paid within four months after the completion of civil engineering works. The seller provides a buyer with a written consent to land use and a security necessary for setting up the said parcel at his/her own cost. The seller provides all necessary documents, etc. at the time of the construction permission and registration to the buyer and the purchaser, and cooperate to the maximum extent possible. The seller sets up this land due to the occurrence of land transaction permission area, tax settlement, permission cost, civil construction cost, etc.

④ On the other hand, around December 29, 2010, Nonindicted 5 loaned KRW 120 million to the Defendant through Nonindicted 16, and on the security, Nonindicted 5 decided to have the right to collateral security and superficies on the forest land of Nonindicted 4.

④ Around December 29, 2010, Nonindicted 4 issued a seal imprint, a certificate of personal seal impression, etc. to Nonindicted 1 with respect to the right to collateral security and the creation of superficies on the forest of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 16, etc. or on the forest of Nonindicted 4.

④ Nonindicted 16 wired the Defendant KRW 120 million over three occasions through an account with Nonindicted 23 on the same day.

9) For the foregoing reasons, the right to collateral security and superficies was established on the land and the forest land of Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4 as follows:

Details of the registration of the attached real estate contained in the main text, including the right holder of the right to the registration and other non-indicted 2’s land; the contract establishing the right to the mortgage as of December 3, 2010; the debtor; the non-indicted 300 million won of the maximum debt amount as of December 3, 2010; the debtor; the debtor; the non-indicted 10 million won of the maximum debt amount as of December 3, 2010; the debtor; the debtor; the non-indicted 11, and the non-indicted 12 (Joint Security; the non-indicted 200 million won of the maximum debt amount as of December 3, 2010; the contract establishing the right to the mortgage as of December 3, 2010 to the non-indicted 1,500,000 won of the maximum debt amount as of December 3, 201, the debtor; the defendant; the non-indicted 13,1300,000 won of the forest land; the duration of the non-indicted 13.

3) Determination

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., ① Nonindicted 2 consistently from the investigative agency to the land transaction permission area. Nonindicted 1 et al. stated that “the land was a land transaction permission area, and there was no document related to the creation of the right to collateral security.” Nonindicted 4 stated in the investigative agency that “the document necessary for the land transaction permission is affixed to the seal and the document related to the creation of the right to collateral security is different.” Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4 stated that “The document related to the establishment of the right to collateral security was not prepared.” Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4 sold their own land and forests, and Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4 did not receive the down payment of KRW 20 million from the Defendant and Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4 did not have any other obligation to establish superficies and the right to collateral security against the Defendant’s property and the right to collateral security, and there was no reason to acknowledge that Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4 did not have any other obligation to create the right to collateral security and obligation.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325.

2. Fraud against Nonindicted 7

A. Summary of the facts charged

The defendant and the non-indicted 6 had the victim non-indicted 7 (years 62) borrowed the money as security ( Address 7 omitted) forest land and 635 square meters (hereinafter "the forest of this case"). The defendant and the non-indicted 6 had the right to use the forest as security for the payment of down payment. The defendant and the non-indicted 6 had the right to use the forest as security, and the victim received the power of attorney with other proxy and received the right to use the right to collateral additionally and acquired the money. The non-indicted 6 was willing to take the lead in the contract with the victim and provided the defendant with the name

On April 5, 2011, the defendant and non-indicted 6 made a false statement to the victim that "If the real estate is offered to purchase the above forest in KRW 300 million as security, the defendant and non-indicted 6 shall use it as a down payment and shall pay the remainder of KRW 270 million until June 15, 2011." However, the defendant and non-indicted 6 did not intend to purchase the victim's real estate.

Defendant and Nonindicted 6, as such, had the victim deceiving, had the victim, and had the documents about the above forest taken place from the victim around April 7, 201, borrowed KRW 100 million from the bondholder after establishing the right to collateral security on the forest.

Accordingly, the defendant and the non-indicted 6 acquired the remainder of KRW 70 million, excluding the above KRW 30 million delivered to the victim among the above KRW 100 million.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① Nonindicted 7 requested Nonindicted 20, who had been engaged in real estate brokerage, to sell the instant forest, and Nonindicted 6 asked Nonindicted 21 to find out the land to be purchased. Nonindicted 21 asked Nonindicted 20 to find out the land to be purchased. Nonindicted 21 asked Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 20 introduced the instant forest to the Defendant and Nonindicted 6 via Nonindicted 21.

② The Defendant and Nonindicted 6 collected the remaining money excluding the down payment of KRW 30 million as security after borrowing KRW 100 million from the forest of this case.

③ On April 4, 2011, Nonindicted 6 asked Nonindicted 8 to “whether the Defendant may lend money as security to the Defendant’s real estate construction.” Nonindicted 8, along with the Defendant and Nonindicted 6, set up the instant forest, and Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 9 decided to lend KRW 100 million in total to the Defendant as security, respectively.

④ On April 5, 2011, the Defendant and Nonindicted 6 met with Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 20, etc., and Nonindicted 6 proposed that Nonindicted 7 sell the instant forest in KRW 300 million, and that “it is intended to undertake construction works in the instant forest. There is a separate person who invests the construction cost, and that a sales contract and a document establishing a right to collateral security is required to receive a down payment,” and demanded the establishment of a right to collateral security regarding KRW 30 million for down payment. Nonindicted 7 received this.

⑤ On April 7, 2011, the Defendant and Nonindicted 6 met with Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 20, etc., and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with Nonindicted 7 to purchase the forest of this case at KRW 300 million (the contract amount of KRW 30 million, the balance of KRW 270 million, and the remainder of KRW 200 million).

(6) On the other hand, upon Nonindicted 8’s request, Nonindicted 22, who is an employee of the certified judicial scrivener office, prepared in advance an application for registration of the right to collateral security with respect to the forest of this case with the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million, the debtor, and the mortgagee Nonindicted 8, the maximum debt amount of KRW 120,000,000,000,000 with respect to the application for registration of the right to collateral security with respect to the establishment of the right to collateral security, the debtor, the defendant, and the mortgagee Nonindicted 9, and set up a letter of delegation for the establishment of the right to collateral security with respect to Nonindicted 8

7) After that, Nonindicted 8 remitted KRW 30 million to Nonindicted 7 in the name of Nonindicted 34, and Nonindicted 8 paid the Defendant a provisional amount of KRW 60 million with the exception of prior interest and the cost of establishing the right to collateral security.

2) Determination

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances were revealed: ① Defendant and Nonindicted 6 requested Nonindicted 7 to establish a right to collateral security on the forest of this case to pay the down payment of KRW 30 million; ② Defendant and Nonindicted 6 did not have known Nonindicted 7 that they would create a right to collateral security on the forest of this case with KRW 10 million borrowed from Defendant and Nonindicted 6; ③ Nonindicted 7 knew that the right to collateral security would be established in an amount equivalent to KRW 30 million; ③ Nonindicted 22, an employee of the office, prepared an application for registration of the right to collateral security and power to collateral security and affixed his seal on the application form for registration of the right to collateral security and proxy; ④ Nonindicted 7’s real estate brokerage and Nonindicted 7’s real estate brokerage, as well as the fact that there was no evidence suggesting that there was no intention to establish a right to collateral security on the forest of this case, and there was no other reason to acknowledge that the remainder of the Defendant’s sale of the forest of this case was 30 million won.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325.

Judges Oral (Presiding Judge) Lee Don-hee

Note 1) Since it is apparent that the name of the crime as stated in the instant indictment is a clerical error, the term “unwritten entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed” is corrected to “unwritten entry in the official electronic records.

Note 2) Since it is apparent that the use of the original notarial deed, which is the name of the crime as stated in the instant indictment, is a clerical error, it shall be corrected by the “use of the notarial deed, etc.,”

3) Although this part of the indictment of this case is written as set out in Section 1(a) below, the indictment of this case was modified as above, except for the part not guilty as set out in Section 1(b) below.

4) The prosecutor indicted the Defendant for the pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 200 million borrowed from Nonindicted 35. However, according to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, this part of the fraudulent act is that the Defendant, by deceiving Nonindicted 28 of the victim’s non-indicted 28 and creating a collateral security right in the name of a third party to use the victims’ real property as security for the transaction with a third party. The Defendant’s pecuniary advantage acquired is reasonable to deem it as “the security value of the victim’s land,” and it is recognized that there is no substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense in light of the progress of the trial, and thus, it is corrected ex officio as above. Meanwhile, the prosecutor indicted this part of the facts charged under the Criminal Act as a fraud. Since the value of the pecuniary advantage acquired in the Criminal Act is not a matter of

Note 5) A prosecutor was indicted as an offense of false entry in the authentic copy of a notarial deed, but this appears to be an error, and thus ex officio correct it.

Note 6) A prosecutor was indicted as a crime of uttering of the original notarial deed, but this appears to be an error. Thus, ex officio correction is made.

The prosecutor indicteds the defendant and the non-indicted 6 against the victim about KRW 50 million (=the amount of KRW 120 million borrowed by the defendant, the non-indicted 6 - the amount of KRW 70 million paid to the victim - the victim 70 million). However, according to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, this part of the fraudulent act was committed by the defendant and the non-indicted 6 by deceiving the victim and allowing the victim to jointly and severally guarantee their obligation, so it is reasonable to view the financial profit acquired by the defendant and the non-indicted 6 as "property profit equivalent to the amount of the guaranteed obligation" and in light of the progress of the trial, it is recognized that there is no substantial disadvantage to the defendant and the non-indicted 6's exercise of the right to defense, and thus, it is corrected ex officio as above, but the amount of financial profit is KRW 50 million as stated in the indictment.

8) The prosecutor charged the victim of this part of the fraud with Nonindicted 37, the defrauded, who was the victim of the fraud. However, according to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, this part of the fraud crime was committed by the Defendant and Nonindicted 6, by deceiving Nonindicted 37, thereby creating a right to collateral in the future in the real estate owned by Nonindicted 31, thereby allowing the third party to use the real estate owned by Nonindicted 31 as a collateral for the transaction with a third party. It is reasonable to deem this part of the fraud crime to be the victim of the fraud to be the real estate owner, and it is recognized that there is no substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense in light of

9) The prosecutor indicted the defendant and the non-indicted 6 to acquire property profits equivalent to KRW 200 million (=the amount of KRW 550 million borrowed by the defendant and the non-indicted 6 - the down payment of KRW 350 million paid to the non-indicted 37). However, as seen earlier, the defendant and the non-indicted 6 acquired property profits that can be used as security for the transaction with the third party. The property profits acquired by the defendant and the non-indicted 6 should be deemed as the "value of the victim's land as security" and the above correction shall be made ex officio because it is recognized that there is no substantial disadvantage in the exercise of the defendant's right to defense in light of the progress of the trial. Meanwhile, the prosecutor indicted this part of the facts charged under the Criminal Act as fraud, and did not separately determine its value.

Note 10) Contents of Nonindicted 36’s statement

Note 11) Contents of Nonindicted 38’s statement

Note 12) Fraud against the victim Nonindicted 31 constitutes a mitigation area, and the scope of recommending punishment is “one year to two years of imprisonment.”