(Certified Crime Name Fraud)

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

From August 2005 to May 2010, the Defendant operated an entertainment drinking house in the name of “E” from the first floor and the first floor of the ground located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and operated the entertainment drinking house jointly with F since 2008.

As the Defendant and F1) failed to operate funds while operating the above “E”, through G, which is a hub for loan brokerage, the Defendant and F1 were to obtain a loan of KRW 1 billion as the “loan for a specialized entertainment business establishment (tentatively named ‘defaling’) loan (tentatively named ‘defaling’) lending the credit documents from the H Savings Bank to employees of entertainment business establishments, such as entertainment loans, through G, which are provided by Gangnam-gu entertainment business establishments as security.

The Defendant and F heard the phrase that in order to take a marina loan from the person in charge of the H Savings Bank loan, the Defendant and F must submit the documents on the prepaid loan amounting to 150% of the loan amount as security, and prepare documents as if they mobilized employees who did not receive the prepaid loan and employees who are not employees and paid the prepaid payment in a false manner, and let them receive the loan by deceiving the person in charge of the H Savings Bank loan.

Around September 4, 2009, the Defendant and F, at the above "E" business establishment, have prepared a document of credit claim amounting to KRW 1.51 billion in total for total 27 employees, and submitted a loan application (amounting to KRW 1.1 billion, debtor F, and joint and several sureties) to the employees in the name of the personal finance department of H Savings Bank in Songpa-gu Seoul.

However, 10, among the above employees, 10,000,000 won, such as a contract, cash car, promissory note, and a contract guarantee was prepared in a false credit amount equivalent to 583,00,000 won in total, in spite of the absence of the fact that the Defendant and F was not an employee, and even if not having received the prepaid, it was required by the Defendant and F, as if the person received the prepaid amount was the person.

In collusion with the Defendant and F, deceiving a person in charge of the Victim H Savings Bank as above, and that person shall receive from the victim a total of KRW 385,837,194 won, including KRW 1 billion on September 4, 2009, KRW 350 million on September 8, 2009, KRW 150 million on September 14, 2009, KRW 1 billion on September 14, 2009, and KRW 385,837,194 won from among them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police interrogation protocol of K or L with each police officer;

1. Each police protocol of statement against M and N;

1. Investigation report (E) (the details of telephone conversations made by a person who has prepared a 'E' document), investigation report (the details of telephone conversations made by a person who has prepared a 'E' document), investigation report (the details of telephone conversations made by a person who has prepared a 'E' document');

1. A list of bond documents file, a loan application form, a credit transaction agreement, a collateral guarantee statement, an authentic copy, a certificate of the F personal seal impression, a business registration certificate, a business license certificate, a certificate of the seal impression, prepaid money-related documents (work contract, collateral guarantee, cash borrowing certificate, a certificate of the seal impression), E prepaid statement, and 'E' business concerns falsely;

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Act, Selection of Imprisonment

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account favorable circumstances among the following reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the Issues

1. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel;

E. The Defendant and F, as collateral, must provide credit documents equivalent to 150% of the loan amount as collateral for the instant loan. Accordingly, even if the Defendant and F submitted credit documents equivalent to 1.50 million won in total equivalent to 1.50 million won in the amount of the loan amount to the Victim H Savings Bank (hereinafter “victim Bank”), but the documents on prepaid credit amounting to 583 million won in total were false. Ealving loan was merely merely a formal collateral for credit loans offered as collateral with the sales of the pertinent business establishment as collateral. The amount of sales by BC card is limited to KRW 50 million per month, and there was sufficient collateral for the instant loan. Accordingly, even if the Defendant and F were to have known that the amount of the credit amount was partially false, the Defendant’s prepaid loan documents did not constitute 1.5 billion won in total between the Defendant’s prepaid loan documents and the loan amount of KRW 1.83 million in total and KRW 1.06 million in total, 600 million in total or at least 1.60 million in real amount of the loan amount of KRW 1.6600 million in total.

2. Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts are recognized.

(a) Details of and procedures for marina loan;

1) A marina loan developed by the victim bank around October 2008 is a specialized loan product for the owner of a entertainment business under the terms and conditions of a loan, such as (i) a person operating a entertainment business in the Gangnam area, (ii) a business registration certificate, a business license certificate, and a lease contract with a business operator’s report, and (iii) a person providing prepaid credit equivalent to approximately 150% of the desired amount of a loan is a specialized loan product for the owner of a entertainment business under the terms and conditions of a loan. The victim bank requested that the beneficiary provide credit for a entertainment business operator in order to secure a credit claim by exercising a subrogation claim held by the business operator on his/her employees. The victim bank set a high interest rate of 18-23% per annum by taking into account risks arising from lending a loan to the owner of a entertainment business and reporting only the credit extended to the owner of the entertainment business.

2) The victim bank entered into an entrustment contract with Q and Malking loan-related business establishments operated by P. Q had G having worked for several years at an entertainment business establishment in Gangnam to arrange the victim bank's Malking loan to the owners of Gangnam's entertainment business establishments. The victim bank implemented 80-90 billion won loan for Malking loan from December 2008 to the end of 2010. 3) The victim bank's Malking loan procedure is as follows.

(A) G, a loan broker, finds entertainment establishments which wish to obtain Maaling loans with the owner of the business and consult with him, and introduce entertainment establishments to be financed by the owner of the victim bank, taking an estimate of the amount of the loans, and obtaining a loan from the owner of the R of the victim bank.

B) N, K, etc., an employee of the victim bank visit the pertinent entertainment establishment to conduct an actual inspection on the current status of entertainment establishments, etc., by asking questions about the desired amount of loan, the size of the establishment, the number of employees, monthly sales, the number of studios, the amount of lease deposit, the amount of advance payment, etc.

C) If N, K, etc. reports the current status of the verification visit to the R Deputy Director, the R Department shall, by oral report, obtain a decision on whether to grant a loan to the relevant entertainment establishments from senior executives of the victim bank.

D) On the face of the decision to grant a loan, N, K, etc., upon the direction of the Minister of R, directly visit the relevant entertainment establishment to verify the applicant’s identity or himself/herself, explain documents, the amount he/she received, whether he/she actually works at the establishment, etc., and submit a labor contract, loan certificate (cash storage certificate), certificate of personal seal impression, promissory note, written consent to provide and utilize personal credit information, etc.

E) If N, K, etc. draft an internal document stating "the current status of an enterprise operating specialized commodities" and then put the approval on it in accordance with the approval stamp, the president of the victim bank shall grant the final approval on the Malking loan.

F) When the approval of the president is granted, the bank shall execute the loan by means of remitting the loan amount equivalent to approximately 67% of the total amount of the prepaid bond documents submitted by the proprietor to the proprietor within the scope of the loan limit to the bank account in the name of the proprietor, after having the proprietor, N, K, etc. leave the bank, and preparing and submitting loan documents, such as the loan application, credit transaction agreement, collateral guarantee, and bill subscription documents, etc. from the relevant proprietor and joint guarantor.

(b) Details of submission and lending of documents on the defendant's advanced payment claims;

1) From August 2005, the Defendant: (a) leased the 1st floor underground and the 1st floor above ground in Gangnam-gu, Seoul; and (b) registered a business in the name of F and operated an entertainment drinking club (hereinafter “E”); (c) other partners, including S, left the club business relationship around October 2007; and (d) operated the instant entertainment drinking club along with the Defendant’s management and operation of the business; and (e) from that time, the Defendant was in charge of funds, such as tax, accounting, and employee pay.

2) Meanwhile, around that time, the Defendant also operated an entertainment tavern under the trade name, “U” along with F, by leasing the first floor and the first floor above the ground in Gangnam-gu Seoul, the directly adjacent to the instant entertainment tavern. 3) The Defendant and F invested funds by leasing the second floor above the ground of the building where the “U” entertainment tavern is located in order to obtain funds from other partners and expand the said “U” entertainment tavern. However, the Defendant began to place a fund in the wind where a partner who raised funds refuses an investment.

Furthermore, although the lease deposit of the instant entertainment tavern and the instant entertainment tavern had been increased, the Defendant and F did not pay it, and the Defendant and F did not pay it, so the financial difficulties have increased due to the overdue interest on the existing loan and liquor payment.

4) Under such circumstances, the Defendant and F requested a victim bank to obtain KRW 1 billion operating capital of the instant entertainment tavern through G, a loan broker, around August 2009. The victim bank’s N, K, etc. visited the instant entertainment tavern under the direction of the Minister of R and conducted a verification check on the current status, etc. of the entertainment tavern, such as visiting the instant entertainment tavern by the Defendant and F.

5) On September 2009, N: F, surety: Defendant, loan application ceiling: 1 billion won: 23% per annum; 35 million won per month; high interest rate per account settlement passbook; 125 million won per month; 15 million won per month; 30 million won (T); 15 million won per month; 30 April 30, 2009; 200 million won for the term of contract; 30 billion won for the applicant and the applicant; 1.5 billion won for the applicant and the applicant; 1.5 billion won for the applicant and the applicant; 3.0 billion won in the name of the applicant and the applicant for the new type of business from Gangnam-gu to 2005; 1.5 billion won in the name of the applicant for the new type of business (hereinafter referred to as "E"), and 2.4 billion won in the name of the applicant for the new type of business; 3.0 billion won in the name of the applicant for the new type of business; and 3.

6) On September 4, 2009, the Defendant and F: (a) made an application for loan and a credit loan loan agreement entered into on September 4, 2009 with a maturity of one billion won; (b) from September 4, 2009 to September 4, 2010 to September 14, 2010 (12 months); (c) the obligor F and the Defendant, a joint guarantor; (d) submitted to the victim bank an agreement; and (e) paid 1,51,000,000 won in advance to 27 employees to the victim bank; and (b) received a total of KRW 1,51,00,000 from the victim bank to the bank account in the name of F; and (c) received a loan from the victim bank in total of KRW 350 million on September 4, 2009; and (d) KRW 100,000,00 won on September 14, 2009.

However, documents equivalent to the total amount of KRW 583 million among the documents related to prepaid credit submitted at the time were false documents prepared by those who do not actually work for the entertainment tavern of this case or who did not receive the prepaid payment.

7) From September 21, 2009 to February 14, 2012, Defendant and F repaid the sum of the principal and interest of the instant loans KRW 1,032,151,042. At present, the principal and interest of the instant loans remains in KRW 196,985,778 and interest KRW 481,266,97.

3. Determination on the authenticity of the relevant claims for advanced payment

As seen earlier, at the time of the instant loan, the Defendant and F submitted the documents on the prepaid claim amounting to KRW 1,511,000,000 and received KRW 1,00,000 from the victim bank. Of the above prepaid credit documents, the amount of KRW 928,00,000 (= KRW 1,511,00,000 - 583,000,000) out of the documents on the said prepaid credit is true, and thus, there was no criminal intent to commit deception and defraudation.

Furthermore, in the above recognition facts, N in the police stated that "the lending limit is limited to the amount of loan to be extended to the owner of the company after reporting to the owner of the company who was the head of the department or the owner of the V and the owner of the company approved, and the head of the department decided the lending limit to the owner of the company upon the above decision, and made a loan to the extent that the amount of the lending limit was included in the documents within the determined lending limit," and that the operator of the company of the victim bank stated that "the operator of the bank in charge of the victim bank stated that "the operator of the victim bank did not demand the horseing documents or did not receive 150%" from the police, the lending of the amount requested by the owner of the company is not executed. Since employees take money in proportion to the quantity of the documents collected, it is important to collect marina documents. The lending limit is more than 100 billion won, 100 billion won and 200 billion won, 100 billion won and 100 billion won, 600 billion won and 608 won of the defendant and the victim documents submitted.

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, it is insufficient to view that the 614,162,806 won of the facts charged in this case is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

4. Determination on documents on false prepaid payment claims

A. Relevant legal principles

Degination as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in a widely related property transaction, and it is sufficient if it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, but is related to facts that form the basis of judgment for allowing an actor to perform a disposal act that he/she wishes by omitting the other party in error (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004).

In addition, in order to establish a crime of fraud, there should be a successive causal relationship between deception and another party’s mistake and delivery of property or provision of property benefits, but a crime of fraud is established even in cases where there is negligence on the part of the defrauded among the causes in error (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1697, Jun. 23, 2009).

B. Specific determination

In addition to the above facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant and F shall submit a false prepaid credit document equivalent to KRW 583 million as stated in Article 2-2(b)(6) to the victim bank and have been granted a loan of KRW 385,837,194 (= KRW 1 billion - KRW 614,162,806). Thus, the defendant and F shall not be accepted with respect to KRW 385,837,194 equivalent to the percentage of the amount of the false prepaid credit document out of the prepaid credit document submitted to the victim bank, which is equivalent to the percentage of the amount of the fraudulent prepaid credit document to the amount of the credit document out of the prepaid credit document submitted to the victim bank. The defendant and the defense counsel shall not be accepted. The defendant and the defense counsel shall not be accepted.

1) In the case of marina loan extended by the victim bank, the loan is not executed unless the documents on the prepaid loan are submitted. If the documents on the prepaid loan submitted by the owner of an entertainment business do not reach about 150% of the desired amount of the loan, the number of employees actually engaged in such business as requesting the documents on the prepaid loan or performing only a loan equivalent to about 67% of the amount of the bonds submitted by the victim bank, and the amount of the prepaid loan paid is used as important judgment data when the victim bank finally determines whether to lend the loan and the amount of the loan. Thus, the submission of false prepaid loan documents can be deemed as a fraudulent act on the issue of the instant marina loan and the facts constituting the basis for determining the amount of the loan.

2) The employees of the victim bank visit the entertainment drinking house of this case through an interview with the owner of the business and on-site verification, and the actual inspection of the size of the business establishment, sales, operating profits, and the number of employees, are deemed to have been reported to the executives of the victim bank. In the case of marina loan, since the victim bank’s credit is the last method to recover the loan if the owner of the business and the joint guarantor redeems the loan, barring any special circumstance, even after the first determination of the loan, the bank’s final approval on whether the loan was granted and the amount of the loan amount was actually granted by the bank president on the amount of the desired loan amount, and where the submitted prepaid loan document falls short of this, the credit documents of this case cannot be deemed to have been formally collected or not meaningful after the loan was determined.

3) Since the victim bank did not verify whether the persons preparing the documents related to prepaid credit have actually worked in the instant entertainment tavern and whether they actually received the prepaid payment, it is somewhat negligent in performing its duty of care as a financial institution specializing in loan business. However, since the victim bank’s employees visited the instant entertainment tavern in order to verify whether they worked through individual interviews with employees preparing the documents related to prepaid credit and directly prepare the documents related to prepaid credit after checking the amount of the prepaid credit, the bank’s employees conducted the procedures for investigating and verifying the authenticity of the documents related to prepaid credit as the bank’s name. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the documents related to prepaid credit submitted through such procedures are merely those required documents.

4) The reason why the document prepared by the victim bank with respect to the owner of the business, such as a cash car certificate, work contract, etc., other than the documents prepared by the victim bank, such as a collateral guarantee, a promissory note, etc., is that the underlying relationship between the owner of the business and his/her employees is a labor contract and a monetary loan, and thus, the underlying relationship between the owner of the business and his/her employees is confirmed to verify the obligation and effectiveness of the issuance of the said collateral guarantee and the issuance of the said promissory note, thereby ensuring the authenticity and effectiveness of the said contract and facilitating the vicarious exercise of the claim. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the document prepared by the bank, such as a collateral guarantee, etc., by means of the authentic preparation by the holder of the title deed, is unreasonable or that the content of the document is acceptable

5) In light of the fact that the employees of the victim bank stated in the police that "the documents on the prepaid credit submitted by the amusement business establishment were false, and if known, the loan would not have been executed if", it is difficult to view that the employees of the victim bank knew that the documents on the prepaid credit of this case were false. Even if the employees of the victim bank who visited the entertainment drinking house of this case were aware of such circumstances at the time of the victim bank's visit, the victim bank was authorized to dispose of the property or property interest in fraud. The victim bank's final disposal and decision-making authority in the course of the loan of this case are the president of the victim bank. While the above president is aware of the fact that the documents on the prepaid credit of this case were false, it is difficult to view that there was no special circumstance or need to reduce the loan to the defendant and F regardless of the authenticity of the documents on the prepaid credit of this case. Therefore, since the victim bank did not know that the prepaid credit of this case was false, the causal relationship between the defendant and the victim bank did not exist.

6) As long as the Defendant and F actively submit a false prepaid credit document to the victim bank for the purpose of obtaining the instant loan and received the instant loan from the victim bank, the Defendant and F shall be deemed to have committed the crime of defraudation without examining whether the Defendant and F had the intent and ability to repay the instant loan.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month nor more than ten years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

[Extent of Recommendation] General Fraud Type 2 (at least KRW 100,000, less than KRW 500,000)

[Special Mitigation] In a case where punishment is not granted or a considerable part of damage is recovered;

[Special Persons] The case where the Criminal Code is extremely poor or the case where a crime was committed by deceiving the court in the trial procedure.

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, in collusion with F, submitted to the victim bank the false prepaid claim amounting to KRW 583 million in total by submitting the false prepaid claim amounting to KRW 385,837,194 from the victim bank. In light of such circumstances, the Defendant acquired the loan amounting to KRW 385,837,194 from the victim bank. In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant’s crime of this case is inferior, and the damage amount

However, the victim bank neglected to perform its duty of care required for the financial institution specialized in loan transactions, such as conducting the instant loan without closely examining the authenticity of the instant prepaid loan documents, and it appears to have caused damage or expansion due to the instant crime. In addition, the Defendant is an initial criminal without criminal punishment, and most damage amount caused by the instant crime appears to have been repaid.

In addition, in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the age, character and conduct, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in the same manner as the sentencing of the defendant.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

Around September 4, 2009, the Defendant and F conspired to prepare documents on false prepaid credit amounting to KRW 583 billion in total, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, and submitted the application for loans (amounting to KRW 1 billion, KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) to employees in the name of the victim bank, thereby deceiving the person in charge of the bank of the victim and deceiving it.

2. Determination

As seen in Paragraph 3 of the above "Determination on the Dispute", it is insufficient to view that the criminal intent of the defendant concerning deception and deception on the part of 614,162,806 won out of the damage amount of KRW 1 billion stated in the above facts charged is proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, since the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) fall under the case where there is no proof of criminal facts, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but in case where it is found not guilty in the judgment

Judges Kim Gin-han

Support for judges' organization

2) The ratio of the amount of false prepaid claims to the amount of the documents submitted to the victim bank.

loan of KRW 385,837,194, the part of the loan amount of KRW 1 billion [1 billion X (the amount of the due prepaid bond documents)

1928,000,000 won: Amount of documents on the credit of the prepaid amount submitted to the victim bank, 1,511,000,000 won, and less than KRW 1,511,000);

3) If the injured bank provides a household document (such as an employment contract, cash storage certificate, loan certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, etc.) with the amount of prepaid credit.

The two documents were classified into a letter of guarantee, a promissory note, and a letter of consent for the provision and utilization of personal credit information.

4) Although the amount of advance payment is not explicitly indicated in the actual inspection, an employee of the injured bank shall hold an interview with the owner of the business.

In general, it shall identify the number of employees and the amount of prepaid payments and reflect them in the business status or credit of the business establishment.

I seem to be.