Forgery of Documents, Uttering of Illegal Document

The defendant is the actual operator of E (mutual change to F on December 10, 2013) in the third floor of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building.

1. Forgery of private documents;

A. On the date of preparation, the Defendant entered “1 November 28, 2012,” and printed out to the originator “H Living Support Center I” at a place where it cannot be known at around 2012, “E” in the main text of the “Business Selection Certificate” form using a computer, and signed “I” on the name of the said I as if it were “I”.

계속하여 피고인은 "인테리어 공사계약서 양식의 본문에 "공사명 : G 커뮤니티 센터 신축 공사, 공사장소 : 서울 송파구 G 아파트 단지내, 착공 : 2012년 12월 27일, 공사완료 : 2013년 03월 15일, 공사금액 일금 : 십육억이천팔백팔십만원정(₩ 1,628,900,000)", 작성일자에 "2012년 11월 28일", 수급인에 "(주)E 대표자 J", 도급인에 "(주)H 대표자 H 생활지원센터장 I" 등으로 기재하여 이를 출력한 다음, 위 도급인의 이름 옆에 미리 소지하고 있던 다른 법인의 도장을 위 도급인의 도장인 것처럼 희미하게 찍었다.

Accordingly, the defendant, for the purpose of exercising authority, forged a letter of the selection of the company in the name of I, which is a private document concerning rights and obligations, and a letter of the interior contract in the name of H, respectively.

B. Around March 19, 2013, the Defendant, using a computer, confirmed that the Defendant was selected as a design and construction company through a design contest with respect to the design and construction of new facilities in the G apartment complex in November 2012, the Defendant, at a place not known to him/her on March 19, 2013, stated that the Defendant was “(i) and (ii) “(ii) H management center head I” on the date of preparation, and printed out the seal of other corporations prior to the name of the said contractor as if they were the seal of the said contractor.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising authority, the Defendant forged a letter of confirmation to select a company under one private document, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

C. On July 31, 2014, the Defendant, at the F office located on the third floor of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building, entered them into the form of “K Construction Contract” by means of computers, such as L: “K Co., Ltd.”; “F”; “K Tech”; “K Professor”; “Contract Amount: KRW 2,231,600,000; KRW 3,803,000,000 ( KRW 3,803,00,000); “On July 31, 2014”; “In the preparation date, the Defendant, at the originator, entered them into the name of L Co., Ltd., F and M; and affixed a seal written in advance on the name of L and M.

Accordingly, for the purpose of exercising authority, the Defendant forged the above L/M construction contract, which is a private document related to rights and obligations, respectively.

2. Exercising a falsified investigation document;

A. On December 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (a) presented to P, who is aware of the forgery, a forged G community center construction contract, and a G company selection certificate, as described in paragraph (a) above, as if it were duly concluded, at the office 0 office in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul NEA on the fourth floor; and (b) presented the forged G community center construction contract and the G company selection certificate as if they were duly constituted.

B. In March 2013, the Defendant: (a) presented to P, who is aware of the forgery, a written confirmation of the selection of a forged company, as described in paragraph (1)(b) of the aforesaid Article, and exercised it.

C. On August 2014, the Defendant issued to P the F Office of the F Office of the Bank of Korea a forged K Contract for Construction to P who is aware of the forgery, as described in paragraph (1)(c) of the aforesaid Article, and exercised it as if it was duly formed.

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

From the end of November 2012 to the beginning of December 12, 2012, the Defendant displayed a false Gerreti Complex Construction Contract, and a G company selection certificate to the victim P, as set forth in the above paragraph 1-A, and the Defendant ordered that the Gerreti Center's artificial apartment construction contract be at least KRW 2 billion.50 million will bring profits in the future, but the additional funds will also be given an opportunity to participate in the coffee franchise difference project and other construction projects to be received in the future. The money needs to be borrowed in detail. In the event of construction payment, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim P. The Defendant stated that “The payment will be made.”

However, at the time of fact, at the time of the Defendant’s lending of the above money, the Defendant had forged the construction work contract, and the G enterprise selection certificate presented by the G community center, and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money at any time, even if it borrowed the above money due to the good financial condition of the company.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 22,095,694 from the victim as the borrowed money on December 7, 2012, and acquired KRW 1,579,132,974 in total on 31 occasions from December 7, 2012 to May 12, 2014, by obtaining KRW 1,579,132,974 in total from December 7, 2012 to the account of Q or the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., as indicated in the annexed crime list.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (the sixth court date);

1. Entry of the witness P in the third trial records, and each entry of the witness Q and J in the fourth trial records;

1. Each police statement of P, Q, R and S;

1. A complaint;

1. A forged interior construction contract, a forged company selection certificate on November 28, 2012, a forged company selection certificate on March 19, 2013, a forged K contract, a passbook, a deposit transaction statement, a list of deposits made by a complainant, and matters registered as a corporation;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 231 of each Criminal Code (the use of each private document as a reference), Article 234 of each Criminal Code (the use of each private document), Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Code (the use of fraud, inclusive)

With regard to the fraud, ① the Defendant requested the victim to return money whenever it is necessary to obtain the funds from Q to the effect that he would return money when the Corporation is in progress, and continued to receive money from the victim at intervals of not more than one month; ② during the process, the Defendant failed to perform his obligation by presenting a forged contract several times to the victim; ② used the method of committing the crime of acquiring additional funds by deceiving the victim while avoiding the victim’s demand for repayment; ③ even though the deposited account is changed and the deposit details explained at each time are different, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim without the intent or ability to repay the insufficient funds to raise the insufficient funds, and the victim was unable to deliver money within the criminal period to the Defendant to return the borrowed money, taking into account the motive and method of the instant crime, interval between each crime, and the same opportunity or relationship, the Defendant’s crime of fraud constitutes a single and continuous crime with the same victim for a certain period of time.

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code (mutual between the crimes of forging Private Document No. 1-C., 2-A, and 3)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The punishment of the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is the largest penalty, and the punishment of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is aggravated

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

○ Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

[Determination of Punishment] The amount of not less than 50 million won for general fraud, and less than 5 billion won for fraud (Type 3)

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment for 3 years to 6 years

○ The crime of forging each private document and uttering of a falsified document: since the crime of committing a document was accompanied by the crime of committing the fraud crime, it shall not be treated as a majority crime, and it shall be treated as a sentencing factor only.

3. Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment; and

The Defendant committed a crime by defrauding the victim of approximately one year and six months in total amount of KRW 1.5 billion. The amount of damage caused by the fraud is large, and as if he/she was ordered to complete construction in the course of the crime, he/she is also likely to forge and present a construction contract, etc. as if he/she had the ability to perform payment. Considering the content and consequence of the above Defendant’s crime, the sentence of imprisonment with labor equivalent to the liability for the crime is inevitable.

However, the fact that the defendant makes a confession of all the crimes of this case late, and the victim reflects his mistake, and the considerable part of the money given from Q appears to have been used for the purpose of business fund under Q, and the whole money obtained by the defendant is not deemed to have been personally taken, and the damage was partially recovered, such as being paid approximately KRW 320 million based on the right to collateral security established on the apartment owned by the defendant, and there was no significant criminal record except for the previous conviction of the fine, and other various kinds of conditions shown in the records and arguments, including the defendant's age, health, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined by taking into account the following factors.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Doi-ro