The Defendants concluded a sales contract with the victims through employees of the sales agency.

There was a sufficient hearing on this point through the investigation of evidence, such as the examination of witness C.

In addition, in light of the fact that the indirect principal offender is punished with the same punishment as or less mitigated than that of the principal offender, even if the indirect principal offender is applied ex officio without any change in the indictment, he/she has suffered substantial disadvantage in exercising his/her right

No one cannot be said (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do13148, Apr. 23, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 2016Do21075, Mar. 16, 2017). Therefore, ex officio changing the facts charged in the instant case into an indirect principal offender without following the amendment process.

[criminal records] Defendant A was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud at the Incheon District Court on March 16, 2017 and five years of suspended execution, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 26, 2018.

[2] Defendant A is the owner of the E building under construction in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) and Defendant B is a person who actually operates the F Co., Ltd. F (in the case of a corporation, the name of the corporation is omitted) that entered into an implementation contract with Defendant A for the new construction and sale of the instant building.

Defendant

A around January 28, 2008, G (after the change to H) was changed.

While concluding a trust contract with a contractor for the management of sale in lots and implementing a sale in lots, the trust cannot be conducted any longer due to the discontinuance of construction works by the contractor on September 30, 2010, and the sale in lots was concluded with F on or around September 30, 2013 and the Defendant B continued to perform the sale in lots even though he/she was well aware of the fact that the trust was suspended at the time of concluding the above execution contract, and subsequently, he/she concealed the fact that the trust was suspended in order to continue to perform the construction of the building in this case.