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

Forgery, uttering of a private document, alteration of a private document, uttering of a private document, public use

Any false entry, false entry, public use, electromagnetic records, etc.; and

Violation of law, fabrication of public documents, uttering of forged public documents, violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

[Lawsuit]

2019 early 278 Application for a compensation order

Housing Yangsan City

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

From around 2010 to around 2010, Defendant 2010 worked as office office for the clients, and was in exclusive charge of the clients’ registration of incorporation. During that process, Defendant 2 was unable to repay the principal and interest borrowed to the clients due to the failure to recover the principal and interest due to the failure to pay the interest, and was engaged in the entire transaction in the way of ‘probiation for the payment of interest borrowed from the other place’. The loan amount to around 250,000 won exceeded the amount of debt even though the financial situation, such as the loan amount to around 200,000 won, continued to take over money by deceiving the neighbors, and to use the money for the payment of the existing debts and expenses, etc.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Fraud;

A. The Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim Kim damage in the middle-gu Office of the victim's ○○ Livestock Office in Ulsan-gu on January 2018, in order to operate the victim's ○○ Livestock Office in Ulsan-gu. The victim is promoting the business to acquire the building with the medical foundation. It is necessary to certify balance of KRW 1 billion in order to show the ability to take over the building with the trust company managing the building. When lending KRW 1 billion, the amount of interest shall be paid at 10%, and KRW 10 billion will be returned after the month. The Defendant borrowed money from the victim as above, however, there was no intention to use the money as an existing debt, living expenses, etc., and there was no intention or ability to pay the principal and interest to the victim as the balance certificate purpose for taking over the building. The Defendant received money from the victim in the name of KRW 200 million from around 18,2018, under the name of the victim.

B. The Defendant against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim (a false statement that, around April 1, 2015, the victim would pay interest at least 2-3% per month to the victim and immediately withdraw the principal and make a repayment in accordance with the balance sheet.

However, as above, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not intend to use the existing debt repayment, living expenses, etc., and did not intend to use it for a balance certificate for the establishment of a corporation, and did not have any intent or ability to pay the principal and interest to the victim as agreed. The Defendant was transferred from the victim to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant on the same day to the 100 million won borrowed money from September 17, 2018, from that time to September 25, 2018.

Accordingly, Defendant was issued property by deceiving the victim. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc

However, as above, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, it was thought that it would be used as repayment of existing debts, living expenses, etc., and there was no intent to use it for the purpose of investment and increase of capital for the establishment of a juristic person, and there was no intent or ability to pay the principal to the victim as agreed. The Defendant was issued a check of KRW 600 million from the “legal office” office on the same day by the victim, and was issued a check of KRW 600 million from August 23, 2018 at that time until August 23, 2018.

Accordingly, the defendant was delivered the goods by deceiving the victim.

D. The Defendant’s fraud against the Victim Park Young-hee (a name) committed on March 2017, on the part of the Defendant: (a) “The Defendant was proceeding at the request of the Defendant for the establishment of a corporation; and (b) the funds to be used in the balance certificate of the bank are required for the establishment of a corporation. To establish a corporation, it is necessary to pay interest at least 3% of the balance certificate of the bank. The principal shall be returned at any time only before the month of the loan of the money, and the principal shall be returned.”

However, as above, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not intend to use the existing debt repayment, living expenses, etc. for the purpose of establishing a juristic person, and did not have any intent or ability to pay the principal and interest to the victim as agreed. The Defendant was transferred from the victim to the agricultural bank account in the name of the name of the defense on May 11, 2017, KRW 68 million, in total, up to 10 times until October 25, 2018, from that time, the Defendant was remitted KRW 354 million from that time to October 25, 2018. Accordingly, the Defendant was released from the victim by deceiving him.

E. On August 10, 2018, Defendant 2 against the victim’s settlement plan (tentative name) filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act against the land and building of the de facto spouse of the Yellow-gu, and filed an application for provisional injunction against disposal, the victim may fully receive the principal amount of KRW 110 million, and interest thereon. On the other hand, Defendant 2 concluded that the deposit and fee necessary for the lawsuit are deposited.”

However, even if the Defendant received money from the victim, he did not intend to use the money as payment of existing debts, living expenses, etc., and did not intend to use it as litigation costs, such as deposit money. Defendant was granted from the victim a total of KRW 31 million on the same day, KRW 46 million on November 23, 199, and KRW 15 million on the same day. Accordingly, Defendant received property by deceiving the victim.

F. On January 1, 2017, Defendant 2, on the part of the victim’s question (a false statement of the victim’s name), had been asked of the “Law Office on the Defense Acquisition Program” office at the first time on January 2017, 201, such as a plan for compulsory execution against the unpaid construction cost of KRW 65 million from the victim, and the victim may receive the payment order and the seizure of the claim from the original contractor. On the other hand, Defendant 2 falsely stated that “The attorney fee, service fee, and stamp shall be deposited.”

However, even if the Defendant received money from the victim, he did not wish to use the money as the existing debt repayment and living expenses, and did not intend to use it as the litigation costs, such as attorney fees. The Defendant was transferred 47.5 million won from the victim to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant on January 11, 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. Forgery of private documents and display of private documents;

A. Crimes on August 22, 2016

Defendant 1, like Section 1-B, is in the course of borrowing money from seamen several times.

Along with the fact that the person who was requested to present evidence following the settlement of accounts has used the borrowed money legally for the purpose of the attorney-at-law office's office's work, he thought that he will raise awareness of the interpreter, thereby forging a letter of tolerance in the name of defense name.

이에 피고인 은 2016. 8.경 위 '변호상' 법률사무소 사무실에서, 컴퓨터를 이용하여 ' 일금 : 삼억 오천만 원정(₩350,000,000원정), 상기 금액을 정히 차용(보관)하며, 위 금 은 법인 설립 관련 업무외에 사용하지 않을 것을 확약합니다.'는 내용의 차용증서를작성한 후 이를 출력 한다음 위 차용증서 하단 에 변호상 변호사 의 명판과 직인을 날인하고 , 그 밑에 검은 색볼펜을 이용하여 '차용인: 변호사 변호상'이라고 기재 한 후 변호상 이름 옆 에 미리 소지하고 있던 도장을 찍어 권리의무에 관한 사문서인 변호상 명의 의차용증 서를 위조 하고, 2016.8.22.경 위와 같이 위조한 차용증서를 그 사실을 서해 자 에게 마치 진정하게 성립한 문서인 것처럼 교부하여행사하였다.

(b) A crime on January 30, 2018;

On January 30, 2018, the Defendant requested the provision of security prior to borrowing KRW 1 billion from Kim damage, as described in paragraph (a) of Article 1, and the Defendant, at the time when the Defendant was living together with his woman, recorded the fact that he requested the return of the amount of application for membership of the local housing association in the past, and used it to provide the said apartment as a collateral by means of forging documents using it. The Defendant, as described in paragraph (a) of Article 1, was aware of the fact that he/she had been living together with his/her woman, requested the return of the amount of application for membership of the local housing association in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Accordingly, on January 29, 2018, Defendant called “the local housing association was able to obtain the return of the subscription fee, and thus, changed the certificate of seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, and resident registration certificate.” On January 30, 2018, Defendant was issued a certificate of seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, etc. at the modern department store located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, with the possession of books at around January 30, 2018.

After that, the defendant, at the legal office of the above 'defensive', prepared the ‘refensive mortgage agreement' and ‘refensive letter', which are documents necessary for the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the above apartment, using the computer, entered and printed out personal information such as the name and address of the person who created the right to collateral security and the delegating column of each document, and then affixed the certificate of his/her seal impression issued as above and affixed the certificate of his/her seal impression to the person responsible for registration, and prepared the document in the name, address, and resident registration number of the person responsible for registration, and prepared this document in accordance with the provisions of Article 111(3) of the Regulations on the Registration of Real Estate established in the bottom of the document, after entering them into the ‘defensive document' and the ‘defensive document' in the name of the defendant who is not the person responsible for registration, and then affixed the ‘defensive document' and the ‘defensive document' in the name of the person responsible for registration.

(c) A crime on February 22, 2018;

피고인 은 2018. 2.22.경 김피해로부터 1억 3,000만 원 을 차용하면서 이에대한 증빙서류 작성 을 요구 받자 마치 그 차용금을 변호상 변호사 사무실 업무 용도로 적법하게 사용 하고 있는 것처럼 속여 김피해를 안심시킬 생각으로변호상 명의의 차용증서를 위조 하기 로 마음 먹었다. 이에 피고인 은 같은 날 위 '변호상' 법률사무소 사무실에서, 컴퓨터를 이용하여 '일 금 : 일억 삼천만 원정 (₩130,000,000원정),상기 금액을 정히 차용함.,변제기일: 2018.3. 8. , 차용인 김 사무 ' 이라는 내용의 차용증서를 작성한 후 이를 출력한 다음 위 차용증서 하단 에 변호 상 변호사의 명판과 직인을 날인하여 권리의무에 관한 사문서인 변호상 명의의 차용증 서를 위조하고, 같은 날 위와 같이 위조한 차용증서를 그 사실을 모르는 김 피해 에게 마치 진정하게 성립한 문서인 것처럼 교부하여 행사하였다.

(d) An offense on September 11, 2018;

Defendant borrowed approximately KRW 1 billion from February 2018 to June 201 of the same year, but the Kim Request was urged to provide a security for the above loan obligation, and it was demanded on September 2018 to establish a collateral security on the apartment. On September 2018, Defendant 2018, there was an apartment under a title trust in the name of a person who owns the loan or a person who owns the loan in the name of a third party. “After the end of the last month, Defendant 2 was issued a certificate of seal impression, certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, etc. by deceiving Defendant 2 from his/her female in the same manner as stated in paragraph 2(b).

After that, on September 11, 2018, in order to establish a new mortgage on the apartment owned by the above 'defensive' office, Defendant 2-B of the above 'defensive mortgage contract' and 'refensive mortgage contract' and 'refensive letter' in the letter of delegation in the letter of delegation and the letter of delegation, for the purpose of registering the establishment of a new mortgage on the apartment owned by the above 'defensive' office, Defendant 2-B of the above 'defensive mortgage contract' and 'refensive letter' were forged and used by delivering 'defensive mortgage contract' and 'refensive letter' in the name of the letter of possession, which are private documents concerning the duty of rights, to the 'defensive mortgage contract' and 'a letter of delegation' as if they were a document duly formed to Kim-bef, regardless of the fact.

(e) A crime on November 23, 2018;

On November 23, 2018, Defendant 1 was willing to forge a receipt under the name of the name of the defense in the process of receiving KRW 1,500,00,000 from the fixed scheme as deposit money, etc., as stated in paragraph 1(e) around November 23, 2018.

Accordingly, at the office of law on the same day, the defendant stated that he was able to receive the receipt, daily money: Sacheon, the above amount as funds used for the seizure and collection of claims, and on November 23, 2018, the defendant stated that he was able to receive the receipt under the name of the lawyer under the name of the defense and affixed his official seal on the name of the lawyer under the name of the defense, thereby forging the receipt under the name of the legal document on the rights and duties, and on the same day, issued the forged receipt as if he was actually formed to the person who was aware of the fact.

3. Alteration of private documents and the uttering of private documents;

On January 30, 2018, Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 1 billion from Kim damage, as described in paragraph (a) of paragraph 1; (b) prepared a cash custody certificate stating that “1 billion won is to be kept regularly by the contract and approval date with Mab Medical Corporations and BB Securities at Port-dong, Northern-gu, 48-27 et al. (tentatively referred to as the "port showe" (tentatively referred to as the "port showe") and delivered it to Kim damage; and (c) the change title appearing in the site at the time was to be written on the side of the "the above custodian at the bottom of the said cash custody certificate" and affixed his name and affixed his seal on that side.

However, immediately after that, the Defendant had the intent to alter the said cash custody certificate without the consent from the defense counsel office in receipt of a request to write the phrase that the Defendant as the guarantor Eul was written in the above cash custody certificate. Accordingly, the Defendant stated the above "defensive" office in the "defensive" office, and stated the phrase "the above-mentioned cash custody certificate" or "the guarantor 1" in addition, he stated the phrase in the above "defensive with the color pen," or the phrase "the guarantor 1", which he had the prior possession of the seal and seal of the attorney on the defense that he had the official seal and seal of the lawyer, and exercised the altered cash custody certificate as mentioned above, as if he was the document duly formed.

4. Violation of resident registration Acts;

As stated in paragraphs 2-b and 4, Defendant issued a forged letter-based mortgage contract, etc. in the name of Kim damaged and Kim Kim, and provided a copy of the certificate of resident registration in the name of the book-owner at the same time, and used another person's resident registration certificate unlawfully.

5. On September 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) had the U.S. registry office of the Ulsan District Court located in 55, as the law of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S.; and (b) had the Kim Judicial scrivener entrusted by Kim Jong-soo with the authority to establish a mortgage on the title of possession forged, such as a written contract to establish a mortgage on the title of possession, as described in paragraph (d).

Accordingly, a public official who is unaware of the fact entered a computerized entry into the register of collective security that is composed of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

2019 Gohap 324

Defendant is a person working as the head of the legal office in Ulsan Nam-gu. Around June 2015, Defendant agreed to pay KRW 120 million from the above demotion to pay KRW 120 million from the above demotion, while Defendant was paid KRW 180,000 from the above demotion-gu, Ulsan District Court 2015Kahap411, which appointed an attorney-at-law at the office of the legal office in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., under which he appointed an attorney-at-law in accordance with the above defense, and the debtor agreed to pay KRW 180,000 from the above demotion-gu, U.S., Ulsan-gu, 205-4 for provisional seizure of real estate.

Accordingly, Defendant was paid KRW 120 million from the demotion around June 10, 2015, but from June to July 2015, Defendant 1 used KRW 120 million for personal purposes in advance between June 10, 2015 and Defendant 2 used KRW 120 million for personal purposes. From August 25, 2015, the Ulsan District Court issued an order to submit a surety insurance policy deposit with KRW 120 million in the foregoing real estate provisional seizure case at the Ulsan District Court to submit to the court for insurance premiums KRW 362,400 after receiving an order to submit a deposit insurance policy deposit with KRW 120 million in the amount of insurance premium, but as seen above, the said order was concealed to the above appointment to use KRW 120,000 in advance, with the intent of preparing a false certificate of KRW 300 million in the said case’s money deposit from the attorney’s office.

In this regard, the defendant entered "OO Co., Ltd.'s representative director appointment" in the deposit form for the purpose of exercising the above lecture from the office of "YO Co., Ltd.' in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, for the purpose of exercising the above lecture, and printed out in the deposit form, "gold Tri-si hundred million won in the deposit amount column", and then sent the deposit certificate to the public document number 2108 of the deposit number, which was the public document duly formed with the error of these parts, such as the depositer, the person under deposit, and the deposit amount, etc. in the above false form, to the effect that the public document number 2015 No. 2108 of the deposit number, which was the public document, shall be attached to the copy, and the document of the public document in the name of the person under whose name of the public official under whose name of the public official under whose name the deposit was made, and on January 11, 2016, the above forged money deposit certificate was forged to the fax.

As a result, Defendant forged documents of public offices for the purpose of uttering, and used forged documents as mentioned above.

" 2019 Gohap 325

1. A crime against the victim Kim Jong-ju (Gain);

A. Fraud on September 2017

Defendant was a person who had worked as a secretary at the "Ulsan Nam-gu Law Office". Defendant was confirmed to have concluded a sales contract with the actual owner of the victim Kim Jong-soo (the 64 years old), who was the actual owner of the above law office in Ulsan-gu at the end of September, 2017, with the previous owner of the above Maul Kim Jong-kak (the name of the Maul) for the above Maul, but was asked about whether the contract would be terminated and the purchase price of KRW 550 million could be refunded. Defendant was confirmed to have 650,000,000 to the victim through a person who is located in the financial institution. Defendant was required to make a provisional seizure before the purchase price was returned. It was necessary to have the deposit money deposited in the above account as KRW 20,000.

However, Defendant 2 had no intention or ability to file an application for provisional seizure even if he received money from the victim and received money from 70 billion won from 20 billion won in the name of '2.0 billion won in the name of '2.0 billion won in the name of '2.0 billion won in the name of '5 billion won in the name of '7.0 billion won in the name of '2.0 billion won in the name of '2.0 billion won in the name of '7.0 billion won in the name of '5 billion in the name of '7.0 billion in the name of '2.0 billion in the name of '5 billion in the name of '2.0 billion in the name of '5 billion in the name of '5 billion in the name of '2.0 billion won in the name of '5 billion in the name of '5 billion in the name of '5.0 billion won in the name of '5 billion in the name of '2.0 billion won in the name of ' office.

As such, the Defendant, for the purpose of uttering, forged a certificate of deposit in the name of a depository in the Ulsan District Court, which is an official document, and issued a false statement of deposit at the above legal office on September 28, 2017, which was signed on September 28, 2017, with the intent of uttering, to deliver it to Kim-ju as if it was genuine.

B. Fraud on May 2018

On May 1, 2018, Defendant 1 found the victim, who was found in order to seek a method of provisional seizure of the goods of the Moel in the above Mour-related legal office, at the above Mour-related legal office in order to seek a method of seeking a provisional seizure of the goods of the Mour-related Mour-related Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern 100 million won as cash deposit for provisional seizure. However, Defendant 1 was issued a cashier's checks from the above legal office on May 11, 2018 after receiving money from the victim. However, Defendant 2 was thought to use the money to repay the debt of the above 2.5 billion won. Defendant 1 had no intention or ability to request provisional seizure even after receiving a provisional seizure from the victim. Defendant 1 deceiving the victim and received a cashier's checks from the victim* 14 billion won ** 100 million won **.

2) As mentioned in the above paragraph, the defendant issued a certificate of KRW 100 million for provisional seizure deposit by Kim Jae-in as a provisional seizure deposit, and requested the Kim Jae-in to certify the deposit money. On May 11, 2018, the defendant entered the name column of the depositor No. 567 of 2018 in the column of the deposit number of the money deposit in the office computer in the above legal office, "Glau-k's name column, the name column of the depositor, the name column of the court, the amount of the deposit, the name of the court and the case column, the name of the court and the case column, and the name of the plaintiff of the party, the plaintiff of the party, the defendant Kim Jong-k's name, the name of the applicant for the deposit, the name of the applicant for the deposit in the local court, the name of "10 billion before the date of the deposit," and the name of the applicant for the deposit column of 20 days after the date of the deposit."

As such, the Defendant, for the purpose of uttering, counterfeited one copy of a deposit document in the name of a depository in the Ulsan District Court, which is an official document, and served on May 12, 2018, the following day on May 12, 2018, issued a false public document deposit certificate to Kim-ju as if it was actually prepared.

C. On January 31, 2018, Defendant 2 stated that, at the above-mentioned legal office around January 31, 2018, Defendant 3 made a false statement that “The President has lent capital to the company that prepares for the establishment of the juristic person, and the registration business has been performed by proxy, raising a large amount of 5% per month, and many people have invested. When the President has invested in this business, 3% of the interest of 5% to the President, and the principal will be immediately returned at intervals of 2 weeks to the President.”

However, as above, Defendant collected investors in several hundred million won in order to operate a business in which fees are paid by acting on behalf of the new corporation, and thereby guaranteeing a high interest of 3% per month from the so-called "prevention against return". In the end, Defendant was in the status of debt of approximately KRW 2.5 billion due to the failure to pay the principal and interest properly. Therefore, even if Defendant received money from the victim, he was thought to use it as a corporation's capital, rather than lending it as a corporation's capital, and there was no intention or ability to return the principal and pay the interest to the victim. Defendant deceptioned the victim as such, Defendant received KRW 100 million from the victim as the agricultural bank account (352-***********) under the name of the victim on January 31, 2018, and obtained KRW 200 million in total from the said account on July 1, 2018.

2. On September 2016, Defendant 2 entered the victim’s doctor’s degree (tentative name) with respect to the victim’s doctor’s degree, at the above-mentioned legal office office, the victim’s doctor’s degree head “at our office is engaged in the establishment registration of a juristic person at our office, and the principal is administered as the head of the office. He lends the capital to the company which prepares for the establishment of a juristic person and vicariously executes the registration affairs, and he raises 5% of the monthly revenue, and many people invest. The president stated that the National Assembly stated that 3% of the fee of 5% of the fee when investing 200 million won in this project would be reported to the president, and that the principal would be immediately returned at the intervals of one month.”

However, as above, Defendant collected investors in several hundred million won in order to operate a business where fees are paid by proxy and registered as agent, and thereby guaranteed a high interest of 3% per month in the form of so-called ‘prevention from return'. In the end, Defendant was in the status of debt of KRW 2.5 billion due to the failure to pay the principal and interest. Thus, even if the victim was paid money from the victim, Defendant was thought to use it as a corporation's capital, rather than lending it as a corporation's capital, and there was no intention or ability to return the principal and pay the interest to the victim. Defendant deceiving the victim as such, Defendant was remitted from the victim the agricultural bank account (352-**********) on November 17, 199 of the same year excluding KRW 7 million.

3. On May 16, 2018, Defendant 3 false statement that “I will lend 3% of this funds to the company establishing a company that establishes the company that establishes the company that establishes the company that establishes the company that makes investments in B in the capital and will collect 5% fees from the company” from the legal office in the above legal office in the above defense.

However, Defendant A, like the above, was in the state of debt worth KRW 2.5 billion due to collecting investors from several hundred and twenty investors to engage in the business of receiving fees on behalf of another person with the payment of capital of KRW 300 million, and eventually, he did not pay the principal and interest properly. Therefore, even if he received money from the victim, he was thought to use it as the capital of the juristic person, and there was no intention or ability to return the principal and interest to the victim and pay the interest to the said new corporation. Defendant B, as such, by deceiving the victim, * 352-***** 1500,000 won *** 150,000 won ** 250,000 won ** 250,000 won ** 250,000 won ** 250,000 won ** 250,000 won ** 250,000 won ** 250,000****.

1. A crime on January 4, 2019;

피고인 은 울산 남구에 있는 '변호상 법률사무소'에서 사무장으로 일했던 사람이다. 피고인 은 2018. 12. 초순경 장소를 알 수 없는 곳에서 피해자 정미진(가명)으로부터 피해자 의 거래처 인' 푸드'에 대한 미수금 채권 66,102,000원 을 변제받을 수 있는 방법 이 있는지 문의받자 "나한테 이 사건을 맡겨주면 O▣푸드로부터 돈 을 받아주겠다. 일단 ▣▣ 푸드공장에 대해 가압류를 해야 하니 착수금으로 600만 원 을 달라" 라고 거짓말 을 하였다.

However, Defendant was retired from the above legal office at the time of the above time, and even if receiving money from the victim, there was no intent or ability to file an application for provisional attachment with the food factory, and the above KRW 6 million was thought to have been sent to the living expenses of the female living together with the Defendant to the Defendant (Gai). On January 4, 2019, the Defendant had induced the victim as such, and was transferred from the said victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (815***************) in the name of the above U.S. on January 4, 2019.

2. A crime committed on January 11, 2019;

On January 11, 2019, Defendant made a false statement that the above victim should make a provisional seizure even in the 'food account' at a place where the location is unknown, and that the above victim's additional KRW 3 million should be changed.

However, in fact, even if the Defendant received money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to file an application for provisional seizure with the Frand Corporation Account, and the above three million won was also thought to have been sent to the Flud Corporation Account for living expenses to Plud Women’s Women’s Day living together. As such, the Defendant deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving him, and was remitted to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the above Plud Plue on January 11, 2019 from the victim.

The summary of evidence (to be omitted)

Application of Acts and Subordinate Statutes

1. Relevant provisions concerning criminal facts;

Article 3(1)2 of the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the same Act (including each of the victims' spares, sparesparesparespisspisspisspisspisspisspisspisspisspisspisspisspisspisspiss, spisspisspisspissp spisspisspisspisspisspisspisspisspissp spisspisspissp spisspisspisspissp spisspissp spisspissp spissp spissp spissp spissp spissp, spissp spissp spissp spissp spissp spissp)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (mutual crimes of crime 2-2 of the case of 2019Gohap310), and 50 (Mutual Crimes of Uttering of Official Documents and 2-4 of the Act)

1. Selection of a punishment;

The choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each other crime except for the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the crime of forging public documents and the crime of uttering of forged public documents

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes in the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on the Damage to Victims who are the largest of punishment and punishment]

1. Article 32 (1) 3 and Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits Filed for Dismissal of Application for Compensation (inasmuch as the scope of liability for compensation is not obvious, making an order for compensation in criminal proceedings is inappropriate);

Judgment on the motion of the defendant and his defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Of the frauds against the interest of the victim under paragraph (1) of 2019 high 310 criminal facts, two times in relation to the crime list (3) No. 600 million won borrowed from the interest of the victim on March 21, 2017 (No. 1 in the crime list (3) No. 570 million won) was borrowed from the interest of the victim on August 9, 2018, and the loan was not made in excess of KRW 570 million. However, there was no fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 570 million from the interest of the victim on KRW 310,000,000 from the interest of the victim on KRW 570,000,000. In relation to the criminal facts of the 2019 high 310 criminal facts of the 310 case.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court to determine the point of fraud against the victim's interest, the Defendant may be found to have received KRW 570 million from the victim's interest, as shown in No. 2 of the Crime List (3). This part of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected. (Omission)

B. Determination on the intent of altering private documents

In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the fact that the Defendant prepared the surety’s text without obtaining the consent of the defense. This part of the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not acceptable. (Omission)

1. Grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years to 45 years;

2. The scope of recommending sentences according to the sentencing standards.

(a) The first crime (any violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), fraud);

[Determination of Type] Fraud : General Fraud / [Type 4] 5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won.

[Special Sentencing]

[Scope of Recommendation and Recommendation] Basic Field, 5 years to 8 years of imprisonment

(b) Two crimes (Forgery of official documents);

[Determination of Type] Crimes of Official Document 01. Forgery, Alteration, etc. of Official Document / [Type 1] Non-business, Non-Organizational

[Special Sentencing]

[Scope of Recommendation and Recommendation] Basic Field, 8 months to 2 years of imprisonment. 3 Crimes (Uttering of Counterfeited Official Document)

[Determination of Type] Crimes of Official Documents 01. Forgery, Alteration, etc. of Official Documents (Type 1)

[Special Sentencing]

[Scope of Recommendation and Recommendation] Basic Field, 8 months to 2 years of imprisonment

(d) Scope of recommending punishment according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment for five to nine years (in the first crime + 1/2 of the upper limit of the second crime + 1/3 of the third crime).

3. The crime of this case by sentence is committed by the defendant, who has been in office in the attorney-at-law office, by deceiving the victims to use the circumstance that the victims trusted themselves, and thereby by deceiving them, and in the process, forgery, alteration, and exercise of private documents, such as a loan certificate, a money deposit, etc., and public documents for the purpose of deceiving the victims. The amount of fraud is enormous and forged a document borrowed in the attorney-at-law's name in order to encourage the victims to hear, and use it with a third party's seal certificate and a certificate of personal seal issued by the attorney-at-law's office, and then forged the document and a certificate of personal seal issued by the third party and forged the document and the certificate of personal seal issued by the public official to make a false report to forge the document and the certificate of personal seal and make a false registration of the establishment of a false mortgage. The defendant did not agree with the victim of this case to the extent that he was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 20 years, and the defendant was punished by a fine of 20 years for the same crime of embezzlement.

However, most of the facts that the defendant recognized the crime, and the defendant appears to have paid a total of 3 billion won to the victims for interest and repayment, taking into account favorable circumstances, and the defendant's significance, character and conduct, environment, means and methods of the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc. in this case, and the sentencing criteria of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee set forth in the order.

Judges Kim Do-young

Judge Definition Binding

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.