Forgery of private documents, uttering of private investigation documents, fabrication of securities, uttering of forged securities, special

Violation of the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud), and the original copy of a notarial deed

re-use of the original notarial deed, fraud

Criminal Power and Status of Defendant, etc.

On November 2016, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for criminal fraud at the District Court for the period of eight months, which became final and conclusive on December 3, 2016.

The Defendant operated the said company as the president of G Co., Ltd. (former H, Representative Director), and J Co., Ltd. (former K and L Co., Ltd.) who promote the business of newly constructing and selling apartment units (hereinafter referred to as “F district business”). M worked as the director of cost management bureau, etc. from around 1995 to March 201, 201, from around March 201, the Defendant served as the director of P from around 00 to July 201, 201 as the managing director of P business.

Specific criminal facts

"2016 Gohap1392"

From around 2004, the Defendant promoted the F District business, but was unable to procure approximately KRW 400 billion land purchase cost, and there was no sale in G. From this point of view, the Defendant agreed to obtain investment of USD 2.198 million from S (S, hereinafter referred to as "S") an investment company of the United States, which is an investment company of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "S"), which has not verified its substance through Q, R, etc. around June 2014, to obtain an investment of KRW 2.198 billion (Korean US US $580.4 billion) and agreed to obtain an investment of KRW 2.1 billion from the F District business entity of the design company of November 2014, 205, and around February 2015, to obtain an event, such as SP's land development project of the Republic of Korea, and to obtain an investment of KRW 11,000,000,000,000 from the president of the relevant university.

Around June 3, 2014, the Defendant entered into an advertising agency contract with G and P in an amount equivalent to KRW 58 billion with respect to F and around February 13, 2015, and entered into a housing site creation contract with U (Representative V) Co., Ltd. operating a construction business. However, as G’s capital was transferred, the F and V agreed to obtain an investment of USD 2.198 billion from S on November 26, 2014 that the F and V agreed to obtain an investment of USD 2.198 billion in total from M and V on November 26, 2014, the Defendant first agreed to obtain an investment of USD 2.3 billion in the land purchase contract form as of November 26, 2014.

Accordingly, around February 2015, M arbitrarily endorsed P on the face of promissory note amounting to KRW 1.3 billion in the issuer’s name, and then tried to discount P from “X” in the CA located, but the head of the P Accounting Team stated that “the endorsement of this Promissory Notes is not permitted in P,” and the Defendant was aware of this.

The Defendant, on March 30, 2015, sent by S around April 2015, presented a letter of undertaking to pay investment funds to M on March 30, 2015, and requested to raise approximately KRW 2 billion with the cost of purchasing land in FF area. M can receive the payment related to the advertising agency contract amounting to KRW 58 billion when the FF area project is implemented by attracting investment funds from GI S.

In trust and trust, the Defendant offered to raise the funds requested by the Defendant on a discount rate of promissory notes for the authenticity of endorsement remaining from the corporate director, after he/she voluntarily made a P’s endorsement on the paper of promissory notes (the name of the issuer AB) sought through V and AA until March 201, and then arbitrarily made a P’s endorsement that he/she had worked as a business director, and then offered to raise the funds for which the Defendant requested.

1. Forgery of private documents, such as forgery of private documents, including the minutes of board of directors under the name of the P representative director AC, directors AD, and auditor AE for discount of promissory notes, the name of P, power of attorney, employee

A. P representative director AC, directors AD, and audit AE’s minutes forged M of private documents related to the minutes of the board of directors in the name of the PP director, following the above public offering, at around 10:00 on April 20, 2015, P took up a false minutes of the board of directors as if P took place at the P office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AF around 10:0 on April 20, 2015 for the purpose of lending KRW 2.3 billion to G by bill endorsement, etc., and then arbitrarily puts a seal on the AD’s name, and affixed a seal on the AE’s name arbitrarily posted on the AD’s side.

As a result, the Defendant, in collusion with M, forged a copy of the minutes of the board of directors under the name of P representative Director AC, director AD, and auditor AE, on April 20, 2015, for the purpose of exercising rights and obligations.

(c) Authority to forge the name of P;

M around March 2015, in accordance with the above public offering, at P office around March 2015, M: (a) affix the name plates of the P-name representative director and the name plates of the P-name corporation possessed for business purposes at an appropriate place; (b) affix 'the letter of delegation' to the effect that "any rights and obligations concerning the joint and several guarantee entry (including endorsement) of 2.3 billion won in the P office in the above P office is delegated to the police officer's 'the letter of delegation' to the effect that 'the name plates of the P-name representative director and the corporate seal stamps of the P-name corporation are affixed; and (c) print it.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged a letter of delegation in the name of P on April 20, 2015, which is a private document on rights and obligations, for the purpose of uttering in collusion with M.

(c) Forgery of an employee identification system in the name of P;

M around March 2015, according to the above public offering, at the P Office, stamped the P Corporation's identification which was held temporarily in the line of duty at an appropriate place, and on April 2015, after preparing a "employee identification in accordance with the paper attached by the P Corporation's identification at the same place as a policeman, M arbitrarily affixed the P Corporation's identification (No. 1).

Accordingly, the Defendant forged a copy of the employee identification system of April 20, 2015, which is a private document on rights and obligations, in collusion with M, for the purpose of uttering.

D. On April 2015, M of the certificate of endorsement of promissory notes in the name of P prepared a certificate of endorsement of promissory notes to the effect that P has been endorsed on three copies of promissory notes in the aggregate amount of KRW 2.3 billion issued by AB from P office in accordance with the above public offering, and then arbitrarily affixed P employee reduction (No. 1) on the side of "P (corporate registration number: AG)" at the end of the certificate.

As a result, the Defendant forged a letter of endorsement of promissory notes in P on April 20, 2015, which is a private document of fact certification, for the purpose of uttering in collusion with M.

2. To forge 0, or to forge endorse, the name of P in accordance with the aforesaid Article;

Around April 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) pursuant to the foregoing public offering, around 2015, entered 1, V, AA, and M in the coffee shop near the Broin zone in Jung-gu, Seoul. At this time, V requested AB to issue a bill; (b) AA provided three copies of promissory notes (AH, AI, and AJ), the sum of the face value of the AB issuance of which is the addressee, amount, date of issuance, maturity, etc., and entered the addressee, amount, date of issuance, maturity, etc. on the same page. The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that M was working until March 201 without any authority to do so, requested M to affix one endorsement under the name of 0, and the Defendant, even though M was aware that it was not authorized to do so, requested M to arbitrarily affix a signature and seal on 20,000 won in the name of the representative director, the Defendant, regardless of his/her authority to do so, requested 30,000.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with M, has forged 0, a statement on the rights and obligations of securities and an endorsement in P name for the purpose of exercising them.

3. Counterfeiting of a private document under the provisions of the aforementioned Article with a seal impression of 0 persons;

On April 20, 2015, the Defendant, together with M, V, and AA, tried to discount the total sum of 2.3 billion won of AB issuance, which forged endorsement, from X located in the CA. On April 20, 2015, the Defendant sought zero corporate seal impressions and corporate seal impressions in relation to the endorsement in the name of X operator.

Around April 21, 2015, the Defendant sent a text message to M to the effect that, at least 17:46, it is necessary for M to use a text message to verify the authenticity of endorsement by telephone, M to directly receive the phone of endorsement at P office. It is essential that M will proceed with this day at least 18:00 on the same day. Accordingly, it is impossible to obtain the zero corporate director and corporate seal imprint. Accordingly, the Defendant sent a text message to the effect that M will take money within 2 months from the AL located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the same day. The Defendant would not be responsible for raising money if legal issues arise. The Defendant would not have been able to prepare four days, but will not have been able to do so, but will not have been able to do so. The Defendant will not have been able to write up 10 times the Defendant’s book of seal imprint and 20 times the Defendant would not have been able to do so.

On April 22, 2015, M, at the P office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AF around April 2, 2015, after pointing out the part on which the 0th corporate seal impression was affixed in the documents written between the past 0 and P, it was attached to the column of the 0th corporate seal impression of the 0th employee, and the said 0th employee seal impression (5th employee seal) was affixed arbitrarily to the employees seal impression of the said 0th employee seal impression.

As a result, the Defendant forged a copy of the employee identification system of 0 April 20, 2015, which is a private document related to rights and obligations, in collusion with M.

4. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the exercise of forged securities and the exercise of falsified investigation documents;

On April 22, 2015, the Defendant, as so publicly recruited with M, delivered to X employees who were unaware of the forgery of the total face value of AB issuance, three promissory notes worth KRW 2.3 billion in total, as stated in the above Pcc, AC, AD, AD, AE’s board of directors’ minutes in the name of Pc, AD, AE, AE, one copy of a letter of delegation in the name of P, one copy of employee reduction, one copy of a certificate of endorsement of promissorysory notes, one copy of an employee reduction, one copy of a certificate of endorsement in the name of P, and three copies of a promissory note in the name of Pc, AC, directorD, and auditor AE, as stated in the above paragraphs 1 and 3 above, for bill discount, and as stated in the name of Pc, AC, one copy of a board of directors’ minutes in the name of P, one copy of a certificate of endorsement, one copy of a promissory note, one copy of a PB, and three copies of promissory notes.

Furthermore, at around 13:30 on April 23, 2015, M replyed to the purport that, according to the above public offering, M is "AM," which is "AM, which is asked to pay a discount on the bill at the maturity of the P office, shall be repaid when it enters into G. G. Article 58 billion won, but P may be repaid when it receives the advertising payment after receiving the investment payment from S. In order to prove this, M submitted a copy of the advertising agency contract between G and P on June 3, 2014.

However, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant, on March 27, 201, retired from around 0, 201 and caused M without any authority to forge; (b) the endorsement, etc. in the name of P was arbitrarily forged without authorization from P; (c) the Defendant was not obligated to purchase the land, which was the first stage of the F District project; and (d) there was no actual result of success in the previous housing construction project, etc. or of attracting overseas funds; and (c) S was a company with no substance, such as (i) there was no real estate in the U.S.; (b) there was no office or domestic investment record in Korea; (d) USD 2.198 billion (limited to USD 2.5 billion (limited to KRW 58 billion); and (b) there was no large scale of KRW 2.8 billion (limited to the case where the 13 foot report on October 27, 2014, which was based on which Q28 billion won was issued, and (iii) there was no reason for the Defendant to provide it to Q2.4 billion.

The Defendant, together with M, deceptioned the victim Y5, X operator through X employee AM, and M was issued 2.18 billion won as a check after deducting the interest on a promissory note discount from the above victim’s office around April 23, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with M, exercises forged securities and private documents, and received property by deceiving the above victim.

5. Forgery of private documents, such as power of delegation, employee identification, etc., under P for the preparation of authentic deeds under a money loan contract, and uttering of falsified statement in the authentic deed by preparation of authentic deeds under a money loan contract, and the execution of authentic deeds and originals of authentic deeds;

On July 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) requested M to prepare documents in the name of P on July 20, 2015 from July 20 to July 24, 2015, that “it may be repaid on August 5, 2015,” and (b) requested M to “B to prepare documents in the name of P,” as stated in paragraph (4) of this Article, the Defendant conspired with P to arbitrarily prepare a notarial deed in a monetary loan agreement with the debtor, YB, the creditor, the joint guarantor, and the accompanying documents to be attached thereto.

(a) Forgery of private documents related to power of attorney in the P name and employee identification system;

1) On July 20, 2015, M drafted a "employee identification system" in accordance with the paper stampeded by the P Office on July 20, 2015, and then affixed a seal of P (1) after printing out a "employee identification system".

Accordingly, the Defendant forged a copy of the employee identification system in the name of P on May 22, 2015, which is a private document related to rights and obligations, for the purpose of uttering in collusion with M.

2) On July 24, 2015, M prepares a "a letter of delegation to the effect that "P representative director AC delegates his/her authority to borrow KRW 2.3 billion to M" at the above P office, and arbitrarily affix his/her seal to the "P representative director AC" side of the "P representative director AC" column.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged a letter of delegation in the name of P on July 24, 2015, a private document related to rights and obligations, for the purpose of uttering in collusion with M.

C. Around July 24, 2015, a notary public of the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AO borrowed Y from Y to 2.3 billion won in a false monetary loan agreement to the effect that G is a joint and several surety, who requested a notary public in charge of notary public to prepare a false monetary loan agreement to the effect that P borrowed 2.3 billion won in the AP joint and several surety in the AP joint and several surety office, issued a letter of delegation and an employee identification card in the name of P, as described in paragraph (5) A, to A Q, who did not know the forged fact.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with M, exercised the power of delegation and employee of the forged P name.

(c) Unauthorized entry in the authentic copy of an authentic deed by preparation of authentic deeds under a money loan agreement, and fairness of entry therein;

Exercising the Original Deed

M according to the above public offering, Q Q, who was unaware of the forgery of the power of attorney in the name of P and the employee identification system at the above date and time, borrowed KRW 2.3 billion from Y to Y on a lump sum basis on August 7, 2015, "I shall make a false statement that "I will make a notarial deed, which is the original copy of a notarial deed, prepare a notarial deed, and write the name of M on the side of "the debtor's agent," and affix his seal to M, as if you were given the normal power of attorney from P, and the G staffR in receipt of the defendant's order, affixed his seal as a joint and several surety.

Accordingly, in collusion with M, the Defendant made a false report to the public official, and made it enter false facts in the original notarial deed, and around that time, exercised the above notarial deed by making it available for keeping the original notarial deed stating false facts.

"2017Gohap281"

From November to December 2012, 2014, the Defendant: “AS 101 Dong 3902, the Defendant entered into a contract for the purchase of a site with the AU clan and entered into the contract for the purchase of the land and the construction of the land will be carried out by completing the purchase of the land immediately. The Defendant agreed to receive investment of USD 2.198 million from the investment company located in the United States, S, the investment company located in the United States, to receive the total amount of USD 2.198 million (limited to KRW 2.580 billion). The Defendant purchased the above investment money from the South-gu, Yangyang-si, the purchase of the project site and the establishment of the district unit plan will start the development project, such as apartment sale. The project is being carried out without fail, such as purchase of the project site and the attraction of investment funds. The Defendant changed the operation of the cafeteria and the provision of the removal construction work.” Even if it is not known, it would include the interest received from S in receipt of investment funds.”

However, in fact, G was not capable of carrying out the FF area business by itself due to the current net loss of approximately KRW 1.1 billion in 2014 and approximately KRW 1.5 billion in 2015. Since the agreement to receive investment of USD 2.198 million in U.S. from the investment company located in the U.S., was practically impossible, it was not capable of carrying out the FF area business. Furthermore, AV, a prior business entity promoting new construction and sale of apartments in the FF district, was drafted a district unit plan with the consent of at least 2/3 of the owners of the site and was notified of the decision on the FF district management plan from the Southern-si of the Republic of Korea. Furthermore, the Defendant concluded a promise to operate a restaurant, a construction contract, etc. in the Gu from around 2011 to around 2015, and did not notify the victim of the fact that it was used as a large amount of money.

As above, the Defendant deceiving the victim AT and transferred KRW 1 billion from the said victim to the G account as the right to operate the cafeteria on January 7, 2015, and received the total sum of KRW 2 billion from December 23, 2014 to May 4, 2015 as shown in the separate list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant was given a total of 3 billion won by deceiving the above victim.

"2017 Highly 749"

Around November 2014, the Defendant presented the form of contract to the effect that M agreed to obtain an investment of USD 2.198 million from S (Korean KRW 2.58 billion) from M, and requested M to prepare funds of approximately KRW 2.0 billion (Korean KRW 2.3.4 billion) as a security deposit for KRW 50 million (Korean KRW 2.3.4 billion), which was agreed to receive a preferential investment, around the end of January 2015, as a security deposit for KRW 58 billion (Korean KRW 2.3.4 billion). Accordingly, M may receive KRW 58 billion from G when the F District project is implemented by attracting investment funds from S. M, which is related to advertising contract.

At the same time, the defendant is willing to attract funds for G operated by the defendant.

According to the above public offering around April 5, 2015, M is expected to construct approximately 7,00 households of apartment buildings in the Seoul Southern-si, and at least 90% of the project is completed, and only the contract to purchase land in the door remains. Foreign companies have made an investment in G. It is necessary to pay interest of KRW 4,00,000 per month from May 5, 2015 to the victim AW at the coffee shop near Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul. The purpose of this public offering is that "A Chairperson will not pay the money to the victim by June 2015, even if he/she did not pay the money, there is no problem of giving a guarantee in P. even if he/she did not pay it to the victim, and the contract is completed at least 90% of the project and there is only the contract to purchase the land in the door. On April 13, 2015.

However, in fact, G could not carry out the development project with its own funds due to its net loss of approximately KRW 1 billion in 2014 and approximately KRW 1.5 billion in year 2015. Since the agreement that S in the U.S. to receive an investment of USD 2198 million ($2.580 billion in the Republic of Korea) from S in the U.S. was de facto impossible, it was not capable of carrying out the development project. Furthermore, the return guarantee letter of contract deposit under the name of P in the name of April 13, 2015 presented by M was written by M on April 13, 2015 at P office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that it is difficult for M to carry out the development project with its own funds due to unavoidable reasons, such as the suspension of the project, and that it would be difficult for us to immediately return the deposit, and that it would not immediately return it by 305 billion in the next advance payment.

The Defendant and M, as seen above, was accused of the victim AW and was transferred KRW 200 million from the said victim to the new bank account in the name of G around April 14, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant and M were provided property by deceiving the above victim in collusion with the defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness M, AD, Q, AM, AY, AY, AWT, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, and BH;

1. Each protocol of prosecutorial statement concerning BI, BJ, AR, BK, BL, BN, and BO;

1. Statement of each police statement against BP and Y;

1. A statement prepared by Q Q;

1. The details of the Incheon Customs reply, investigation report (referring to the filing of data, such as BJ, AR smartphone e-mail), investigation report (the filing of circumstantial evidence of this case at the head of the S2 branch office), investigation report (the filing of circumstantial evidence of this case), investigation report (the report of seizure and delivery of articles related to investment by 5-G and S), investigation report (the report of seizure and delivery of articles 7-BR and G related data), publicity data on the website (the report of seizure and delivery of articles 8-S Internet), investigation report (the report of seizure and delivery of articles 8-S Internet homepage), investigation report (the report of articles 8-S news, the report of seizure and delivery of articles 9-S sent to GIGP and HNC, the report of seizure and delivery of articles 10-G related to reporting, the report of collection and delivery of articles 11-G report, the report and submission of materials related to the investigation report, the report and submission of articles 125-G report and submission of the report related to the investigation report, the latest report and submission of articles 13-15-Ga report (M report).

1. On-site photographs, such as field photographs, BV hotel design type photographs, residence, etc., and output of investment contract type photographs on November 20, 2014;

1. Copy of notarial deed, each proxy copy, each employee's seal impression, each notification of 2.3 billion won for redemption, each advertisement contract signed by the representative director, seal reduction register, delegation of duties, copies of promissory notes, AI copies, resident registration certificates, copies of promissory notes, copies of minutes of the board of directors' meeting meetings, copies of certificates of receipt of discount of bills, copies of checks, copies of books, authentic copies of notarial deeds, E-mail, Red Cross Data on Search and Inspection for Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as "Tax Information Request for Report"); 20 million won for each transaction; 30 million won for each transaction report; 4.6 copies of Postal Information Trust Agreement; 4.1 billion won for each transaction report; 4.1 billion won for each transaction report; 4.1 billion won for each transaction report; 4.1 billion won for each transaction report;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc. (A), investigation reports (a) (a suspect's judgment, indictments, etc.);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 231 and 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016); Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 214(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 214(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 217, 214(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016); Articles 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 214(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [the punishment imposed on the crime of forging private documents as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of this case at the time of sale; the punishment imposed on the crime of forging private documents due to the forgery under the name of a representative director who is the largest representative director AC; the crime of uttering of each private document listed in paragraph (4) of the crime of 2016Kahap1392 of the Supreme Court Decision; the punishment imposed on the crime of uttering of counterfeited securities due to the exercise of a promissory note with the largest punishment and punishment; the punishment imposed on the crime of uttering of each private document listed in paragraph (5) of the crime of this case of 2016Kahap1392 of the Supreme Court Decision; the punishment imposed on the crime of uttering of each private document listed in paragraph (5) of the crime of this case of 2016Kahap1392 of the same

1. Selection of punishment;

The crime of forging each private document, the crime of uttering of each private document, the crime of false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed, the crime of uttering of an original copy of a notarial deed, and the choice of imprisonment for fraud

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (trade between each crime and fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act and the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victimY with the largest penalty

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

(a) Cases No. 2016 Highis1392;

1) At the time G operated by the Defendant, to obtain an investment from S, the said company imposed enormous interest costs to prove the balance of deposit in KRW 20 billion, which is a good condition, but was not paid investments due to S’s fraudulent conduct. Therefore, even if the Defendant anticipated that he would not be subject to investment from S, the Defendant would not be subject to the discount of bill by deceiving the victim Y even though it was anticipated that he would not be subject to investment from S.

2) The Defendant did not have processed, instructed, or recruited a series of criminal acts, such as fabrication and uttering of each private document in M. P.0. The Defendant knew that P provided support to G that entered into an advertising agency contract, and expressed to M that M would assist M. to commit a series of criminal acts, such as forging a private document without authority. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that M was committing a series of criminal acts without authority.

B. Similar to the foregoing paragraph (a) of the instant case No. 2017Gohap281, the Defendant was unable to promote FJ projects by deceiving S, and there was no false statement with the victim AT as stated in the facts charged, and there was no intention to defraud money by deceiving the victim.

(c) Cases No. 2017Gohap749;

The Defendant did not know the victim AW in connection with a monetary loan, and did not know that the terms and conditions of the loan and explanation thereof were M. As to the letter of guarantee of P as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not know that M was written without authority.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion on the case No. 2016 Highis1392

1) As to the assertion that there was no intention to commit the crime of deception and deception

A) On June 15, 2014, after receiving a letter of intent to make an investment from GO S on December 22, 2014, 200 billion won was deposited in parallel. On February 10, 2015, after concluding a contract on the housing complex business with S and Namyang-J in Korea on February 10, 2015, it is not deemed that the Defendant intended to attract investment funds itself. In light of the fact that the Defendant was issued a certificate of deposit balance of KRW 20 billion on March 12, 2015 and April 3 and 4, 16 and June 11, 2016, and that it appears that G would have spent considerable financial costs.

B) On the other hand, in full view of the following circumstances, it is recognized that the Defendant was fully aware of the fact that the F Area project was unlikely to actually progress by success in attracting large investment funds from S at the time, taking into account the witness testimony and the evidence examined by this Court, including witness AY and R.

① From around 2004, the Defendant promoted a business district and was to attract a large amount of foreign investment exceeding KRW 2 trillion from S to this end, it does not seem to be specifically aware of the substance of S investment company of the United States of America, past investment performance, investment purpose, financing method, and credit inquiry in the United States. Even based on Q Q’s statement that it was for S, there is no special organization or business system in Korea, and there is no person in an employment relationship. The Defendant asserts that S has been aware of the substance of S and the intent of investment through a religious trial only with the horses such as BX, etc., the Chairperson of R and S, and the content of S’s Internet homepage, but it is difficult to accept it easily.

② The materials on which S determined a large amount of investment exceeding 2 trillion won in the F District project include only G’s certificate of deposit balance and the 13 foot on October 27, 2014. The above on-site report was prepared by Q. Even according to Q’s statement, the number of persons participating in the on-site survey is QY, BY, BZ and R only once visiting the site, and QY and QZ visited only once visiting the site, and the on-site report was merely an English translation of the Defendant’s materials. The content of the above on-site report is merely a summary guide on traffic and marketability of the F District. It is difficult to view that the process of the on-site report and the contents of the on-site report are all sufficient prior to the investment decision of the astronomical amount.

G: (a) On December 22, 2014, for the first time, Korea-U.S. 20 billion won was prepared and verified the balance of deposits; (b) On February 10, 2015, under the agreement on the business of the Namyang Housing Complex between S and G claimed by the Defendant on February 10, 2015, S did not fully pay the investment amount of USD 150 million at the end of February of the same year; (c) Q’s demand in this court was a deposit of USD 20 million, but G was a deposit of USD 20 billion, which did not pay the investment amount; (d) in relation to determining an investment exceeding KRW 2 billion, G did not pay the investment amount; and (e) in light of the fact that G did not sufficiently recognize that there was an obligation to pay the deposit amount of USD 20 billion after having failed to pay the investment amount of USD 20 billion and the fact that it did not pay the deposit amount of KRW 20 billion due to the failure to pay the investment amount of KRW 20 billion.

④ Even after the second half of 2015, the Defendant had begun to doubt S’s substance, the Defendant did not immediately file a criminal complaint against S, or did not endeavor to find the whereabouts of BX, and instead, deceivings investors in the FF business by creating a fake sign in S’s name and holding a forged appearance in the court room in the project and using a forged list of USD 500,000,000, thereby pretending that S actually paid KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

It is difficult to view it as an attitude after becoming aware that it was deceiving.

⑤ From around 2004, the Defendant has been promoting the FJ business and promoted several real estate development projects before the FJ business, and is a person operating a large number of companies. In light of the Defendant’s career and the background leading up to attracting investment funds from S and the fact that the Defendant was investing a large amount of money in the name of loans from many development-related business operators, the Defendant merely seems to have neglected to implement the FJ business immediately on the ground that S decided to invest a large amount of money, and it does not seem to have promoted a short-term financing on the premise that S’s conviction in attracting investment funds.

C) Ultimately, even though the Defendant fully aware that a large-scale fund investment by S is low in feasibility, the Defendant demanded M to provide financing by stating that the investment of S would be conclusive, and that M will be carried out immediately, and accordingly, M would receive money in the name of a promissory note discount from the said victim’s belief that M would be said to the same effect as the victim Y et al., so the Defendant’s deception and its intent are sufficiently recognized.

2) As to the assertion that M was not offered with M

A) At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime do not legally require a certain type of punishment, but only two or more persons commit a combination of intent to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if a combination of intent is formed in order or impliedly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of the conspiracy are held liable as co-principal for the other co-principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3483, Nov. 10, 200).

B) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant recognized that M was aware from the beginning that M was not entitled to represent 0, and the Defendant continuously demanded M to accept a bill discount from X for the financing of the F District project, in addition to the fact that the Defendant had continuously demanded M to receive a bill discount from X, it can be recognized that the Defendant participated in the commission of crime, such as forgery related to 0.

① Around April 20, 2015, the Defendant, at the same place, at each promissory note issued AB issued, made an endorsement of one number, and thus, the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that the instant endorsement was made in this name. The Defendant appears to have asserted that he/she did not see the form of endorsement because he/she was seated on another table at the time. However, it cannot be said that he/she did not know of the fact of endorsement itself.

(2) An ordinary officer of a subsidiary cannot be deemed to have the authority to conduct a legal act, such as endorsement on a promissory note in the name of the parent company, without any special circumstances. There is no special circumstance to believe that in this case, M, which is only a director of P, was the parent company, has the authority to make an endorsement. Although the Defendant’s assertion that he/she had the authority to do so, it is difficult to accept it.

③ The Defendant asserted that, around April 21, 2015, the Defendant was not aware of the fact that he received text messages, that “a corporate director and a certificate of the personal seal impression cannot be prepared,” and that he was aware of the fact that he did not have the authority to act for M. However, the Defendant sent text messages to M only “I am to know” or “I am to know,” and that, on the same day, the Defendant was aware of the method of obtaining a corporate seal impression certificate and a certificate of the personal seal impression for 0 corporations on April 22, 2015, and the following day, the Defendant did not ask the sender of text messages to the effect that, without any explanation, it does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s corporate seal impression certificate without any interference.

In light of the fact that M sent text messages to the effect that it is impossible to make a zero resolution by the board of directors on April 23, 200, the Defendant seems to have been fully aware of the fact that M arbitrarily created documents with no authority.

C) As to the following forgerys related to P, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant recognized that M was sufficiently aware that M did not have the right to act on behalf of P, and that the Defendant continuously demanded M to make an endorsement in the name of P so that the Defendant would receive the discount of the bill, it is also recognized that the Defendant was involved in the conspiracy of crime, such as fabrication related to P.

① Around February 2015, M had already been endorsed in the P name on a promissory note issued in W, and tried to provide a discount for G’s business funds, but the head of the P’s account management team respondeded to the effect that “M was an endorsement without authority” on the credit service provider Y’s phone, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that there was no discount for the bill (it is difficult to view that the Defendant, who again requested M to provide a loan for business funds, did not have confirmed the developments leading up to the absence of the discount for the bill). Nevertheless, there was no circumstance to deem that the Defendant again requested M not only 0 but also made a demand for endorsement under the name of P, and that the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant was duly authorized by M to endorsement on the P bill.

(2) M is an investigative agency and this court that the person himself/herself has endorsed the name of P without authority.

A. The assertion was made to the effect that, as to the grant of a comprehensive authority to act on behalf of P in relation to the financing of G from the P representative director AD. However, in light of the fact that AD stated that it did not grant the said authority to M in an investigative agency and this court, M has led to all criminal facts, such as forgery related to P, in one’s criminal case, and that it is difficult to view that P is a promissory note for discount in the corporate bonds market because it was difficult to deem that P had the authority to act on behalf of P as an endorsement.

D) Ultimately, between the Defendant and M, the Defendant and M pretended to forge and use documents without authority in the name of MA 0 and P, thereby suggesting the credit of P. On the other hand, as to the acquisition of money under the name of a large amount of investment deposit and the F district business by deceiving the F district business as soon as possible, at least the combination of intent was made by deceiving the money under the name of bill discount, such as bill discount, and therefore, the relationship between each document and the joint principal offender is recognized.

C. As to the assertion on the instant case No. 2017Gohap281

1) According to the evidence examined by this court, the Defendant, directly and indirectly, acknowledged the fact that the victim AT was determined by the lower court, and that the Defendant solicited the Plaintiff to make an investment, stating that the Plaintiff would have been using the funds and that the F district project would proceed. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Defendant was fully aware of the fact that the Defendant was less likely to invest large-scale funds in G. Accordingly, the Defendant constitutes deception by notifying the victim AT of false facts on this part.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the statements made by the investigation agency and court of AT and the testimony of AZ and part of M, the Defendant first concluded a contract with AT for the use of KRW 1 billion on December 2014 when he/she borrowed KRW 1 billion on the ground that he/she would be paid KRW 2 billion on the ground that he/she would be paid KRW 1 billion on December 2014, 2014, he/she entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of the site with 'AU clan6' while returning only KRW 1 billion on the ground that he/she would immediately proceed with the FF business even on the first of 2015, and that he/she would be paid KRW 1 billion on the ground that he/she would immediately make a re-investment including KRW 1 billion on the part of the FF business in the name of the restaurant operation and removal construction work (the term of the cafeteria operation contract and the removal contract for each cafeteria constructed between G and AT). It is recognized that the Defendant had no capacity to enter into a sale contract with the GU 2012.

3) In addition, according to evidence, AV, a prior business entity, entered into a land purchase and sale contract with AU-type around April 2012 (However, AV is still disputing the validity of the sale without paying the purchase and sale price). On October 6, 2014, the fact that G was designated as an urban planning facility business entity by the Namyang-si city. Before entering into a contract with the victim AT removal construction service contract or a contract for the operation of a restaurant in the Gu, it is recognized that it had already entered into the same contract with multiple companies since 2011 and received money in the name of the borrowed money or the name of the invested money. Although it cannot be deemed that AV was completely impossible for G to carry on the FF business only with the designation of an urban planning facility business entity, it is evident that G was considerably more unfavorable than AV in the FF business. Moreover, the fact that multiple identical contracts concluded with the victim is a lack of legal capacity to provide the victim's right to operate a restaurant and to provide services within the premises of the GF.

4) Ultimately, the Defendant received money by deceiving the victim AT with the knowledge that it is difficult for G to pay the money received by attracting a large amount of S investment money including interest or profit, and thus both the criminal intent of deception and deception is recognized.

5) Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that AT returned KRW 25,50 million to AT, KRW 17,300,000,000 won on April 17, 2015, and KRW 200,000,000,000 to April 24, 2015, however, it shall not be deducted from the amount of fraud, on the ground that he/she performed part of the principal, interest, or profit after he/she acquired money.

C. As to the assertion on the instant case No. 2017Gohap749

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant conspireds with M to deceive AW of the victim and acquired money.

① W refers to the belief that the credit rating of 0 and P is trusted, and that the lending of funds to G is made, M also refers to the raising of funds according to the credit rating of 'G' in this court, and the credit rating of 'N affiliated company will not be raised, and ultimately, the N affiliated company will be reported and the funding was provided.' Therefore, in determining whether the defendant deceivings AW, it is important whether or not the defendant knew that the defendant had no legitimate authority to guarantee the obligation of G on behalf of the P at the time of M, and as seen in the above 2. A. (2) above, it is recognized that the defendant was aware at least that M has no authority to grant P credit on behalf of the P.

② While soliciting investment in the Victim AW, M transferred to the Victim AW the statement that the Defendant would be able to resolve the land of the Party B, that is, if there is only before and after KRW 1.8 billion of the Party B, that is, the Defendant would be able to dispose of the work by taking out overseas funds, and that the Defendant would be able to prepare a letter of guarantee of the P name that the Defendant demanded by the Victim AW. Nevertheless, the Defendant repeated to M that it would be able to attract foreign capital investment in the F Zone business and for this purpose, and made M to prepare a letter of guarantee of the P name and deliver it to the Victim A. This is ultimately, given that the Defendant is assessed to have deceiving the Victim A along with M by using a crime, such as forging documents in the name of M, and thus, the relationship of fraud is established.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Three to forty-five years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crime: Each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud (at least five billion won, less than 30 billion won)

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Three years to 4 years

(b) Concurrent crimes under subparagraph 1: Crimes of false entry in the original notarial deed;

[Determination of Type] Type 1 (Non-business, Non-Organization) of the Act on the Forgery, Alteration, etc. of Official Documents, etc.

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] 8 months to 2 years

(c) Concurrent crimes under Article 2: Crimes of uttering of the original notarial deed;

[Determination of Type] Type 1 (Non-business, Non-Organization, etc.) such as forgery, alteration, etc. of official documents.

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] 8 months to 2 years

(d) Crimes of forging each private document and uttering thereof;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (Counterfeit, Alteration, etc. of Private Document)

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Six months to two years

(e) Crimes of forging securities and exercising the same: The sentencing criteria shall not be prepared as at the time of prosecution.

(f) The scope of final sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes;

From April to April of 3 years (in the relation of concurrent crimes with the crime of forging securities to which the sentencing criteria are not applied, only the lowest limit of the recommended sentence shall be considered).

3. Determination of sentence: Seven years of imprisonment;

In the course of committing the instant crime, the defrauded amount by the instant crime exceeds KRW 5.1 billion and the damage was rarely not recovered. The Defendant committed a crime that forges documents and endorsement of promissory notes in the name of the company M, and prepares and exercises the original of a false promissory note notarial deed, etc., with M in the process of committing the instant crime. As such, the method of crime is very poor, and the Defendant played a leading role in committing the instant crime. Even after committing the instant crime, even after committing the instant crime, the Defendant still did not seem to have done, such as holding an exercise to make a fake document or receive a forged check. It is inevitable to punish the Defendant.

However, it is necessary to consider equity in the case of judgment simultaneously with fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive, the defendant's health status is not good, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all sentencing factors specified in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined like the order, comprehensively taking into account.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Jong-jin

Judges Kim Jae-han

2) The entry of a corporation among the names of the company is omitted.

3) USD 1,50,000,000,000 around the end of January, 2015, USD 150,000,000 around the end of March, 2015, USD 200,000 around the end of April, 2015, and USD 1,50,000 around the end of April, 2015, and USD 1,500,000 in the second phase, begin trading in the third quarter of March, 2015, and complete the fourth quarter of April, 2015.

4) The purport that S would confirm the crowdfunding from the end of April 2015 to the beginning of May 2015 to G.

5) The indictment is written only as "victim", but it is obvious that it is Y in light of the contents and evidence of the entire facts charged, and there is no impediment to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense.

6) It is a clan that owns the largest land within the F District’s business site.

7) Since each crime in the judgment is in the relation of fraud for which the judgment becomes final and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentencing guidelines do not apply, but refer to them.

8) Because of concurrent crimes of the same kind, the type shall be determined on the basis of the sum of the amount of profit obtained by fraud.