205No137, 2005No1261 (Consolidation)

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

(Partial recognised Fraud)

(b) Fraud;

(c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (at night joint fight);

(d) Counterfeitd securities events;

1. (a) No. 200 (23 -), a representative director;

Seoul residential Seocho-gu

Permanent Address Seoul

2.(a)(b) . (c) . Do-young (44 - - - Do- honorary president of the company;

Seoul residential Seocho-gu

Permanent Address Seoul

Defendants and Prosecutor

Park Sang-woo

Attorney Yoon Yoon-young

1. Article 4 (5) (53 -)

Seoul Seodaemun-gu

2. Lower (61 - 61)

Seocho-gu Seoul

1. Seoul Central District Court Decision 200Gohap398, 2000 Decided December 17, 2004

Article 1274 (Joint Judgment)

2. Seoul Western District Court Decision 200Gohap58, 2000Gohap105 decided May 24, 2005

200 Gohap146, 200 Gohap232, 200 early 867, 200925 (Joint Judgment)

March 16, 2006

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, all parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the compensation order, among the parts against Defendant funeral service providers and the judgment of second court.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a term of three years or more and by imprisonment for a term of five to twelve years as indicated in the holding of the court below.

As to the person who commits the crime, the number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of the second instance shall be included in the above punishment as to the crime from 239 days to 12.

Part 1 of the forged U.S. credit (Evidence 1 of No. 889 of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, 2000, No. 889), Part 10 of the U.S. credit (No. 3 through 12 of the evidence of No. 615 of the same Cheongtension No. 615 of the same Cheongtension), Part 39,00 of the dry State credit (No. 615 of the same Cheongtension No. 34 of the same Cheongtension No. 615 of the same) shall be confiscated from the defendant funeral.

The appeal by the defendant Lee Jae-hee is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

1. Defendant No. 50

A. The Defendant, at the time, recommended the investment project in order to help the victims who are a kind of friendly military service, among those who purchased a claim for an industrial bank through Kim Young-young, the president of the first instance court, and received a high rate of profits by making a false purchase of the claim for the industrial bank at the time of misunderstanding of facts (1).

(B) The money invested by the above defendant was returned to the victims' profits at the early stage, and the real name financial system was implemented, making it difficult to recover the investment money and making it difficult to pay the profits. It did not receive the investment money by deceiving the victims.

(C) The use of a new apartment as security from one mother as security is to help the above defendant at a situation in which one mother is difficult to sleep, and it is not to be caused by the deception of the above defendant.

(2) At the time of concluding a sales contract with the defendant Kim Jong-Ma, the plan was planned to transfer ownership without any defect by converting the property of the defendant couple into the real name of the defendant couple, cancelling the registration of the establishment of a neighboring forest for the purpose of sale, but it was impossible to implement the real name conversion procedure due to the implementation of the real name system and the detention of the head of the above defendant's wife, and there was no intention to deceive Kim mother.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) of the judgment of the court below is too heavy.

2. Persons who are the defendants;

A. (1) Each part of the fraud against the victim's mother, mother, and best conspiracy (No. 1. 1. judgment of the court below)

The above defendant does not have to recommend the victims to make an investment in national and public bonds, etc. or receive money from them. (2) The part concerning the fraud of joint and several several liability to the least mother of the victim (No. 1. 3. 3. 3. of the judgment of the court below) is voluntarily joint and several liability as the representative director of the Pyeong Commercial Code, and it is not a joint and several liability by the above defendant's deception. (3) The part concerning the fraud of the victim's conspiracy (No. 2. 1. 1.)

There is no way to receive money from the gambling mother, etc., and there is no knowledge that he or she is a mother or Kim.

(4) Each part of fraud against the victim's mother, mother, and mother (Article 2.2.3 of the judgment below) (Article 2.3 of the judgment below) concerning the victim's mother's mother, mother, and mother's mother's accomplices are deceiving the victim to take money from the victim to open the transaction during the transaction, and do not acquire money from the victim's mother in collusion with the victim. (5) Each part of fraud against the victim's mother's mother (Article 2.4 of the judgment below, 5.5)

A fluoring a fluoring fluor, who was well aware of his fluorial fluor’s fluorial fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s fluor’s right

(6) The part of the fraud against the victim's mother (Article 2-4(b) of the court below's second instance judgment) did not receive money from the victim with no knowledge of the mother. (7) Each part of the fraud against the victim's mother and the mother's mother (Article 2-6(b) of the court below's second instance judgment)

The proposal was received from the mother who was introduced by the leap mother that he would receive the right of subscription, and only transferred to the mother side of the leapto by receiving KRW 4.8 billion from the mother to the mother, who was the mother to purchase the right of subscription. In addition, the father and the mother offered Kim Young-ro who received KRW 4.8 billion from the mother by again proposing the transaction with the Kim Young-ro, who was the person in charge of the right of subscription, and received Kim Young-ro who received KRW 4.8 billion from the mother, but the mother demanded the return of the leapto and did not deceiving the victims by deceiving the victims (8) and not by deceiving the victims (Article 2.7.7).

Before finding a leap mother who escaped by deceiving money from the above Defendant, he only received the check of 3 billion won per unit from the leap mother to return the check of 3 billion won per unit, which was received as a debt security by the leap mother, and did not instruct her mother to receive money by assault and intimidation. (9) The part of the fraud against the leap mother of the victim (No. 2.8 of the judgment below)

- The part of the exercise of each forged claim (No. 209.9) is each of the following subparagraphs: (a) the part of the exercise of each forged claim (No. 10.9.9.) is the part of the above defendant's non-real name.

Although the above defendant delivered a bond certificate in the judgment, the above bond certificate is not forged as a good.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the original judgment (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance judgment, three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance judgment) is too heavy.

2. A prosecutor;

A. Fact-finding (not guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance)

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, in spite of the defendant's intention or ability to repay, was delivered 280,000 won as the loan from the victim Kim-Ma twice on August 10, 1993, and it was recognized that he received 180,000 won as the loan from November 1, 1993. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

B. Decision of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (Decision of the second court)

The punishment of the second decision of the court below against the defendant's funeral (three years of imprisonment) is too weak.

I. Determination and ex officio determination on the grounds for appeal

1. Judgment on the assertion by Defendant Lee Jae-hee

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the part concerning the fraud against the victim's mother, mother, and tear (Article 1.1.2 of the court below's judgment) as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (1) The defendant's husband and wife solicited the victims to make an investment with the purport that the victims will be repaid at least 50% interest rate per two months in the case where the victims own national and public bonds, etc. are held at the time and place indicated in the facts constituting a crime in each judgment of the court below; and (2) the victim's mother and the mother who did not have any funds to make an investment.

As indicated in the facts of the crime, the defendant's husband and wife actively recommended that the above victims be provided with each house owned by the above victims as collateral and invested funds. ② The defendant's husband and wife did not inform the victims of the type of investment bonds and investment methods, progress of investment, etc. ③ The defendant's husband and wife did not return the investment funds for at least six years despite the victims' continued demand for return of the investment funds. Further, the defendant's industrial finance bonds worth KRW 10 billion which the defendant's husband and wife claimed to purchase with the victims' investment funds and owned at least 30 billion won are not confirmed, and the defendant's new bond bonds worth KRW 40 billion were not issued by the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office for 198 and the defendant's new bond bonds issued at least 90 billion won, and the defendant's new bond bonds issued at least 90 billion won can not be returned to the victims' new bond bonds without the defendant's new bond collection.

(2) The part of the fraud against the victim Kim Jong-tae (No. 1 of the judgment below No. 4 of the court below)

In light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below, ① the above 69-5,8,12, and 18 parcels of land which are the object of this case to be sold to Kim Jong-chul as stated in the facts constituting the crime, the defendant was unable to sell the above 9 billion won, and there was a registration of seizure and provisional seizure in the name of Cho Young-chul Bank, etc. 7 billion won in total, and ② the above defendant was unable to sell the above 9 billion won to Kim Jong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-U.S.-U.-dong-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-S.-U.-U.S.-U.-U. 200 million won.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

On March 8, 1983, the Seoul High Court sentenced 15 years to imprisonment for a violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Act from March 8, 1983, and the remaining term of punishment has expired on June 21, 1991. The crime of this case was committed during the period of parole, including the fact that the crime of this case was committed during the period of parole, and all the sentencing conditions prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is not heavier. Accordingly, the above assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant funeral

A. On the other hand, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired to make an investment to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 at the time of this case’s issuance of 20 million won or more with an investment warrant of Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s investment warrant of this case’s 50 billion won or more, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 provided an investment warrant of this case’s 9% or more to Defendant 2 with an investment warrant of this case’s maximum amount of money to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, which were stated on the 9th anniversary of their own investment warrant of this case’s 4th anniversary of their own investment warrant of this case’s 5th anniversary of their own investment warrant of this case’s 9th anniversary of their own investment warrant of this case’s 5th anniversary of their own investment warrant of this case’s 5th anniversary of their own investment warrant of this case’s 9th anniversary of their own investment warrant of this case’s 200 million won or more.

B. The part concerning the fraud against the maximum mother of the victim (Article 1 of the court below's judgment No. 3. 3)

The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, i.e., ① from the last investigative agency to the court of the court below to the fact that the defendant was responsible for all the defendant's possession of the defendant, which the defendant was the defendant's chief executive officer so that he would not have any damage to the defendant's best, so he did not participate in the management of the above company, and the defendant did not participate in the most master's management, and thereafter, the defendant's formal joint and several liability of the representative director is required for the transaction at the time of a bill discount agreement with each credit safe company stated in the above criminal facts, and there is no problem with the above defendant's responsibility and joint and several liability as stated in the criminal facts in the decision that the above defendant believed that the defendant was liable for the loan under his ordinary commercial name. The statement is specific and consistent, ② The defendant's chief executive officer was involved in the fraudulent Credit and Finance Company in March 193 (Seoul District Prosecutors' Office No. 8746, Dec. 6, 1993).

In the process of investigating the facts of the above-mentioned loan under the prosecutor's office as a suspect, the defendant's principal and interest was actually operated in the nearest manner and stated to the effect that he is only the president on the pretext of the above-mentioned loan (as 200 square meters 3241, 734 pages 305, 734). The defendant Lee Jong-hee also took over his relics in the process of investigating the prosecutor's office's office about the above case and stating that it was almost necessary to take over the above company because it was impossible to take over the loan without real name after implementing the real name system because it was impossible to take over the above 327, 717 - 718 pages), and (3) the most of the above 73 years old assets were used to take office as the representative director of the above company (as stated in the judgment of the court below, 43 years old stocks and part of the above case's intermediate payment as stated in each of the above 1357 and 4 years old assets used to take office as the above.

C. The part concerning the fraud against the victim's gambling (the second instance court's judgment No. 1)

According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below, ① the defendant 2,000 won of the above 70 billion won of the above 70 billion won of the non-indicted 2's own name and the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-2's non-indicted

On the other hand, Articles 2 and 3 (Attachment to the Reasons for Appeal with a letter of confirmation, etc. on the preparation of gambling) of the reference materials for the submission of counsel are as follows: (a) the two billion won promissory note, etc. in the name of the Kim mother issued by the head of the above defendant to Park Young-dong; (b) the receipt prepared by the above defendant, which means that the above defendant would demand another person's identification card, etc. in order to realize the real name of the above defendant's family name account, and pay the necessary funds after the real name conversion is successful; and (c) all the accounts and deposit details deposited by the head of the above defendant are written to the effect that both the defendant's family name conversion was made by the head of the above defendant, and there is no explanation about the documents prepared on September 1, 1998 and October 198; and (d) it is difficult to reverse the previous statement made by the investigation agency as a witness without any explanation about the reasons for denying the above documents, and it is also difficult to reverse the previous statement made by the investigation agency.

Ultimately, since the facts charged in this part are all found guilty, the above mistake of facts is not justified.

D. The part concerning the fraud against the victim's mother (the second instance judgment No. 2)

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, ① this mother's investigation agency and court of the court below held that on November 27, 1999, this mother requested her mother and Kim mother to return the check of KRW 1.1 billion on the day when this mother paid her 2 billion to her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her Kim.

In order to issue a player ticket, it is in accordance with the direction of the above defendant, and even before the issuance of the player ticket two times in gold, there is no exchange of old tickets, and there is no exchange of old tickets.

11. Even on 27. 27. The above defendant suggested that the above defendant issued a check at this time and again issued a check, issued a check and delivered a son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

E. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the part of fraud against the victim's mother and mother (No. 2. 3. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2 1. 1. 1. 3 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. . 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. . 1. . . 1. . . . . . 1. . 1. . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . .. .... ... . . ................................................. .............................................. ...

As above, Defendant 2 received money directly from her mother to her mother on the ground of raising underground funds, and delivered it to her mother on the same ground, the above Defendant stated that she could have sought money directly from her mother without any other third party, and that she could not accept it as to her failure to seek money from her mother, and that the above Defendant did not play a role in delivering her victims' money by introducing her purchase of her mother from her mother, Kim Young-chul, through the trial process of this case, she introduced her mother to her mother as the head of office or warehouse, and she did not act as her mother, she did not act as her mother for a long time. In addition, Defendant 2 of the above 100 million won's statement at the investigation agency (Seoul District Prosecutors' Office Seo-gu Office No. 12615, 1369, 200, 1369, 2718, 37, 47, 27, 208, etc.).

F. According to the part of fraud against the victim's mother (Article 2-4-A, No. 5 of the judgment of the court below) the court below lawfully examined and adopted evidence, ① the defendant's mother was introduced to the defendant's her mother to purchase the right of subscription on February 16, 200, and the defendant introduced the defendant's her mother to the defendant's her mother to the defendant's her head and visited the defendant's house at around 22:0, and the above defendant received 4.8 billion won from the defendant's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's she did not have such an opportunity. It was the defendant's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's her mother's right to return the defendant's 2.

G. The part on fraud against the victim's mother (No. 2-B. 4-2)

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the following facts are revealed: ① in the investigative agency and the court of the court below (the fifth trial date), the Defendant conspired with the victim to acquire money from the victim in collusion, and ② in the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below, the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below found that the right of the Gu was written in the third-party hotel on the following day after the leap mother made a clerical error in the right of the Gu at the third-party hotel, and the head of the court of the court of the court below returned the check to the effect that if the leap mother spreads in the currency with the head of the leap mother, it may be bound by this mother; and the head of the leap mother’s call from the next transfer outlet was the Defendant head of the court of the court of the court of the court below. As seen above, this part of the charges are found guilty, and the above assertion of mistake of facts is also without merit.

H. According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below, since the victim 2 was gathered, the above part of the fraud against the above 5th page of the warehouse (2.6, 8.8.), the defendant's right to gather money from the above 8th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the date when the investigation agency and the court below first adopted the defendant's right to gather money from the above 8th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the above 8th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the fact that the defendant had no right to gather money from the above 8th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the fact that he had no right to gather money from the above 8th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the fact that he had no right to gather money from the above 5th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the fact that he had no right to gather money from the above 2th anniversary of the defendant's right to receive money from the above 1st of the investigation agency.

I. The part of the dispute against the victim's leaps (No. 2 of the court below's decision No. 7)

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant's long-term care was ordered by the defendant's long-term career to receive KRW 3 billion by finding a leap mother, and the defendant's long-term care was received KRW 3 billion by assault or intimidation. As alleged by the above defendant, if the defendant induceds the defendant to a hotel room in order to receive money from the leap mother who had escaped, the circumstance that forced the defendant would be mobilized in the course of receiving money could have been naturally anticipated. Further, considering the fact that the leap mother who participated in the crime was under the pretext of a large amount of KRW 10 million, the above defendant's intent to receive money from the leap mother by assault or intimidation or was aware of the leap mother's intention to do so at least, and it is recognized that the leap mother was carried out, this part of the judgment of mistake is without merit.

(j) Part of exercise, such as forged claims;

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant's long-term person stated that the defendant's long-term person stated that he would not know whether he was actually issued by the U.S. bank, and that he would be able to exchange the U.S. bonds issued at the investigation agency in the U.S. bank (Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office No. 2000 type No. 12615 type No. 10615 type No. 1064), and that the defendant's long-term Kim will not display his bonds to South and North Korea, and that the above defendant should not display his bonds and make a copy of his bonds. The defendant's assertion that the certificate of credit is forged (The Seocho District Public Prosecutor's Office No. 2000 type No. 1, No. 22583 type No. 729 type) of the U.S. credit appraisal report prepared by the President of the Korea National Institute of Scientific Research, and that the above defendant was not aware of the above part or the above evidence.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. Summary of the facts charged and the defendant's indictment

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: 3. The facts charged are as follows; 4. The defendant's head denies that he/she did not receive money from Kim mother.

B. The judgment of the court below (1) 280,000 won (a) was made by the head of the defendant, who was led to the confession by the prosecutor, but this is likely to have committed a crime in a state of unsatisfying the past six years or more.

(B) At around 11:00, the above defendant lent 2.8 billion won to his mother, who is the father's husband, and asked for the above money to be lent to his mother, for several times within the opening hours of the bank. The mother was holding Kim Jong-chul with cashier's checks of 2.80 million won at around 14:00 on the same day. Since the above defendant had been dispatched to his employee, he received a promissory note of 30 million won at the face value of Kim Ma-Ma, which is after the due date of 3,000 won, from the above defendant's 9,000 won, 30 million won at the face value of the above 3,000 won after the due date of 1,000 won, 30 million won at the face value of the above 9,000,000 won at the face value of 3,000 won at the face value of the above 9,000 won, 199,000 won at the face value of the above 19,00.3.

Then, the statement was made.

However, on September 16, 2002, Norway filed a lawsuit claiming loan of KRW 280,000,000,000 for 200,000,000,000 for 2,000,000,000 won for 1,80,000,000 won for 3,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 1,50,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 1,50,000 won for 2,000,00 won for 1,000,000 won for 2,00,000 won for 1,000,00 won for 1,193,000,00 won for 1,00.

The statements of the above Kim Man and Man's respective statements are difficult to believe as they are, due to the lack of consistency. (c) One single statement is merely a professional statement from Kim Man, and as long as it is difficult to believe Kim Ma's statement, each statement of the mother is also difficult to believe it as it is. (d) A copy of the notarial deed (No. 2000, No. 32441, No. 1, No. 202-207) cannot be used as evidence of guilt in that it is not made by the delegation of the above defendant. The entries of the copy of the notarial deed (No. 19) alone are insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

(2) The part (A) on the fraud of KRW 180 million is likely to have committed a crime under the circumstance that the above defendant was temporarily led to the confession at the prosecution, which was 10,000 won, and this was 6 or more years ago. (b) If the above defendant 200 million won was leased to the first police officer on Nov. 1, 1993, he would be able to resolve all the money first borrowed from the above defendant's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's sale of land located in Busan 10,000 won and KRW 80,000 won borrowed from the above defendant's mother's mother's mother's 10,000 won in total (the above defendant's mother's 2,000 won in value and KRW 2,30,000 won in value in value in the issuance of the so-called Kim, and it is difficult to accept the above defendant's promise of KRW 196,000 won in value as it was trusted.

Since the charges of fraud against the victim Kim-Ma constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. Determination of party members

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below in light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the record. (1) First of all, the loan portion of KRW 280,000,000 is acknowledged as to the frequency and date of delivery of the money (A) as stated in the judgment below. It is recognized that Kim mother changed the assertion as to the frequency and date of delivery of the money. (b) However, among the contents of Kim mother's statement, it is difficult to view the portion that Defendant Young-young called to lend money to the mother who received compensation on the road in Busan, as a collateral, the portion that Defendant offered money to the mother who received compensation for the Daegu-gu land. The portion that the Defendant extended the due date of the bill to receive money, which was issued in the name of Kim mother, and the part that was exchanged with a bill again, included the motive and details of the bill as a collateral, and thus, it is difficult to view that it is difficult to have consistently included the motive and contents of the bill as a new collateral.

The complaint of this case was filed six years after the date of occurrence of the case and was filed with the investigation agency.

The statement was also made from that time. From the standpoint of the Kim mother who had demanded the repayment of claims against the defendant couple for six years or longer, when waiting for the expiration of the statute of limitations period, there is a possibility that the defendant's statement was made on the date and frequency of the loan that was in his/her custody, based on the documents such as promissory notes, etc., which were kept in his/her custody. After the occurrence of objective evidence, it seems that the defendant continued to maintain his/her initial statement before the discovery of the details of the financial transaction in the civil lawsuit with his/her mother, and the changes were made accordingly. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a sufficient reason to reject the credibility of the statement that the consistency of the statement was found under this circumstance. (C) Although the defendant's statement was not clear at the time of the first investigation by the prosecutor, it seems that the contents of the statement made by the two persons are identical for that reason, and that there was a little possibility that two persons' statement was made after the completion of the statute of limitations period, and that there was a change in the name or number of the bill delivered.

On the other hand, inasmuch as no one had lent money to Kim mother at all, it does not appear that the mother would have filed a false civil lawsuit with the intent to create favorable evidence in criminal cases against the defendant's funeral or in collusion with Kim mother for other purposes (the same shall apply in that the details of financial transactions inconsistent with the previous argument are discovered in the process of disputing the fact that Kim mother received money,) and as long as it is recognized that the mother has lent money to Kim mother, as seen above, it is reasonable to view that the money that the mother paid to Kim mother was delivered money to the defendant in relation to the above defendant, as seen in the above, is all the defendant.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the testimony of Trade Union on the ground that the statement is not consistent without considering the above circumstances is erroneous. (D) Furthermore, according to the testimony of this witness of the court below and the copy of notarial deed rejected by the court below (Seoul District Prosecutors' Office No. 2000No. 32441 and No. 1, 202- 207), the above defendant is detained and the husband of this case sent to the mother of this employee's mother on April 14, 1994, 1.488 and 2 million won in total to dispose of the previous claim, 9990 won in 9.7 billion won in notarial deeds (No. 603, 604, 6050) and 9.7 billion won in notarial deeds (No. 9.5 billion won in face value) and 9.5 billion won in face value in notarial deeds (No. 3.5 billion won in face value).

The above notarial deeds were prepared more than five months after the date on which Kim mother asserts that he lent money, and each underlying claim was stated in each notarial deed cover, and the mother at the time did not seem to have any reason or relationship to manipulate a false claim against the defendant couple, and the mother was granted an execution clause on August 9, 194 with respect to the above notarial deeds.

12. In light of the fact that the above defendant's facts charged as to each of the causes are found guilty as to each of the above facts charged in relation to the notarial deeds No. 6004 among the above notarial deeds, the above notarial deeds cannot be deemed an important evidence to show the substance of transaction and settlement amount at the time of the notarial deed, and the same applies even if the above defendant was not directly involved in the preparation process, even if he did not participate in the preparation process, it is not the same.

As above, as long as the above 6003 statement that it was made with respect to the money transaction between the defendant's captain and the Kim mother, this can be a strong evidence supporting the defendant's assertion. (E) Lastly, with respect to the remaining facts charged against the above defendant, the above defendant who has been consistently denied this part of the facts charged against the prosecutor's examination is one of the materials showing the credibility of the Kim mother's statement. (2) Next, the above statement at the Kim mother's investigative agency on this part, the court below's court court's and the court court's trial court's ruling that it was not possible to find any grounds to deny the credibility of the above 60 million won statement in light of the above fact that the above 6.8 billion won statement was already lent to the defendant's husband at the time of the above 9.5 billion won statement, the court below did not find any grounds to deny the above 9.5 billion won statement by the defendant's husband at the time of the above 9.5 billion won statement.

(D) Furthermore, for the reasons as seen above, the contents of the notarial deed written between Lee Jong-hee and Han-hee and the fact that the defendant made a confession in the prosecutor's office is also a material showing the credibility of the Kim mother's statement.

(3) Conclusion

As seen above, the facts charged are found guilty in full view of each of the statements made by Kim Jong-Ma, the union and the union and the union, and the contents of a notarial deed corresponding thereto. Nevertheless, the court below erred in not guilty of each of the above facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is justified.

4. Ex officio determination

Before the prosecutor's and the defendant head's argument that the sentencing of the above two cases were unfair, the party members were examined by combining the above two cases, and among the combined cases, the first instance court's judgment on the defendant head's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's 2 or 9

III. Conclusion

If so, there is no reason to appeal by Defendant Lee Jae-hee, and it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The decision of the court below is dismissed, and there are reasons for the above decision of the court below as well as reasons for the appeal of the prosecutor. Thus, pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part against the above defendant among the decision of the court of the court of the first instance and the remaining part of the decision of the court of the court of the second instance except the compensation order shall be reversed

Criminal facts

The defendant head of the Seoul High Court sentenced 4 years to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Seoul High Court on December 26, 1994, and the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on March 24, 1995 and the judgment became final and conclusive [205No137]

1. 1. The real estate held by the defendant in collusion with his husband 1. 3. The defendant shall be provided to the victim 9. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 9. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 6. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 9. The defendant 9. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 9. The defendant 9. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 4. The defendant 9. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 6. The defendant 9. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 9. The defendant 9. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 4. The defendant 9. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 9. The defendant 6. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 9. The defendant 9. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 9. The defendant 4. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 6. The defendant 9. The defendant shall be provided to the defendant 9. The defendant 1 shall be 50 million won or more for his own interest on the loan at the same location of the 9.

29. Around 29. Around 73, 50,000 won, 50,000 won, from a private national mutual savings and finance company located in Jung-gu in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, to obtain joint and several loans in the manner of discount of bills, and the victim did not pay the principal and interest of each loan, and the principal and interest of the loan to a private national mutual savings and finance company, 603,096, 514 won, including the principal and interest of the loan, 1,045, 167,534 won, by subrogation of the principal and interest of the loan to a private national mutual savings and finance company located in 1,000 won, and 3.

(a) Around August 1993 and around October 193 of the same year, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Yongsan-gu, 241 Newdong apartment 11 and 403, Dongdong apartment 11 and 403, and false statement to the victim Kim Jong-dong, his wife, "to pay money without a rupture if he loans money to the victim's wife," and around that time the victim issued a promissory note in the name of Kim head and issued in the same place at the same time and issued it to the victim as a security for the face value of KRW 30 million with a face value of KRW 280,000,000 in total two times from the victim, and shall receive KRW 280,000 from the victim as a loan borrowed money, and shall obtain KRW 20,000,000 in total two times as before and after November 1993, 193, and request the victim to lend KRW 200,000,00 won to the victim.

4. The facts are to purchase shares and to the extent that they do not have the intent or ability to leave the proceeds.

11. The defendant's house located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Cheonggu-dong 94- - 3, the defendant's house located in the above defendant's office "at the time of changing the regime, the defendant's shares or bonds held by power parties are traded in a closed way. At this time, 45-90% proceeds from the resale of 45-90% if the shares are purchased and marketed to sell the shares held by the former president of Mapo-si, Inc. at this time. Around 1-2 months after the investment, the profits will be returned along with the principal." The above victim's house (including part of the money received by the defendant from the victim's partner, 13701 - 1304260 million won) was delivered from the defendant's bank account in Seoul on the 24th day of the same month to 1937 million won from the date of the purchase and resale of the shares.

까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표 기재와 같이 합계 20억 원을 교부받아 이를 편취하고 , 5. 윤 모와 공모하고, 그 정을 모르는 아들 김 모를 이용하여, 구정권 시절에 지하 정치자금으로 숨겨놓았던 구권 ( 1994년 이전에 발행된 은색 띠 없는 1만원권 화폐 ) 수백억 원을 가진 자들이 총선 전에 이를 양성화하려고 한다는 풍문을 듣고, 실제로 30억 원 이상의 구권 뭉치돈이 조폐공사에서 발권된 상태로 포장도 뜯겨지지 않은 채 창고나 컨테이너 안에 보관된 것을 확인한 바도 없는 등 구권을 공급해 줄 의사나 능력이 없음에도 불구하고 위와 같은 소문을 이용하여 금원을 편취할 마음을 먹고, 1999. 11. 말경 김 모와 거래가 있었던 외환은행 언주로지점에 자신의 차명계좌인 허복용 명의로 예금통장을 개설하고 김 모로 하여금 위 지점 과장으로 근무하는 피해자 이 모에게 잔고 없는 위 계좌에서 21억 원의 자기앞수표 선발행 ( 이른바 ' 선수표 ' 라 함 ) 을 부탁하도록 지시하고, 김 모는 자신이 책임을 지겠으니 선수표를 발행해 달라고 이 모를 종용하여 같은 달 21. 및 22. 에 각 21억 원씩의 선수표를 발행하게 한 후 그 날 중으로 구권을 구입해 주겠다면서 이 모를 데리고 서울시내 광화문 등지를 돌아다녔으나 구권을 구입하지 못해 이 모로부터 위 선수표를 교부받지 못하던 중 , 1999. 11. 27. 09 : 10경 서울 강남구 신사동 소재 외환은행 언주로지점에서 피고인의 지시를 받은 김 모가 위 이 모에게 자신의 모친 장영자는 수조 원의 재산이 있고 구권창고를 관리하고 있는 대여섯 명 중의 한사람일 뿐만 아니라 부친인 김수철도 백억 원 이상의 재산이 있으므로 문제가 발행하면 자신이 책임지겠으니 선수표 20억 원을 발행해 주면 구권 30억 원을 구입하여 이번에는 틀림없이 위 지점에 입금해 주고, 피고인이 한빛은행에 예치한 1천억 원 정도의 자금 중에서 추후 50억 원씩 2회에 걸쳐 100억 원을 입금해 주겠다고 거짓말하여 이 모로 하여금 20억 원의 선수표를 발행하게 한 다음, 같은 날 11 : 00경 구권을 교환하기로 한 서울 광진구 광장동 소재 워커힐호텔 819호실에서 김 모는 피고인의 연락을 받고 온 윤 모를 어머니 일을 도와주고 있고 구권을 가지고 올 여자라고 소개하면서 위 자기앞수표 20억 원을 윤 모에게 건네주도록 하고 , 윤 모는 호텔쪽으로 오는 소형트럭을 가리키며 저 차가 구권을 싣고 오는 차량이라고 거짓말하여 이에 속은 위 이 모로부터 구권구입 자금 명목으로 자기앞수표 20억 원을 교부받아 이를 편취하고 , 6. 위 윤 모가 구권을 구입해주겠다고 속여 자신의 집에 데리고 온 사람들에게 구정권 시절에 발행된 구권 수조 원이 있는데 이를 양성화하여야 국가경제가 활성화되어 애국하는 길이고, 그 일을 자신이 맡고 있다고 거짓말하고, 윤 모는 그 옆에서 휴대폰으로 전화를 하여 마치 서울 인근이나 지방에 있는 구권 보관 창고에서 구권 수십억 원차량으로 운반되어 오는 것처럼 행동을 하는 수법으로 피해자들을 기망하여 실체도 확인된 바 없는 구권 교환을 미끼로 금원을 편취하기로 공모하여 , 가. 1999. 12. 11. 서울 서초구 서초동 1515 - 14 소재 베스티빌라 401호 위 피고인의 집 거실에서 사장 등 주요 임원들이 사기 사건으로 구속되어 업무가 마비된 금융피라 미드 회사인 하이네트코리아 ( HNK ) 비상대책위원 노 모, 김 모, 정 모 등이 관리하고 있던 돈 21억 원을 건네받아 가지고 온 피해자 하 모에게 위 피고인이 자기앞수표 21억 원을 주면 구권 30억 원을 구입하여 주고 그 차액의 절반인 4억 5천만 원을 수익금으로 주겠다고 속여 이를 믿은 하 모로부터 1억 원짜리 자기앞수표 21장 합계 21억 원을 교부받아, 곧바로 다른 방에 대기하고 있던 윤 모에게 전달해 주어 이를 편취하고 , 나. 1999. 12. 16. 같은 장소에서 위 피고인은 당시 이미 하 모로부터 받은 21억원 중 일부는 다른 계좌에 입금하였다가 인출하여 자신의 채무 변제에 사용하였고, 일부는 윤 모가 여러 번 세탁한 후 그 대부분을 사용해 버려 위 돈으로 구권을 구입해 줄 의사나 능력이 없음에도 불구하고 이를 숨기고 피해자 노 모, 정 모, 김 모에게 구권 구입자금조로 이미 받은 21억 원 외에 5억 원을 더 주면 원금 26억 원 외에 3억 8천만 원을 더 주겠다고 거짓말하여, 이에 속은 노 모 등으로부터 즉석에서 구권 구입 추가 자금으로 5억 원을 교부받아 이를 다른 방에 대기하고 있던 윤 모에게 전달해 주는 방법으로 이를 편취하고 , 7. 윤 모와 순차 공모하여 , 가. 2000. 2. 16. 저녁 서울 종로구 계동 소재 한국병원에서 윤 모는 김포축협 검단지 점장 우 모와 함께 동행한 피해자 장 모에게 자기앞수표 24억 원을 주면 구권 30억 원을 바꿔준다고 거짓말한 후, 피해자를 안심시키기 위해 같은 날 23 : 00경 위 피고인이 보낸 캐딜락 승용차에 우 모를 태우고 서초동 소재 위 피고인의 집안으로 함께 들어가 위 피고인에게 우 모를 소개하고, 위 피고인은 우 모에게 “ 이런 기회는 자주 있는 것이 아니다. 이 일은 내 아들이 거들고 있어 내일 아침이면 틀림없이 구권을 주겠다 ” 고거짓말하여 이를 진실로 믿은 피해자로부터 위 자기앞수표 24억 원을 교부받아 이를 편취하고 ,

B. On February 16, 200: around 00: Around 00, the Defendant received 2.4 billion won of the cashier’s checks from the victim of the head of the YY branch at the above Korean hospital in the same manner as the preceding paragraph; the Defendant received the money from the victim of the head of the YY branch at the above Korean hospital; around 23:00, the Defendant received the money again from the victim of the head of the YY branch at the same time, and acquired it by deception at 40

8. On February 10, 200: around 00, 10 on the 17th, 200, by using the Gam Kim Kim Kim, who is unaware of the fact, Kim mother around the Gangnam-gu in Seoul, at least 00, received the order of the above defendant, and followed by the victim mother who was aware of the right exchange at the night immediately preceding the day, and there was no actual confirmation of the existence of 3 billion won or more old rights, such as the preceding paragraph, and even though he does not have at all, he shall present 2.4 billion won or more of the check taken by the mother from this mother for the exchange of old rights, and "any other check may be replaced by 3 billion won of old rights if he is waiting for a locking." This shall be obtained 2.4 billion won or more from the victim's cashier's checks, and shall be taken over by him.

9. Along with normal income without any revenue, he/she will be able to obtain money by deceiving money through the exchange of old tickets, such as debt payments to many people, demand the return of the funds for exchange of old tickets by the elderly, the amount of 80 square meters for the maintenance of ecoos and glads, purchase costs for high-class vehicles such as Ecoos and grods, and 6-7 non-permanent notes, articles, and part-time payments for the payment of wages at his/her home, etc.;

A. On March 2, 200, the above defendant's office held 4.8 billion won of the cashier's checks from Kim Jong-cheon's office, and the defendant's mother and her mother, who had withdrawn 4.8 billion won of the cashier's checks from Kim Jong-cheon's office, will purchase 6.8 billion won of the cashier's checks from the victim's mother, i.e., the mother, who believed to be true, to purchase 4.8 billion won of the cashier's checks under the name of the money for exchange of the cashier's checks from the mother and the mother.

(b) On March 9, 200, the above defendant's possession of 0 billion won and 4.8 billion won are gathered from the above defendant's 5-year funeral, and the victim's 1.7 billion won and 1.7 billion won were collected from the defendant's 5-year funeral, and the defendant's 5-year funeral and 100 million won were collected from the defendant's 7-year funeral, and the defendant's 2-year funeral funeral office's 100 million won were collected from the defendant's 5-year funeral, and the defendant's 7-year funeral funeral office's 1-6-year funeral funeral office's 2-year funeral funeral office's 5-year funeral, and the defendant's 5-year funeral funeral office's 1-year funeral office's 2-year funeral office's 1-year funeral office's 3-year funeral office's 1-year funeral office's 2-year funeral office's 3-year funeral office's 2.

B. On March 8, 200, the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Hospital exercises ten copies of the public bond certificate in the name of the Minister of Finance and Economy of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the United States of the

C. On April 20, 200, the above defendant's house paid as the purchase fund for old tickets at the above defendant's house and urged the mother to return the amount of KRW 5.1 billion which was not returned, the defendant's house issued 39,000 (No. 34) forged as a security for it and used the public bond certificate in the name of the Minister of Finance and Economy in the name of the Republic of Korea, which is securities.

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence admitted by a member of the court below is as follows: 1 to 3 facts in the column of 1 to 2 of the judgment of the court below; 2. 1 to 3. ; 3 to 1 to 2 of the judgment of the court below; 16 to 2 of the judgment "each copy (No. 3241 to 1 of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office 200)"; 4 to 13 of the judgment of the court below in the column of 2. 9 to 21 of the judgment of the court below as "the 4. 1 to 4. 2 of the judgment of the court below" as stated "the 1 to 3. 1 to 12 of the judgment of the court below as stated in the 10th "the 1 to 4. 2 of the judgment of the court below," and 1 to 4. 2 of the "the 1 to 5. 1 to 5. Na," as stated in the judgment of the court below.

* Summary of Additional Evidence

1. Part of the statement at the court of the trial of the witness Kim-Ma; 1. Part of the statement at the court of the trial of the court below held by the witness Kim Kim-Ma; 1. Part of the statement at the court of the court of the trial of the court below held by the defendant

1. The written statement of each prosecutor's office against Kim Jong-Ma and Nom union (the case in this case);

1. A copy of the promissory note (the 19th page), a copy of the check number (the 1st page 20 pages of the instant case), a copy of the authentic deed (the 1st page 202 - 207 pages of the instant case);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1)(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1)(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 347(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3(1), Articles 347(1), 34(1) and 31(1)(Article 8-2 of the Criminal Act) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1)2 of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1)2 of the same Act, Article 347(1)2 of the same Act, Article 347(1) of the same Act, and Article 6 of the Criminal Act shall be established in principle for each victim's fraud.

1. Commercial competition;

Article 40 and Article 50 Section 6-b) of the Criminal Code at the time of each fraud, Article 9-1 of the judgment, each of the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Article 9-2 of the judgment, each of the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Article 12-2 of the judgment, each of the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Article 12-2-2 of the judgment, each of the crimes of uttering of forged securities, and Article 6-2 of the judgment

With respect to each crime in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the punishment prescribed in the crime in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and Article 12-2 of the judgment of the court; with respect to each crime of uttering of forged securities, the punishment is prescribed in the crime of uttering of forged securities due to the exercise of forged bonds of USD 12-1,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of fraud and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the 1, 2, and 4 of the Judgment), each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the 3th of the 3th of the Judgment), and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code [Article 1, 2, and 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Article 5, 6-A, 7 through 9, and 11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and Article 6-B of the Decision.

Article 9-B of the Decision on the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) (the aggravated punishment of each one's punishment provided for in the crime).

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Number;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

On March 8, 1983, the defendant, who was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment with labor for fraud and other crimes, was released on March 13, 1992. On February 7, 1994, he was indicted for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and was released on March 24, 1995. The defendant was released on August 15, 1998. The defendant had been released from 10 billion won of money for the above 70 billion won of the victims' money by using the above 40 billion won of money for the purpose of spreading the money from 15 billion won of the victims' money. The defendant was released from 193 to 10 billion won of the above 40 billion won of the money, and then acquired the money from 100 million won of the money by means of acquiring the money from 100 million won of the old market or 100 billion won of the money market, and then acquired the money from 190 million won of the government bonds.

As above, the Defendant’s above crime of fraud, which was sentenced to criminal punishment for fraud, was committed by parole or suspension of execution of sentence, and thus, was committed by taking advantage of his body temporarily, instead of being frightened during the period, by taking advantage of his body, and by taking advantage of his claim investment or right exchange, by deceiving money from many victims, shall be deemed to be extremely heavy in terms of the nature of the crime and the criminal fact.

Furthermore, considering the money obtained through deception of 80 square meters as above, employing 6 to 7 non-indicted 1, article, and strike book, and purchasing and using high-class automobiles, such as Ecubs and grods, cannot be said to be doubtful as to whether the Defendant is willing to commit a crime and live a proper life. It is merely a humping to ordinary people who have bloodd with such behavior that the Defendant shown, and live in good faith.

Furthermore, the defendant's assertion that the defendant had suffered damage due to the victims because of the above crime in the investigation and trial process of this case.

Considering the fact that no reflective light can be found, such as holding another person responsible for it, the defendant cannot be sentenced to heavy punishment corresponding thereto.

However, the victim's single mother, single mother, the mother, the mother, the mother, the mother, the mother, the mother, the mother, the mother, the mother, the mother and the mother's (part) once returned the cashier's check acquired by the defendant to the victim's mother, the victim's mother, the mother, the mother, the mother and the mother's child, and the victim's damage is restored by returning the cashier's check that the defendant acquired by the mother. Each crime of the 1. to 4. of the judgment of the defendant is the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the latter concurrent crimes, the defendant's age is over the victim's age, and all kinds of sentencing factors stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's character and behavior, family environment, motive, contents, result, circumstance after the crime

Judges Min Il-young

Judges Choi Jong-chul

Judges Kim Dong-young

Crime List

A person shall be appointed.