2017Gohap 1159, 2019Gohap54(combined) fraud

B. The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

applicable rate violation (Fraud)

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.2.C

4.(a)D

5.(a) E

Fire-proof leather, national exhaustion, and public trial;

Attorney Park Ji-ho, Lee Jong-ok (for the defendant A)

Attorney Kim Yong-sub (for the defendant B)

Law Firm Yellow Sea (for Defendant B)

Attorney Cho Han-hoon

Law Firm LLC (For Defendant C)

Attorney Lee Sang-ok

Law Firm Western (for Defendant C)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Attorney O Dong-dong (Apon for defendant D)

Attorney Lee Young-hoon (the national election for the defendant E)

May 3, 2019

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for 4 months, by imprisonment for 3 months and by imprisonment for 4 months, by imprisonment for 6 months, by Defendant B and C, by imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, by imprisonment for 1 year, by imprisonment for 1 year, and by imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months.

However, with respect to Defendant E, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant E shall be subject to probation for two years and shall be ordered to provide community service for 120 hours.

Criminal facts

Defendant A was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court on May 7, 2015, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on December 9, 2015, and on February 3, 2016, the above judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter referred to as "the final judgment") and on September 2, 2016, sentenced ten months of imprisonment for fraud at the Jung-gu District Court on September 2, 2016, and sentenced two years of suspended execution (hereinafter referred to as "the final judgment") to be final and conclusive on December 3, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the final judgment"), and on April 14, 2017, the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 22, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the final judgment"), and on June 22, 2017, the said final and conclusive judgment was sentenced to 30 years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "the above final judgment"). 2013 years of 20.

On August 31, 2016, Defendant B was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime of fraud and two years of suspended execution in the Incheon District Court Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 28, 2018.

On September 22, 2016, Defendant D was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and three years of suspended execution at the Seoul Central District Court on April 3, 2018, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 3, 2018.

[2017Gohap1159]

1. Fraud against Defendant A and E Victim C

On December 2014, Defendant A and E conspired to acquire money by pretending to purchase so-called specified goods 1) with knowledge that the victim C retains KRW 500 million.

around 10:00 on January 4, 2015, Defendant A introduced Defendant E to the above victim at the first floor coffee shop of Songpa-gu Seoul Fagu Seoul, and Defendant E may receive KRW 50 million if it invests KRW 300 million to the above victim. However, if it is lent KRW 150 million to the above victim, Defendant A received KRW 100 million worth KRW 50 million (hereinafter referred to as “act as used by the relevant Defendants”) within 2-3 days, and received KRW 200 million from the above victim, and received KRW 150 million from the above victim, including KRW 10 million for face value and KRW 50 million for a check with KRW 10 million for face value and KRW 50 million for a check with KRW 100 million.

However, Defendant A and E purchased certain goods or 50 million won notes issued by the Bank of Korea equivalent to KRW 50,000,000 to the above victim, and there was no intention or ability to pay KRW 200,000 to the above victim.

As a result, Defendant A and E conspiredd to deception the above victim and received delivery of KRW 150 million from the above victim.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by Defendant B and C;

Defendant B and C conspired with G, H, and Co-defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “A” in this paragraph) in order to acquire money and goods by borrowing investment in the costs of disposal of specified goods at around the end of the month of 2016, while Defendant B and C intended to design the crime plan, G is the person with the special duty to dispose of the specified goods, H is the victim, and H is the victim, and Defendant B and C share the wind as if G had the right to dispose of the specified goods.

H introduced Defendant B and C at a coffee shop around the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 28, 2016, the following purport was that the victim J would pay back the amount of KRW 5 billion to the victim J at the I hotel located in Changwon on February 2, 2016. Defendant B and C introduced Defendant B and C at the above victim’s coffee shop, and Defendant B and C are capable of handling specified goods, and Defendant B and C are able to treat the specified goods, and 1 sample sample, which is a specific object (50,000 won, KRW 50,000,000,000,000).

In addition, Defendant C had two dudddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

Then, H and Defendant C have the victim J remitted KRW 5 billion to the financial account under G name, and Defendant C prepared and issued a letter of performance to the effect that, on April 29, 2016, if the above victim failed to pay the amount of KRW 7.5 billion as promised until the bank closed, Defendant C would be responsible for and paid for the remitted money to the financial account under G’s name.

However, fact is that G, A, H, Defendant B, and C did not have the ability to hold specified objects or dispose of specific objects, so even if the victim received KRW 5 billion from the above victim, there was no intention or ability to pay KRW 7.5 billion to the victimJ.

As a result, Defendant B, C, in collusion with G, A, and H in order, deceiving the said victim, and it received KRW 5 billion from the victimJ to the financial account in the name of G.

3. Fraud by Defendant A, B, and D

At around June 2016, Defendant A and B kept the right to trust of 50,000 million won, which is the specified goods that the victim N, operated by the victim N, in the Gyeonggi-gu M, Seoyang-gu M, and the use of the right to trust of 50,000 won, could not be used because of the use of the right to trust of 10,000 won in the old currency, and the amount of KRW 150,000 in the old currency would be KRW 40,000,000 in the upper currency, and the amount of KRW 20,000,000, more than half of the price of 1kg.

After that, around October 2016, Defendant A and B stated to the effect that “Defendant D” had the greatest number of specified objects in Korea, and that “150 million won can be immediately given 100 million won to the victim immediately.” Defendant A called Defendant D’s home address at the victim’s end on October 2016, when the victim calls the victim at the end of 2016, there is no problem in receiving a gold from Defendant D. In that sense, Defendant D’s home address was known to Defendant D.

Defendant A introduced Defendant D as a person who keeps specified goods of Defendant D at the Defendant’s house located in Gwangju-si P on November 1, 2016, to the effect that “Defendant D would give 10 million won to the victim N per share of KRW 150,000,000 per share of KRW 150,000,000,000 per share of KRW 1kg per share of the victim,” and that it received 10,000 won in total from the said victim as an advance payment.

However, Defendant A, B, and D were not in custody of a new and outstanding currency or pelba, which is a specific object, and there was no intention or ability to exchange money under the above conditions.

As a result, Defendant A, B, and D conspired in successive collusion and deceptiond the victim N, and received KRW 100 million from the above victim.

4. Defendant A and B’s fraud

Defendant A and B stated to the effect that, on December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff would provide two '1kg Ampids to the victim N' in front of the R in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Q, it would give KRW 500 million to the victim N, as the new right of KRW 50,000,000,000 to the new right of KRW 50,000,000,000.

However, even if the defendant A and B received two above 1kg dubs from the victim N, the defendant A and B did not have an intention or ability to reduce the 50 million won new rights to KRW 50 million.

As a result, Defendant A and B conspired to deception the above victim and received two 1 kg abslicks equivalent to the total market value of KRW 97 million from the victim N.

"2019, 54"

5. Defendant E’s fraud

At around 10:00 on March 13, 2017, Defendant E made a false statement to the effect that, if Defendant E lent KRW 300 million to the victim V, who was introduced from the 'T of the tea house' located in the Namyang-si, the amount of KRW 1 billion was added to the amount of KRW 700 million within 10 billion.

However, the facts are that Defendant E did not have any intention or ability to pay the sum of KRW 1 billion in addition to the amount of KRW 700 million within 10 days, even if Defendant E received KRW 300 million from the above victim because there was no specific plan to create the earnings of KRW 700,000 by selling gold in accident within 10 days, and there was no real plan.

Accordingly, Defendant E by deceiving victim V as above and received a check equivalent to KRW 300 million from the above victim.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 Highly 1159"

1. Each statement made by the defendant A, B, C, and D in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each statement made by the defendant A, B, and D in the seventh trial records;

1. Defendant E’s statement in the 8th trial records;

1. The entry of the witness N, C (part) in the second protocol, the entry of the witness W, X, and B (part) in the third protocol of the public trial, the entry of the witness J in the fourth protocol of the public trial, the entry of the witness G in the fifth protocol of the public trial, the entry of each part of the witness H in the fifth protocol of the public trial, and the entry of some of the witness A in the sixth protocol of the public trial;

1. A (the first time includes the part of the statement made by the defendant A), the defendant D (including the part of the statement made by the defendant), B (including the part of the defendant A), D (including the part of the defendant), and N], the protocol of examination by the prosecutor of each prosecution against the defendant C and A;

1. The part concerning Defendant B’s statement among the third police interrogation protocol;

1. Statement made to the prosecution by the N;

1. N's statement, and copy of the police's statement to J;

1. A written statement in W and X;

1. N’s petition;

1. A report on internal investigation (the sending of a photograph of a reporter, a fladial purchase) and each photograph attached thereto (the title of an investigation record Nos. 8 through 11), a report on internal investigation (the front of a restaurant operated by a informant who was found by the suspect), and each photograph attached thereto (the title of an investigation record No. 13 through 15) and a report on investigation (D telephone investigation);

1. Each and cash custody certificate (Evidence Nos. 5 and 6 of the evidence list);

1. Previous Records (Defendant A, B, and D): The results of each inquiry (Evidence List Nos. 27, 30, 31), the upper force of each disposition and the results of confirmation (Evidence List Nos. 29), the current status of personal confinement (No. 29 of the Investigation Records No. 577 of the Investigation Records), the investigation report (Attachment No. 1 of the Investigation Records No. 526 through 528 of the Investigation Records), the judgment attached thereto (Attachment No. 526 through 528 of the Investigation Records No. 1 of the Investigation Records), a copy of the investigation report (C, and the statement No. 316 through 368 of the Investigation Records), each of the judgments attached thereto (Attachment No. 2 of the Investigation Records No. 65 of the Investigation Records);

“2019Gohap54

1. Defendant E’s legal statement (the nine trial date);

1. Part V and Y (part of the police interrogation protocol) of the second police interrogation protocol against Defendant E;

1. The statement of each police officer on V and the photograph taken by the Kakakao Stockholm attached thereto;

1. Determination as to the defendants and their defense counsel's assertion by cutting down a complaint and a cash custody certificate, a copy of a check, a camera, and text message attached thereto

1. Whether the crime of paragraph (2) is established in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

A. Defendant B

1) Defendant B and defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant B did not agree to commit fraud against Defendant G, H, and Co-Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “A” in determining the argument between Defendant and his defense counsel), Defendant C and the victim J, and did not share the act of committing fraud against the said victim.

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the prosecutor’s evidence, Defendant B and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable, since it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant B conspired with Defendant C in sequential order with Defendant C to commit fraud against the victim J.

① G stated to the effect that “A” and Defendant B were in colored to commit a crime committed by Defendants B and C in the process of interrogation of specific goods and this court, but they were not affected by the victim J,” or that “A and B and C would have made an answer to KRW 5 billion of the above victim’s five billion, which were H in physical color.” As to the reasons stated above, “B” were the same as the Chairperson (Defendant C). In addition, the said statement was made to the effect that “B and Defendant B were in front of the crime committed by Defendants B and C, and that it was hard to recognize the credibility of the victim’s defense counsel’s 6th anniversary of the fact that each of the aforementioned statement was made by Defendants B and C’s 6th anniversary of the fact that the victim’s 4th public prosecutor’s aforementioned statement was made in collusion with Defendant B and 6th public prosecutor’s CH, and that it was also difficult to find Defendant B and his defense counsel’s 5th public prosecutor’s counter-examination.

② Around April 28, 2016, H stated in the investigative agency and this court that “G” made a statement to the victim J on the purport that “A” had a good capacity to handle a specific object, and that “A sampling, which is a specific object, was a person who took up a large number of samples as Seoul.” 7) H directly met G only after having reached April 29, 2016. On the other hand, Defendant B and C knew G from around 2012, it is natural to view that Defendant B and C explained the above victim about the specific object disposal capacity, procurement capacity, etc. of G.

In addition, considering that there are circumstances in which H’s intent to reduce his/her responsibility or to increase the degree of his/her crime committed by other accomplices, or there is a possibility that H made a statement by distortion of some of its contents, it is natural to view that H incurred considerable monetary loss on a separate basis before April 28, 2016, taking into account the history that H incurred considerable monetary loss to the victimJ prior to the victim’s occurrence of specific goods, Defendant B, and C, who introduced H by light of the victim’s standing without entirely reliance on the end of the said end of the said period, and only spent a large amount of KRW 5 billion.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B and C’s words and conducts had a substantial impact on the transfer of KRW 5 billion to the financial account under G.

③ Defendant B introduced and introduced Defendant C to the victim J and H to raise funds. Furthermore, Defendant B was accompanied by G, A, and Defendant C, the place where the said victim transferred KRW 5 billion to the financial account in the name of G, and the place where the victim J transferred KRW 5 billion to the financial account in the name of G. If Defendant B is irrelevant to the fraud of the said victim, there is no reason to do so with G, A, and Defendant C for each relevant place before and after the fraud.

④ Around March 2015, prior to the occurrence of fraud against the victim J, Defendant B was subject to criminal punishment for the crime of deceiving Defendant B to the effect that “A is a fund company and only KRW 100 million in cash is entrusted with KRW 100 million as interest to the fund company and may borrow KRW 3 billion as business funds.” In addition, Defendant B did not participate in the crime of deception against A and the said victim at the time of the lapse of two months from April 28, 2016, on the premise that Defendant B and the said victim were in custody of specific goods, as described in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the crime, and, thus, it is natural to deem that Defendant B did not participate in the crime of deception against the victim J or did not conspired with other accomplices.

6. Defendant B did not directly confirm whether the so-called specific goods mentioned at the time of committing the crime against the above victim actually existed, and even though G did not know whether it was practically capable of handling the specified goods, Defendant B did not notify the victimJ of such fact, rather than reliance on the victimJ’s ability to dispose of the specified goods. However, even if the above victim was notified by Defendant B of the fact that the victim did not have conviction as to whether the specified goods were actually in fact, it is difficult to view that he remitted KRW 5 billion to the account in the name of G to disadvantageously disadvantage the money through the specified goods.

B. Defendant C

1) Defendant C and Defense Counsel

Defendant C was not recruited to commit frauds against G, A, H, Defendant B and the Victim J, and did not share the act of committing frauds.

2) Determination

In full view of the circumstances described in paragraphs (1) and (2) as well as the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the prosecutor, Defendant C may be sufficiently recognized that he conspired with G, A, H, and Defendant B and participated in the act of fraud against the victim J in order. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant C and the defense counsel is rejected.

① On April 20, 2016, A received and kept two 100 million won in total from G with a view to unfashing funds by using dudbs. However, Defendant C stated to the effect that, on April 28, 2016, Defendant C sent the said dubs to the victim J via H, in order to cause two dubs. On the same day, the said victim transferred KRW 5 billion to the financial account in the name of G. Meanwhile, at around 4 p.m. on the same day, Defendant C and the victim J expressed to the effect that “a dubsing the dubs to use the dubs in order to display the dubs on the grounds that the dubs were charged separately to Defendant C and the victim J.”

Then, Defendant C had Ha and Defendant B bring two B alley in the place where she was in possession of the pelb with a view to raising funds by using the pelbs in possession of A, and received two pelbs from A, and can be deemed to have carried out and carried out the pelbs back to H. As such, Defendant A, Defendant B, and C had an agreement with the victim J to acquire money by deceiving the said pelbs through H with the possession of a specific object. 9)

At this Court, A made a statement to the effect that “A himself has replaced Defendant C by telephone from G,” and Defendant C made a statement to the effect that “A was unable to take place after the transfer of the above KRW 5 billion to G,” and “A has withdrawn KRW 5 billion transferred from the victim J on April 29, 2016 from the victim J as one copy of the check of KRW 3 billion and one copy of the check of KRW 2 billion to Defendant C at the Busan Shipping Authority, and Defendant C made a flick in governance. D. The Defendant C made a statement to the effect that it is difficult for the victim to take part in the above act of fraud or to take part in the crime, taking into account the possibility that there was a possibility that there was a possibility that there was a possibility that the victim may take part in the crime, even if the victim’s statement to the effect that it is difficult to take part in the act of fraud or to take part in it into account other circumstances.”

③ In addition, Defendant C requested the Victim J to pay KRW 5 billion to the financial account under G. Moreover, Defendant C also prepared and delivered a written performance note stating that if the said victim did not pay KRW 7.5 billion as promised until the closing of the bank on April 29, 2016, he would be responsible for and paid the amount remitted to the said victim to the financial account under G’s name. If Defendant C is irrelevant to the criminal conduct against the Victim J, it is difficult to find any special reason or motive to prepare and deliver a written performance note to the said victim even when she bears the risk of paying KRW 5 billion to the said victim.

④ Since the crime of fraud against the victim J, including Defendant C, committed against the above accomplices, was completed immediately after the said victim remitted 5 billion won to the financial account under G’s name. As such, even if Defendant C did not actively intervene in the process of returning, re-delivery, or distributing or using the check amounting to KRW 5 billion, which was between other accomplices and the above accomplices, from the day after the victim J transferred 5 billion won to the financial account under G’s name, there is no obstacle to deeming Defendant C as a co-principal of fraud against the victim J.

2. Whether fraud was established as of November 1, 2016 against the victim N under paragraph (3) of the crime

A. Defendant B

1) Defendant B and defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant B only introduced Defendant A to the victim N, but did not attract Defendant A, D, and the victim to commit fraud or did not share the act of fraud.

2) Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence, Defendant B and the defense counsel’s aforementioned assertion is rejected, since it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A and D in sequence and participated in the crime of fraud against Defendant N.

① From April 2016, Defendant B visited the said victim’s restaurant operated by the said victim at investigation agency and this court, and introduced Defendant A as a person who is traveling with gold or personal rights. In addition, Defendant A and B may bring about the said victim’s payment of money if they invested in money.

The above victim's statement was made to the effect that gold is stored in a few whites, and it was made to the effect that "a 1kg head of gold and 50,000 won was displayed to the effect that "the above victim made an explanation to the effect that this product may be damaged, and a dub and 50,000 won photograph was sent to the victim N." The above victim's statement was made to the effect that "the above victim made an explanation to the effect that this product may be damaged, and it was sent to the victim N." The above victim's statement in relation to the circumstances where it was believed that the specific product actually existed, such as the denial of the defendant B, the large quality newspapers with the defendant B, and the examination of witness in this court, without changing the main contents of the statement, was consistent without changing the main contents of the statement, and the dub photograph taken by the defendant B and transmitted to the victim N, and it was difficult to find the reason or motive that the above victim made a false statement to the defendant B up to the punishment for perjury.

② In addition, Defendant A appeared as a witness in this court, and recognized that Defendant A and Defendant B were able to process specific goods to the victim N., and further stated that Defendant A conspireded with Defendant A to commit fraud at the time when Defendant A presented 50,000 won to the victim of the vehicle at the between the between the two vehicles and the two vehicles at the time when Defendant A contacted Defendant B in advance, and on the purport that “I would see the fact that I would see the fact that I would have 50,000 won fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact about the victim.” In light of the above contents of Defendant A’s statement, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant A conspired to commit fraud with Defendant A.

③ Defendant B, on November 1, 2016, asserts that Defendant A and D did not bear a criminal liability as an accomplice in fraud against the said victim on the ground that Defendant A and D would give the victim N a total of KRW 150,000,000 to KRW 10,000,00,000, at the time of false remarks.

However, Defendant B introduced Defendant A from April 201 to November 1, 2016, as the person who treats the specific goods to Defendant N, and followed the victim several times from April 2016 to around six months from November 1, 2016, and performed a speech and behavior that seems to have actually existed, which is a specified object, or that the victim N was delivered KRW 100 million to Defendant D, without misunderstanding that the specified goods actually existed.

Therefore, in light of the role performed by Defendant B from the time when the above victim met Defendant A to the time when the above victim delivered KRW 100 million to Defendant D, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant B’s functional control over the act of fraud against the victim N exists.

B. D Related

1) Defendant D and defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant D believed that he could seek a pelba from AA, and introduced AA to Defendant A, and did not attract Defendant A, B and the victim N to commit fraud, and there was no awareness of the deception of the said victim.

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the prosecutor’s evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant D conspired with Defendant A and B in order to participate in the fraud of the victim N, and that there was a perception that the above victim’s money was acquired by fraud. Thus, Defendant D and the defense counsel’s above assertion is not acceptable.

① The victim N refers to a person who deals with specified objects, such as Defendant D, at the investigative agency. The introduction of Defendant D was made by Defendant D’s house. At this point, Defendant D, along with Defendant A, made a statement to the effect that “The half of the price of the city, may be sealed.” The victim made a statement to the effect that “The victim sent KRW 100 million to AB, who is the wife of Defendant D,” and the victim made a statement to the effect that “the victim would handle the specified objects” or “the victim would bring the gold to the victim within 2 hours per week,” and “the victim made a statement to the effect that the victim would bring the gold to the victim within 16 hours per week.”

Defendant D’s belief that the gold bars, which are specified objects, can be handled, and the circumstances leading up to Defendant D’s delivery of KRW 100 million to Defendant D’s wife, are consistent without changing the main contents of the statement as well as the changes in the circumstances underlying the background of the statement, such as Defendant D’s denial, Defendant D’s questioning with the Defendant D, and examination of witness in this court; and X also made a statement consistent with the above victim’s statement in this court; 17), and it is difficult to find reasons or motives to make a false statement unfavorable to Defendant D even when the victim N is punished for perjury. In light of the above, the credibility of the above victim’s statement can be sufficiently recognized.

② On November 1, 2016, Defendant D prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate (No. 17 of the Investigation Record No. 1) to the effect that “150 million won may be brought to the victim N immediately upon receipt of KRW 100 million from the said victim’s home,” and that “the said victim’s home was granted KRW 100,000 from the victim’s home to the effect that it did not bring to the pelb by the time the framework has expired, and that it would bring about KRW 10,000 until November 3, 2016.” However, if Defendant D was not merely introduced to the victim and was granted KRW 100,000 from the victim’s home, it is difficult to find out that there was no special reason to issue KRW 100,000 to the victim’s home with the said victim’s home to the effect that it would bring to the pelb, and that it would incur KRW 100,000,000.

③ Even according to the Defendant D and his defense counsel’s assertion, Defendant D’s failure to fully know whether AA owns AB and whether AA has the ability to handle BB, etc., the Defendant D himself can handle specified objects through AA. However, even if the above victim was given a proper notice from Defendant D on the circumstances that the victim was not clearly aware of whether AB owns BB, it is difficult to view that Defendant D would deliver KRW 100 million to Defendant D.

3. Whether fraud was established as of December 9, 2016 against the victim N under paragraph (4) of the crime

A. Defendant B and defense counsel

Defendant B and in collusion with Defendant A, did not defraud 1kg the victim N.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the prosecutor’s evidence, Defendant B may sufficiently be recognized that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A and acquired two 1kg dus from the victim N, and thus, Defendant B and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

① At the time of the public prosecutor’s statement, Defendant B purchased 2 B, 1km on December 2, 2016 and promised to bring about KRW 500,000,000 to Defendant B. At the time, Defendant B did not comply with the promise. At the time, Defendant B recovered 2 B, and Defendant B again made a statement to the effect that “the 50,000,000 won or 30,000,000 won were to bring about 2,000,000,000,000 won and 2,000,000,000 won and 2,000,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 16,000,000 won and 16,000,000.

The above statements made by the victim N in an investigative agency and in this court are very concrete in regard to the situation in which two duddddys were cut off as of December 9, 2012, and it is difficult to deem that the above victim did not have experienced falsely, and it is difficult to find the reason or motive to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant B even when the victim N in charge of punishment for perjury, and in light of the fact that it is difficult for the victim N to find the reasons or motive to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant B, the credibility of the above statements can be fully recognized.19)

② Defendant B prepared a cash custody certificate of KRW 97 million equivalent to two values and delivered it to Defendant B. Although Defendant B is irrelevant to the two kinds of cash custody certificates issued by the said victim to Defendant A, it is difficult to find any special reason or motive to prepare the cash custody certificate to the same effect (the Defendant B asserted that X and W were to prepare and deliver the cash custody certificate as above without any choice but it is difficult to confirm the circumstances to deem that X andW threatened Defendant B).

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A

Each of the Criminal Code, Articles 347(1) and 30(Fraud and Selection of Imprisonment)

B. Defendant B

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Fraud, Selection of Imprisonment and Selection of Imprisonment) and Articles 347(1) and 30 (Fraud, Selection of Imprisonment) of each Criminal Act

C. Defendant C

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

D. Defendant D

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

E. Defendant E

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Provided, That Article 30 of the Criminal Act shall apply to the fraud against Victim C) (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Crimes of fraud in the first head of the holding that the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for December 10, 2015 is completed, and crimes specified in paragraphs (3) and (4) of the Criminal Act are committed, respectively;

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant A

Each, the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the crime of fraud against victim C under paragraph (1) of the crime, between fraud and fraud against victim N under paragraph (3) of the first head of the judgment, and the crime of violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in accordance with the first head of the judgment of the judgment, and the first head of the judgment of the judgment]

B. Defendant B

Each of them, the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act [of fraud between the first head on which each of the above crimes and judgment becomes final

C. Defendant D

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (it is between the crime of fraud and the forgery of a letter of apology in the first head of the judgment which became final and conclusive)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant B and E);

Each of the crimes provided in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (In the case of Defendant B, the punishment shall be imposed in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with the largest punishment, and in the case of Defendant E, the punishment shall be aggravated by each concurrent crime of the punishment provided in the

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant B, C);

Each of the Articles 53(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act) (see, e.g., Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act; Article 55(1)3 of the same Act;

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant E);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Probation and community service order (Defendant E);

Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59(1) of the Act on Probation, etc.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

○ Crimes No. 1: Imprisonment from 1 month to 10 years;

○ Crimes No. 3: Imprisonment from 1 month to 20 years;

○ Crimes No. 4: Imprisonment from 1 month to 20 years;

(b) Whether the sentencing criteria are applied and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

No. 1 of this holding: The above fraud is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, respectively, of the first head of the judgment and the third final judgment, so the sentencing guidelines shall not apply.

○ 3 Crimes: The sentencing criteria shall not apply to the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, respectively, in the first head of the judgment of the crime of fraud.

0 Crimes No. 4: Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Fraudulent Crime: General Fraud [Type 1] below 100 million won

[Special Sentencings] Mitigations: Where the victim is fully responsible for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment from one month to one year

(c) Decision of sentence: Crimes No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, and crimes No. 3 and No. 4: June, Defendant A led the victim to commit each fraud under Articles 1, 3, and 4; Defendant A and his accomplice to compensate the victim C for the total amount of damages 150 million won with respect to the fraud under Paragraph 1; Defendant C and N are also deemed to have been recovered most of the damage to the victim C; Defendant C and N are also considered to have tried to obtain high profits from the end of the short-term fraud; Defendant A cannot be deemed to have been aware of the same criminal facts as the general fraud case; Defendant A cannot be deemed to have obtained directly from the victim's accomplice in relation to each fraud under Articles 3 and 4; Defendant A's criminal facts cannot be deemed to have been found to have been aware of the same criminal facts as the first one under paragraph 3 of the Criminal Act; Defendant A's criminal facts cannot be deemed to have been aware of the same criminal facts as the first one under paragraph 1 of the final judgment and the first one under paragraph 3 of the Criminal Act.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for not less than two years and six months, but not less than twenty years and six months; and

B. Whether the sentencing guidelines are applied: Each of the above crimes is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, respectively, with the first head of the judgment. Therefore, the sentencing guidelines shall not apply.

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months;

Although it is difficult to confirm that Defendant B acquired a significant portion of the criminal proceeds from each of the instant frauds from co-offenders, the victim J and N are suffering from damage due to the dead end of the pertinent Defendants, including Defendant B, who intend to obtain high profit from each of the instant frauds, and it is difficult to see the instant case as identical to the general frauds. Each of the instant frauds can be tried together in the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, respectively, with the first head of the judgment and the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, Defendant B acquired a large amount of amount of money up to five billion won by deceiving the victimJ as if it were possible to pay money within a short period of time with Defendant B, and acquired a 10 million won and 97 million won from the victim N through similar means, taking into account the fact that Defendant B could not easily be seen as taking into account the following circumstances, and thus, Defendant B cannot be seen as taking into account the following factors: (a) the victim’s participation in the crime and the crime of fraud of this case.

3. Defendant C

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for two years and six months to fifteen years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] The General Fraud [Type 4] 5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won

[Special Sentencings] Mitigations: Where the victim is fully responsible for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, 3 years to 6 years

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months;

Defendant C does not have favorable circumstances to Defendant C, such as the fact that Defendant C had no criminal power, and it is difficult to confirm that Defendant C obtained criminal proceeds generated from the instant fraud from co-offenders, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the victim J appears in the desire to obtain high profit by short term; (b) it is difficult to view the instant case as being the victim’s end at the end; (c) the victim J does not want punishment of Defendant C; and (d) the victim J does not want to suffer from various diseases over the age of 87; (b) Defendant C could not have an advantage to Defendant C’s treatment of money within a short period of time; (c) Defendant C, by deceiving the victim of the instant crime to 5 billion won by deceiving him/her and continuously delivering the victim’s health-related relationship to Defendant C; and (d) Defendant C’s implementation of the sentencing guidelines by presenting the victim’s self-confiscing of the offender’s name and/or e.g., taking into account the fact that there exist any specific goods available to the victimJ, thereby doing so doing so.

4. Defendant D

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to ten years; and

B. Whether to apply the sentencing guidelines: The sentencing guidelines shall not apply as the crime of forging the first head of the judgment in the above crime of fraud and the crime of forging the private document is in the concurrent relationship under the latter part of Article 37

C. Determination of sentence: The victim N of one year, who is also at the desire to obtain high profit in a short period, is also unable to do so with the general fraud case. Defendant D's crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes with the crime of forging private document as stated in the judgment, and the crime of aiding and abetting the victim in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and there is no favorable condition for Defendant D with Defendant D, but Defendant D could not be tried at the same time. However, as Co-defendant B and A (hereinafter referred to as "B" and "A") could bring about 10 million won within the short period of time, by deceiving the victim N of this case to take advantage of the victim N, and by allowing the victim N of this case to take advantage of the fact that the victim's health was not recognized as a fraud crime, and it is difficult to take into account the fact that the victim's crime of this case had been committed with Defendant D's major efforts to prevent the victim from being aware that the N of this case was a fraud crime, and it is difficult to obtain the same type of crime of crime of fraud.

5. Defendant E

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to 15 years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria; and

[Determination of Punishment] The General Fraud [Type 2] is more than KRW 100 million, less than KRW 500 million

[Special Emotionals] Reductions: Where the risk of damage has not been substantially realized, the victim is also liable for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment of 10 months to 2 years;

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor and six months, three years of probation, two years of probation, and 120 hours of the community service order;

Defendant E, even if there are two kinds of criminal records of the same crime, has the same type of fraud in this case, and at different times, the victim C and V could have paid money within a short time by using a specific object, and as if the victim C and V could have induced the above victims to receive a total of KRW 450 million from the above victims, it is not good to commit the crime in light of the method and content of the crime of fraud of this case, the amount of damage, etc., but it is difficult to view the case as the case in general fraud, because the victim C andV agreed with the victim C and V, and the victim C do not want the punishment of Defendant E, the victim's mistake was divided by his own fault last time through the period of detention for a long time, and without any reasonable ground, the victim's crime of this case was led to the confession of the victim E and the victim's health, the age of the defendant E and health, the circumstances of the crime, etc., as well as the circumstances of the order, etc.

The judge of the presiding judge shall be net;

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Kim Jae-han

1) In similar cases, specified objects have been used as terms referring to parts of goods, such as domestic and foreign underground financial funds, new and old currency, gold bars, and bonds, which are kept in the form of non-funds, and are deemed to have been used in a similar sense in this case, and are only referred to as “specific goods”.

2) Defendant B and C recognized the identity of the facts charged, and recognized the facts charged under paragraph (2) by revising ex officio some of the facts charged without changing the indictment to the extent that it does not infringe upon the above Defendants’ right to defense.

3) The court acknowledged the pertinent criminal records upon the prosecutor’s permission for the modification of the indictment filed on November 12, 2018 by adding criminal records against Defendant A, B, and D.

4) Recordings of the record of the examination of witness G in relation to the witness G, page 16, 33

5) A introduced Defendant B and C to G (No. 1 of the record of the examination of witness G)

6) Defendant C contacted Defendant C with two pelba, and said, Defendant C had two pelba.

7) Recordings No. 3, 4 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness H

8) Upon the introduction of B, Defendant C, via A, asked the victimJ, who introduced the victimJ, about whether the Defendant C can procure KRW 5 billion by unfashing the amount of KRW 5 billion to G through G, thereby resulting in the victimJ’s remittance of KRW 5 billion to G financial accounts.

9) At this court, A made a statement that “A sent two dudbs to Defendant C, and asked how it was how it was followed.” The Defendant C sent the dudbs to water owners (referring to the victim J.C.), and the water owners took KRW 5 billion to G. It should be dealt with in Busan.” (No. 3 pages of the record of the examination of witness against Defendant A)

10) Recordings of the Protocol of Examination of Witness A for the Witness A

11) The six pages of the record of the examination of witness G related to the witness G.

12) Nos. 455, 498, 519, 1 to 4 of the record of the examination of witness to N of the witness examination.

13) Recordings of the protocol of examination of the witness A against the witness A

14) Examination records No. 484

15) Recordings of the witness examination protocol No. 25 against N of the witness.

16) Recording No. 32 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness with respect to N of Witness

17) Recordings of the Protocol of Examination of Witness X for the witness X-

18) Examination records No. 453

19) The victim N was unable to associate with the developments leading up to the retroactive preparation of the cash custody certificate in this court as of December 5, 2016. However, in light of the time interval between the time point of the public prosecutor’s statement and the time point of the examination of the witness in this court, the victim N stated to the effect that “the contents of the victim’s statement in the public prosecutor’s office are satisfied by confirming the contents of the statement made at the time of the public prosecutor’s statement, and ventilation his memory within the scope of the statement made at the public prosecutor’s office,” it is difficult to readily dismiss the credibility of the victim’s statement solely on the ground that the victim N did not properly associate with some of the process of

20) The crime of fraud against the victim N in paragraph (4) of the crime is committed before the first head of the judgment. However, the first head of the judgment that became final and conclusive on December 3, 2016 separate from the above final and conclusive judgment, and the crime of fraud or each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in accordance with Articles 3 through 5 of the first head of the judgment was committed before the final and conclusive judgment of the first head of the judgment, and thus, the crime of fraud or fraud against each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the victim N in paragraph (4) of the crime cannot be judged at the same time at the same time. Therefore, the crime of fraud against the victim N in paragraph (4) of the crime and the first head of the judgment of the judgment of the first head through Article 37 of the Criminal Act or each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) cannot be established in accordance with Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act.

21) The sentencing criteria are to determine the type on the basis of the sum of the amounts obtained by deceit.