2020 Highest 2467, 2695 (Joint), 3534 (Joint), 4802 (Joint)

(a) Fraud;

(b) Forgery of public documents;

(c) Counterfeiting forged public documents;

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Events of a falsified investigation document;

(f) Embezzlement;

1.(a)(c)(d)(f) A;

2.(a) B

Kim Tae-tae, Gi-kak, Kim Jong-kak, Kim Jong-kak, Lee Jong-kak (Court Decision)

Attorney Yang Sung-hee (the national election for the defendant B)

July 6, 2021

[Defendant A]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

[Defendant B]

The defendant shall be innocent.

Punishment of the crime

"200 Highest 2467"

After having asked C to ‘A' as the Director of D Broadcasting Bureau E, the Defendant: (a) followed C with E taking the victim F in the form of drinking the victim F; and (b) had C obtain a large return on investment from the victim; (c) had the victim believe that there is a relationship with C; and (d) had the victim believe that there is a relationship with C, and had the Defendant borrow money from the victim who believed the Defendant’s ability to pay the money.

Accordingly, the Defendant becomes the victim at the end of March 2015, and the victim is the president of the G Broadcasting Station meeting with 10 billion won managing the cost of the G Broadcasting Station 15 billion won. From E, 10 or more persons at the director general of the G Broadcasting Station were requested to mediate the new site of the D Broadcasting Station’s base station and employees’ recreation center. If the Defendant found a good site that 15 billion won of the above group were to be financed first as site purchase fund, she purchased the price at the victim’s company’s name using the above rain funds, so that each broadcasting station can sell and purchase the price as price to D and each broadcasting station, so that she would remain 70 million won in profits from market price. On June 2015, 2015, the Defendant said that the Defendant would have the victim and the E Broadcasting Station to be able to perform the construction of new E in fact as if it had the victim and the E-Plaintiff were the victim’s ability to purchase the land.

After that, on April 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the “J” car page located in Ulsan-gu I, Ulsan-gu, stating that “The Defendant will repay the victim KRW 30 million more than two months after lending it to the victim.”

However, in fact, not only E but also C as mentioned above, the defendant did not have any idea to pay the above money within the due date for which he promised to have almost no income at the time, and most of the money remitted from the victim was thought to be used to pay the defendant's personal debt, so even if he borrowed the above money, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay it to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 15 million from the victim on April 8, 2015, and received KRW 15 million from the victim on or around 30,000,000 from the same month to the K account (M) with the Defendant’s use, and received KRW 30,000,000 from December 4, 2015, a total of KRW 57,70,000,000 from December 4, 2015, as indicated in the List of Crimes (1).

"200 Highest 2695"

1. Forgery of an official document;

On October 2017, the Defendant shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by adding 15% arrears as determined by the court, if the Defendant does not pay by the due date to the Defendant, within 14 days from the date of the decision of appeal of the court. The Defendant shall pay the amount calculated by adding 15% arrears as determined by the court. The Defendant shall pay the Appellant (Defendant), 1.N, claim amount to KRW 1.00,000,000,000,000,000.

(Won 5,670,00,000) describe the contents such as “Won 5,670,000”, and made an image file be produced by inserting a seal image on the side of the “judge O”, and output it on A4 paper.

Accordingly, the defendant, for the purpose of uttering, forged a copy of the judgment under the name of the judge of the Ulsan District Court.

2. Fraudulent or uttering of official documents;

Around 18:00 on October 2, 2017, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant would complete payment of money if he/she lends money,” as if he/she could receive a large amount of compensation, by displaying the victim’s photograph of the forged judgment under the above paragraph (1) by transmitting it to the victim’s cell phone via T App to the victim’s mobile phone, thereby receiving compensation for KRW 5.67 million from the morality, etc. of the corporation.”

However, the above judgment was forged, and the defendant did not have any money to receive from the morality, etc., and there was no particular income or property, so even if borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to repay the money.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received one million won in cash from the victim, from that time until February 12, 2018, issued KRW 68,200,000 in total eight times, as shown in the annexed List of Crimes (2) 1, as well as from that time, from that time to February 12, 2018.

Accordingly, the defendant exercised forged official documents and acquired money from the victim.

3. Forgery of private documents and the display of private documents;

On October 11, 2017, the Defendant: (a) prepared a loan certificate stating the purport that “The Defendant will pay KRW 3500,000,000 in the loan amount by October 31, 2017, using the pentine,” and “V” in the name of another person at all other person at a mix of the mix of the mix, and issued it to the S, and (b) forged a private document regarding rights and duties for the purpose of exercising four times in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes (3) in the same manner, from that time until February 13, 2018.

[200 Highest 3534]

On March 6, 2018, the Defendant concluded an operating lease agreement with the victim under the name of pro-gu AD on the condition that the amount of rent of KRW 1,520,940 per month is paid to AC passenger cars in the market price of 65,000,000 owned by AAB, the victim, the Defendant embezzled the said vehicle from October 25, 2019, on the condition that he/she did not pay the rental fee to the victim and did not return the vehicle several times without justifiable grounds.

"200 Highest 4802"

The Defendant and B had been aware of about 30 years ago, and B was establishing and operating a 'Ober bargaining' company for the purpose of extracting virtual currency, which became aware of the victim AE as an investor around June 2017.

(a) Fraud;

(1) Fraud of KRW 13 million on July 31, 2017

Around July 24, 2017, the Defendant entered money from Seoul Young (AF). However, the Defendant deposited money into the agricultural bank account in the name of the Republic of Korea because he did not call to B.

The above head of the Tong has been seized in the amount of KRW 20 million. If the 13 million loaned to 13 million, the remaining money would be seized. As such, the 13 million won loaned to 13 million won, and 3 million won as interest other than principal after 4 days, and the defendant voluntarily prepared [Web] 450.0 million won for agricultural loan 450.0 million won, 07/24: 14.26 AG AF balance 450.0 million, and 14.26 AG AF balance 14.0 million, as the letter was written in the agricultural cooperative.

However, in fact, the defendant was transferred 450,000,000 won from AF or did not have AK deposited 450,000,000 won, and there was no fact that the above AK was seized.

Ultimately, around July 25, 2017, the Defendant, by deceiving B as above, had B B B borrow money by delivering the Defendant’s talks from the Defendant to the victim at an AI restaurant located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant was issued by B through B a three of the cashier’s checks with face value of KRW 10 million at face value and KRW 10 million at face value.

(2) On November 23, 2017 1.5 million won

On November 23, 2017, the Defendant seized AK containing KRW 450,000,000 on the ground of tax unpaid from B from the tax office on the ground of tax unpaid. The Defendant made a false representation that the attachment requires KRW 1.5 million.

However, in fact, the defendant was transferred 450,000,000 won from AF or did not have AK deposited 450,000,000 won, and there was no fact that the above AK was seized.

Ultimately, the Defendant deceiving B as above and caused B to deliver talks from the Defendant on the same day to the victim. On the same day, the Defendant was transferred KRW 1.5 million from the victim through B.

(b) Forgery of private documents or uttering of private documents;

(1) A certificate of the balance of deposit dated July 26, 2017 is forged and exercised.

(A) Forgery of a certificate of deposit balance

Defendant’s deposit to B as described in paragraph (1)(1).

450.0.00.0 million won, 07/24:26 AG balance 450.015,0060,000 won was sent to AH. However, “B” was insufficient solely by text messages and demanded a certificate of deposit balance for KRW 450,000,000,000.

From the end of July 2017, the Defendant: (a) had an employee in non-name access to the Internet in the form of a certificate of balance of deposit on the Internet; (b) entered the upper end of July 26, 2017 into the name “AL”; (c) “AL free deposit in the type of deposit; (d)” in the name column; (e) “AG” in the account number column; and (e) entered “AG” and “450,015,006” in the balance column into the name “NHM”; and (e) entered the name “NHM” in the lower end.

Accordingly, the defendant was forged for the purpose of exercising the certificate of deposit balance in the name of the private document.

(b) Exercising a certificate of forged deposit balance;

On July 26, 2017, the Defendant sent a forged deposit balance certificate to B after photographing it with a cell phone as if it was duly formed.

(2) A certificate of the balance of deposit dated December 16, 2017 is forged and exercised.

(A) Forgery of a certificate of deposit balance

The defendant, who is requested from B to deliver a certificate of deposit balance to AE by a copy, not a mobile phone photograph, and he once forged the certificate and has taken the place to send it to AE.

On December 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) had an employee in non-name access to the Internet; (b) entered the upper part of the money in the form of a certificate of balance on the Internet; (c) entered the name “AO”; (d) “A Return in the name column”; (d) the type column of deposit into the name column; (c) “AL free deposit; (d) 450,015,006 won in the balance column; and (e) entered the name “AP2” in the account number column; and (e) printed it into the lower part; and (e) printed it into the name of the Agricultural Cooperative’s seal.

Accordingly, the defendant was forged for the purpose of exercising the certificate of deposit balance in the name of the private document.

(b) Exercising a certificate of forged deposit balance;

On December 2, 2017, the Defendant sent a forged deposit balance certificate to AE without knowledge of the circumstances, and exercised it by mail, as if it were duly formed.

(c) Forgery of public documents, or uttering of forged public documents;

(1) Masan District Court 2016 Doz. 14790

(A) Ulsan District Court Decision 2016No. 14790

On July 27, 2017, the Defendant borrowed KRW 13 million from AE, and agreed to pay KRW 16 million including interest of KRW 3 million until July 31, 2017, as described in paragraph (1) of Article 1-A. As such, the Defendant had been urged from B to pay the said borrowed amount around the end of July 31, 2017, and had been urged from B to pay the said borrowed amount. As such, as if there were claims to be paid from other persons, the Defendant had a forged civil judgment to have the maturity postponed.

From the end of July 2017, the Defendant had an employee in non-name access to the Internet and pay the amount of construction cost and damages to the upper part of the judgment form on the Internet, “Ulsan District Court, 4 civil affairs department, and judgment,” “2016Gahap14790,” and “1. Pursuant to the Plaintiff’s column, 5 and Co., Ltd. A., Ltd. and 5, joint representatives AR, AS, 2. and 3, Co., Ltd., Ltd. and one other, 2. AFFT, 3. Defendant AU, and 3. The content of the judgment,” “Flsan District Court, 1290,000,000,000 won,” and “1.5 billion won, which was added to the Plaintiff’s request by the court, shall not be paid to the Plaintiff by the due date.”

Accordingly, the defendant has forged the judgment in the name of the Ulsan District Court, which is an official document, for the purpose of uttering.

(b) an exercise of a forged U.S. District Court Decision 2016 Gaz14790

On July 31, 2017, the Defendant sent a written judgment to AH Me, which demanded the reimbursement of damage, and several persons who did not receive the wage, did not repay the passbook by seizing the passbook. The Defendant stated that the share of the construction cost of KRW 12.39 billion as stated in the written judgment is KRW 5.7 billion, and the said money will be treated as soon as there is no variable, and that the said lawsuit is sent a monetary voice file with AW attorney as he was in charge of the said “AW attorney.”

Ultimately, the Defendant had B, who thought that the above judgment was true on the same day, sent the contents of the judgment from the Defendant to AE, and had B retransmitting the transmitted judgment to AE as if it had been duly formed.

(2) Forgery and events at the Ulsan District Court AY Decision

(A) Fulsan District Court AY Decision

On September 2017, the Defendant requested from B to repay the obligation to AE and the obligation to B itself, and the new debtor is unable to repay the obligation by seizing AK deposited in KRW 450,000,00,000, and thus, it has changed more, the due date is postponed, and the Defendant has taken a view to forging a decision protocol that the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 30,000 to the Z in order to prove that the Defendant’s horse is true, and that the Defendant’s horse is true.

around September 2017, the Defendant, in the mutual influencies located in Ulsan-gu H, Ulsan-gu, by means of a computer in the form of decision-making on the Internet, shall be determined as follows, taking into account the interests of the parties, and all other presidents, for the equitable resolution of the above cases, for the following parts: (a) Ulsan District Court, No. 21 civil history department, decision-making protocol substituted for conciliation; (b) “AY Claim Provisional Attachment and Provisional Disposition” in the column of the case; (c) “AY claim and Provisional Disposition against the Plaintiff; (d) A; (e) the representative A, the Plaintiff’s legal representative; and (e) “AZ” in the content of the case into account the parties’ interests, and all other presidents. 1. By September 27, 2017, the Plaintiff made

(30,000,000 won shall be paid, and the principal and statutory interest shall be paid from October 20, 2016 to the date of payment. In the event that this date elapses, the unpaid claims and the amount of money calculated by adding 15% per annum to the date of full payment from September 27, 2017 to the date of full payment shall be paid. 2. The defendant, on October 17, 2017, stated that the period of filing an objection shall be October 2017, entered into the "BA" into the "BA" at the bottom and printed out, and then entered the "BA" in the printed decision and signed in the name of BA.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged the ruling protocol in the name of the Ulsan District Court, which is an official document.

(b)an event of a falsified U.S. District Court AY Decision

On September 27, 2017, the Defendant: (a) stated that “AZ’s account is delayed due to the seizure of the account and the repayment of the obligation is delayed; (b) sent the forged decision protocol to AH; and (c) sent the above decision protocol to AE on the same day; and (d) exercised the forged official document by allowing AE to re-transfer the transmitted decision protocol as if it was genuine to AE, who is unaware of the circumstances.

Summary of Evidence

"200 Highest 2467"

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant and C;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Account transactions;

1. Details of telecommunications dialogue;

"200 Highest 2695"

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement of S;

1. Certificates of borrowing, copies of bankbooks, and false written judgments and photographs;

[200 Highest 3534]

1. Each police interrogation protocol on the accused and AD;

1. A B B statement;

1. An agreement of lease, content certification (Notice scheduled to terminate a lease agreement), and the register of motor vehicles (A);

"200 Highest 4802"

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused and AX;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against the AE;

1. A copy of a loan certificate, a copy of a certificate of confirmation of details of transactions of admission and withdrawal, a copy of remittance, a copy of each written judgment, a copy of each balance certificate of each deposit, a copy of each Kakao text message,

1. Contents of conversations between AH text messages;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Code (Fraud point, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 225 of the Criminal Code, Articles 229 and 225 of the Criminal Code, Articles 231 of the Criminal Code, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Code, Articles 234 of the Criminal Code, Articles 231 of the Criminal Code, Articles 35 (1) of the Criminal Code, Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

Considering that the Defendant, as if he was a representative director or an attorney-at-law of an enterprise, obtained a large amount of money from the victims by forging various documents including written judgments, etc., the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without prejudice even though he was subject to criminal punishment several times, such as fraud, etc., and did not perform the obligation to pay damages, the Defendant shall not be subject to a strict liability for the Defendant.

In addition, the sentencing conditions specified in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by considering all the circumstances.

The not guilty part (Defendant B)

1. Summary of the facts charged

On September 1, 2017, the Defendant sent a phone call to the victim AE, and “A borrowed KRW 30 million to another person, and the person who lent the franchise disclosure statement of KRW 30 million to the third party commits suicide if he/she became aware of the total amount of KRW 30 million. The Defendant made a false statement that he/she committed suicide if he/she was paid the full amount of KRW 30 million.”

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he thought that he will use it for his debt repayment.

Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 2 million from the victim to the BC account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

The defendant borrowed money from the victim upon A's request, and thereafter, the defendant asserts that he only consumed the money with the victim's permission, and that he did not deceiving the victim from the beginning.

3. Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the fact that most of the Defendant borrowed money from the victim is recognized. However, the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence above are revealed, namely, A asked the victim to lend KRW 2 million to BD and the Defendant at the time of investigation (No. 73 pages), and sent AH message to the Defendant on August 2017, 201, and ② BD appeared as a witness in this court and asked the Defendant to commit suicide if the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million to the police officer on August 2017, 2017, and there is no possibility that the Defendant could not use the money from the first time to use the Defendant’s defense in light of the following facts and circumstances.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and did not disclose the summary of this judgment under the proviso of Article 58

The number of judges

1) Attached Table Nos. 7 to the facts charged are written as the date and time of the crime on February 2, 17, and the date and time of the crime on February 12, 17, respectively. This is obvious that U is correct ex officio.

2) In the course of forgery, the error is deemed to have been paid.

3) In the course of forgery, the 'Defendant' was wrong as 'Defendant'.

4) Although the initial facts charged had the content of deception that “A does not have any such words as above,” the amendment of the indictment was made with the content of the withdrawal on the 6th trial date.

A person shall be appointed.