2012Gohap4 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Fraud

E. 00 Bags,

Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (prosecutions), a new soldier's office (public trial)

Law Firm Taeyang

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon

Law Firm Sejong

Attorney Song Jae-ho, Justice Song Jae-ho, Justice Song Jae-ho, and the mobilization

November 9, 2012

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Facts of crime

On May 31, 2004, the defendant, as a member of an O church in the Yongsan-gu, Daejeon, U.S., established and operated 00 art galleries in the Seosung-dong, Daejeon, Daejeon, U.S. to the present day.

Victim Kim-O (year 54) as an oriental medical doctor on May 5, 2005, when viewing at 00 art galleries around May 5, 2005, the Defendant first met or became aware of, and entered into a close relationship with the Defendant by moving the church to the above 00 intersections and moving the church in close relation with the Defendant.

A. On June 25, 2005, the Defendant stated, “A teahouse “RR” located in a teahouse located in a 00 art gallery, that “The victim invested KRW 300 million in the construction of the 00 art gallery* The 300 million capital is required to lend KRW 300 million as the money for the return of the contribution is necessary to show * B.”

However, in fact, the Defendant not only did not intend to use the said money for the purpose of return of Kim*’s contribution, but also reported the deficit amounting to KRW 300 million per year while operating the 00 art gallery, and did not have any ability to pay interest for the amount of KRW 2.2 billion, and there was no special property that can be disposed of. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant’s intent or ability to repay the money.

did not exist.

Nevertheless, on June 27, 2005, the Defendant received KRW 300 million from the victim to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant under the name of the Defendant on the pretext of borrowing money.

B. On October 2005, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant shall return the Defendant’s contribution to the 00 art gallery Kim ***” at the time of the occurrence of a sudden room, and that “The Defendant again lent KRW 300 million to the 300 million.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not intend to use the above money for the purpose of return of Kim*'s contribution and did not have any intent or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed money for the same reason as the above paragraph (a).

Nevertheless, on October 24, 2005, the Defendant received KRW 300 million from the victim as the loan money.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim a total of 600 million won for the borrowed money. 2. The Defendant, on February 2, 199, by deceiving the victim of the purchase price in the purchase price of the land of 155, 25, 651 meters (hereinafter referred to as the “land of 155, 25, hereinafter referred to as the “land”).

At around October 19, 2005, the Defendant, at the above Defendant’s house, known that the Defendant would cancel the green belt on the front of the area of 155 U.S. Seosung-dong 15 to 27,744 square meters (the land of 155-25 square meters-dong 155-25 square meters). However, the Defendant came to the real estate recently, but did not come to fall short of the house. The Defendant would make it good for the victim to write down the house once every ten years. While the Defendant was a green belt area, it is known that the green belt would be cancelled on December 30, 2005, including the housing located therein. It means to purchase it at KRW 270,010,000.”

However, even if the defendant received money from the victim as the purchase price, he did not intend to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the victim, and rather, he did not think that he completed the registration of ownership transfer in his name.

Nevertheless, on October 20, 2005, the Defendant received from the victim the total sum of KRW 30,100,000,000,000,000 under the name of the contract for the above land and housing as the contract for the above land and housing, and received KRW 240,000,000 from the Defendant’s house as the national bank account in the name of the Defendant, and received KRW 240,000,000 as the remainder under the name of the Defendant’s house around October 25, 2005.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired the property by deceiving the victim.

3. Purchase money by deceiving the purchase price for the 196, 197 church site in the Seosung-gu Daejeon District.

Around December 5, 2005, the Defendant: (a) at the above Defendant’s house, the Defendant (i) sought to build a Ocele building on the land of 2 lots, such as 196, 48m Seosung-dong 196, Seosung-dong 197, 197, and 1,501m of the same site (hereinafter referred to as “Ocele-dong 196, 197 land”); (b) on the other hand, the Defendant would make it impossible for the believers to stop the church; (c) on the other hand, the Defendant would make the land available to the Defendant at KRW 76,00,000,000,000,000 prior to the above land; (d) the Defendant would use the above land as a 1300,000 square for construction and the above Ocele-dong 1,300,000,000 square for the above land.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any ability to transfer the ownership of the land 196, 197 to the victim.

Nevertheless, on December 9, 2005, the Defendant received KRW 760 million from the victim’s house as the purchase price of the above land at around the Defendant’s house.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired the property by deceiving the victim.

4. Fraudation of investments related to 00 cultural groups;

피고인은 2007 . 11 . 2 . 경 위 피고인의 집에서 피해자에게 “ 이탈리아의 삐꼴로 ( 소형 앤틱 자동차 , 호텔 , 마리나 사업 ) , 예술품 , 와인 , 보석 등과 이탈리아의 문화를 수입하 여 판매하는 사업을 하기 위해 00문화그룹을 설립할 계획이니 3억 원을 투자하라 . ” 라 고 말하였다 .

However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to establish a 00 cultural group. Nevertheless, the Defendant was a 00 cultural group’s contribution from the victim on November 19, 2007.

20 million won was remitted to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of the person.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired the property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 1】

1. The sum total of 600 million won from the victim on each date described in the ruling made by the defendant in this Court.

statement to the effect that he has received the

1. The witness Kim Jong-hwan's legal statement

1. Response to an investigation agency’s name;

1. An investigation report (in cases of attaching data related to the day of victim, etc.);

1. Kim* Their contributions (30 million won) return data, the Yellow 00 Investment (30 million won) return data, Kim* the nominal morale of loans (the crime of paragraph 2 of the judgment below)

1. under this law that the defendant would purchase the victim's land 155-25 - the victim's land.

At each date stated in the ruling, a sum of KRW 277,000,010 shall be received from the victim as the purchase price.

statement to the effect that

1. The witness Kim Jong-hwan's legal statement

1. The statement in part of the police statement against Kim Jong-$$.

1. Response to an investigation agency’s name;

1. An investigation report ( ① With respect to the official document replyed by the Seongbuk-gu Office, ② Attachment, etc. of materials related to the victim's day);

1. The response to the matters requested for cooperation in investigation (Evidence No. 492 to 506 of the evidence record, No. 950 to 991 of the evidence), the request for cooperation in investigation and a fence;

The response to the request for attendance of the party;

1. Data on the purchase price of housing and land;

【Criminal Facts of Paragraph 3】

1. The defendant received KRW 760,000 from the victim on the date on which the judgment was entered in this Court, in the amount of KRW 760,000 from the victim;

statement to the effect that

1. Each legal statement of a witness KimO and Kim Jong-dae;

1. A written statement concerning the transfer of an art gallery prepared by a defendant;

1. Response to an investigation agency’s name;

1. Investigation report (1) : Attachment of a copy of the victim's pocket book, 2. Attachment of data related to the victim's day; 3.

Attachment of materials to be submitted by a public official, 4 Telephones related to church sites, 5 Statement and Statement of Victim Submission

6. Attachment of a map, 6. Attachment of a part of the plan for the Cr. C. C.

1. Responses to cooperation in investigation (verification, such as whether to register 00 art galleriess), replys to matters requested for cooperation in investigation (Evidence Record 492);

From 506 to 506, from 950 to 991), answer materials requested for cooperation in investigation, replys following the request for cooperation in investigation.

1. Recording (Evidence Nos. 734 to 740 of the evidence record)

1. A copy of the pocketbook, a copy of the day (Evidence No. 423 to 478, 664 to 666 of the evidence record)

1. An agreement;

1. Data on the purchase price of church site (1) and a plan to construct art galleries 00, inquiry about the details of loan transactions, petition (criminal facts of paragraph 4 of the judgment);

1. There is a fact that the defendant received KRW 200 million from the victim on the date stated in the ruling in this Court.

statement to that effect

1. Each legal statement of the witness KimO, Aba-00

1. An investigation report (to attach data to be submitted by a victim);

1. A copy of a pocket book, a single copy (Evidence No. 423 to 478 pages);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

A. Paragraph (1) and (3) of the holding: Each of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

Article 3(1)2 of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1)2 of the Act, the Criminal Act

§ 347(1) (The maximum penalty shall be amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)

§ 42 (main sentence of Article 42 shall apply to the fraud of paragraph (1) of the holding)

(b) The fraud in paragraphs (2) and (4) of the judgment: Article 347 (1) of each Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Punishment and Punishment) of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument

1. As to the fraud of Paragraph 1 of the holding

A. Summary of the defendant's defense counsel's assertion and the issues of the case

The defendant and defense counsel asserts that the defendant only received 600 million won through two times in the victim as a support payment for the operation of the 00 art gallery, and that the defendant does not deceiving the victim to acquire the above 600 million won under the pretext of borrowing.

Therefore, the issue is whether the Defendant used the 600 million won from the victim for the purpose of returning money to Kim** Whether the Defendant used the 600 million won from the victim for the purpose of returning money to Lee, and ② If so, whether the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the above 600 million won at the time of borrowing (the criminal intent of defraudation) or not

B. Determination

1) Whether the Defendant borrowed KRW 600 million from the victim

A) The statements and credibility of the victim

Since the victim had been 0 billion won or more at the investigative agency, 20 billion won or more for each of 00 million won, 30 billion won or more for each of 00 million won, 200 million won or more for each of 00 million won, and 30 billion won or more for each of 00 million won or more for each of 00 million won, 200 million won or more for each of 00 million won, and 30 billion won or more for each of 00 million won or more for each of 00 million won or more for the defendant to build a new art gallery, 30 million won or more for each of 0 billion won or more for the defendant to return the land. The first is that 0 billion won or more for each of 00 million won or more for the defendant to 30 billion won or more for the defendant to 30 billion won or more for the defendant to do so.

The above statements by the victim are very specific and consistent with the important parts of the defendant's first preparation for friendship, the use of borrowed money, the situation at the time of borrowing, etc., and it is difficult for the victim to find reasons to make a false statement against the defendant. The victim's statement that the defendant lent KRW 600 million to the defendant can sufficiently recognize its credibility.

B) Circumstances in which it is difficult to see that the Defendant received KRW 600 million from the victim

피해자의 위 진술에다가 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하 여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 , 즉 ① 피해자가 피고인을 알게 된 지 불과 1 개월여 만에 아무런 대가 없이 3억 원을 후원하고 , 다시 3개월여 만에 추가로 3억 원 을 후원하였다는 것은 선뜻 납득하기 어려운 점 , ② 피해자는 이 법정에서 ' 피고인에게 6억 원을 빌려 줄 당시 , 처가로부터 5억 원을 빌려서 병원건물을 신축한 지 1년 남짓 되었고 , 건물 2층에서 1층으로 병원을 이전하기 위해 1층에 있던 금융회사에 임차보증 금 6억 3 , 000만 원을 반환해줘야 될 상황이었고 , 병원 기자재 준비 비용으로 2 ~ 3억 원이 필요하여 총 7 ~ 8억 원 정도가 필요하였다 ' 고 진술하고 있는바 , 이처럼 자금 사정 이 좋지 않았던 상황에서 피해자가 6억 원이라는 큰돈을 피고인에게 후원금으로 지급 하였다고 보기 어려운 점 , ③ 피해자가 2005 . 10 . 24 . 지급한 3억 원은 피해자가 그 소 유의 상가건물을 매각하고 당초 잔금지급기일 ( 2005 . 11 . 20 . ) 보다 빨리 잔금을 지급받 아 교부한 돈인데 ( 증거기록 79면 , 80면 ) , 피해자가 잔금지급기일을 앞당겨 잔금을 수령 하면서까지 피고인을 후원할 이유가 없어 보이는 점 , ④ 피해자는 2006 . 9 . 9 . 피해자 가 그때까지 피고인에게 지급한 금원 내역을 정리한 ' 이00 목사님 송금 및 지출내역 ( 증거기록 45 ~ 48면 ) ' 을 피고인에게 제시하고 위 6억 원을 포함한 21억 9 , 755만 원의 반환을 요구하였는바 , 위 6억 원이 후원금이었다면 피해자가 피고인에게 반환을 요구 하지 않았을 것으로 보이는 점 , ⑤ 박OO는 이 법정에서 ' 2005 . 7 . ~ 9 . 경 사이에 당시 미술관 관장이었던 피고인이 직원들에게 미술관 진입로 문제가 해결되어야 미술관 등 록이 가능하다는 이야기를 하던 중 어떤 의사 ( 피해자를 지칭하는 것으로 보임 ) 가 억 단 위의 돈을 기부하였다는 말을 하였다는 취지로 진술하고 있으나 , 박OO의 진술은 피고 인으로부터 전해 들은 내용에 불과하여 피고인의 진술 그 이상의 의미가 없어 , 위 박 00의 진술에 근거하여 피고인이 피해자로부터 받은 6억 원을 후원금이라고 단정할 수 없는 점 , ⑥ 피고인과 변호인은 , 위 6억 원에 대한 차용증이 작성되지 않았고 , 이자나 변제기에 대한 약정도 없었다는 점을 들어 위 6억 원을 차용금으로 볼 수 없다고 주장 하나 , 금전대여 관계에 있어 항상 차용증이 작성되고 변제기와 이자가 정해지는 것은 아니라 할 것이고 , 피해자는 이 법정에서 “ 피고인이 ‘ 목사는 증서를 남길 수 없고 하나 님이 무서워서 거짓말을 못한다 고 수시로 말하였고 , 은행으로 송금하면 객관적인 자 료가 남고 수표도 거래내역이 남으니까 자신을 믿고 돈을 빌려달라 ' 고 하여 차용증 없 이 돈을 빌려 주었으며 , 법정이자는 챙겨 줄 것으로 생각했고 , 변제기간은 재산이 많아 서 곧 줄 것으로 생각했다 ” 는 취지로 진술하고 있는바 , 목사인 피고인과 신도인 피해자 의 관계에 비추어 위 진술이 충분히 수긍이 가는 점 , ⑦ 피해자가 작성한 2005 . 10 . 24 . 자 일기에는 ' 목사님께 3억 원 드리다 ' 라고 기재되어 있으나 , 일기는 그 내용을 타 인에게 보이기 위한 것은 아니므로 , 그 문구를 해석함에 있어 문리적인 한계를 벗어나 지 않는 한 작성자의 내심의 의사가 우선적으로 반영되어야 할 것인데 , 피해자는 이 법정에서 ' 법적 분쟁이 발생할 줄 알았다면 자세히 기재했을 텐데 , 당시 3억 원에 대한 기록을 남긴다는 의미에서 그렇게만 기재하였던 것 같다 ' 고 진술하고 있고 , ' 3억 원 드 리다 ' 라는 문구는 위 3억 원이 후원금인지 , 대여금인지 여부를 떠나 피고인에게 3억 원 을 교부한 사실 자체를 기록한 것으로 해석할 수 있는바 , 위 일기 기재가 피고인에게 3억 원을 빌려 주었다는 것과 모순된다고 볼 수 없는 점 등을 종합하여 보면 , 위 6억 원은 후원금이라고 보기 어렵고 차용금으로 봄이 상당하다 .

2) Whether the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed amount of KRW 600 million to the victim

The following facts revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the victim requested the defendant to prepare a loan certificate, but the defendant refused to do so, ② the 00 art gallery was an annual interest of KRW 300 million, including the occurrence of the deficit of KRW 1 billion in the first year. At the time of the loan of this case, the defendant’s debt such as the loan of this case was an amount of KRW 2.2 billion ( KRW 1.122 billion in the Agricultural Cooperative loan of this case, KRW 1.1 billion in the evidence records, KRW 519 to 545 in the return of the investment, KRW 868 through 880), and the defendant did not have the ability to pay interest to the victim at the time of the loan of this case, ③ The defendant did not have the ability to pay the victim KRW 600 million in the first year from September 2005 to August 206, 206.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, this part of the facts charged that the defendant deceivings the victim and defrauds the 600 million won under the pretext of borrowing is fully convicted, so the above argument by the defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted.

2. As to the fraud of Paragraph 2 of the holding

A. Summary of the defendant's defense counsel's assertion and the issues of the case

The defendant and defense counsel asserted that the defendant recommended the victim to purchase the land 155-25 - 25 - and received KRW 2770,010,000 from the victim under the name of the purchase price, but since then, the victim agreed to waive the purchase of the above land and offset the purchase price of the land that the defendant paid to the defendant against the purchase price of the above land by 00 art gallery acquisition price, the defendant's defense counsel merely completed the registration of ownership transfer of the above land under his name, and it does not mean from the beginning the victim's deception by deceiving the victim without the intention to purchase the above land from the beginning.

Therefore, it is the issue of whether the defendant had the intention to purchase the above land at the time of the case, that is, fraud, or fraud.

(b) Method of judging the criminal intent of defraudation;

The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction after the crime, insofar as the defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is sufficient not to be a conclusive intention but to do so (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008).

C. Facts of recognition

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts may be determined.

1) T.C. 155 - Payment of the purchase price for land 25

A) On October 19, 2005, the victim received a proposal from the Defendant that he would purchase 155 - 25 land from the Defendant, and consented thereto, and then delegated the Defendant to sell and purchase the land above.

B) On October 20, 2005, in order to conclude a sales contract for the above land, the victim remitted the Defendant a sum of KRW 30,010,000 to the Defendant as contract deposit and introduction expenses, and on October 25, 2005, delivered the Defendant a balance of KRW 240,000,000 to the check and cash.

2) Details 1 of the victim’s day-book

○ Date of October 19, 2005 (Evidence No. 437 of Evidence)

The land known to Da upper 2) is turned back to Da upper 23 (K23). The land of 197 square meters 26,000 million won + introduction expenses of 10 million won is contracted. The land is one of 100 years, and the land was due to the road. One may cause excessive accuracy, and it seems that this is more desired. (The relocation right includes KRW 15,000,000) to be cancelled on December 30, 199.

○ on November 2, 2005

“Creshing the lubi (from the port of port to the port) return (2-day travel), and the lubs of the land changing into the new wall and acquiring the lubs of the land. The part released from the bottom of the luba. The new luba shall be the part released from the upper end of the luba. The luba shall be the luba with respect to the Hel Group, which shall be the housing site.”

3) Contents 4 of “The details of transfer and disbursement of Doggs 00”

○ On October 2005, remittance of KRW 30,010,000,000,000,000, the purchase contract for multi-dimensional housing

○ KRW 240 million on October 25, 2005 ( KRW 100 million on the check, KRW 50 million on the check, KRW 90,000 on the basis of KRW 90,00;

The remainder of multi-presidential housing)

4) The progress of the sales contract for land 155 - 25 land between the Defendant and Kim & Kim

A) On October 19, 2005, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Defendant as the buyer on the land 155-25- The Defendant paid the Defendant the down payment and the introduction fee of KRW 30 million (Evidence No. 273 of the evidence record) on the same day. Meanwhile, the content of the sales contract made on the day of the contract is as follows (Evidence No. 548 of the evidence record).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

B) On October 19, 2005, the letter of loan (Evidence No. 549 of the evidence record), stating that "the defendant will borrow KRW 140,000 from Kim & Kim & at the due date for repayment of KRW 10,000 from November 30, 2005, and interest for arrears at the rate of 5% per month."

C) On October 26, 2005, the receipt (Evidence No. 550 pages of evidence record) includes the fact that the Defendant received KRW 90 million from the loans from the Defendant on October 19, 2005, among the loans made on October 19, 2005.

D) On December 4, 2005, the receipt (Evidence No. 551 of the evidence record) includes the fact that the Defendant received KRW 100 million out of the balance of the purchase and sale of the land 155-25 land from the Defendant.

E) On April 27, 2006, the receipt (Evidence No. 552 of the evidence record) contains the following: “The receipt of KRW 20 million out of the purchase and sale balance on the land 155 - 25 - 30 million from the Defendant.”

F) The confirmation letter of September 26, 2006 (Evidence No. 553 of the evidence record) re-written “The transfer of the registration due to the land transaction permission cause of the said amount (20 million won) will proceed later. The name of the next person entitled to registration becomes final and conclusive, or when a cause for registration or transfer is demanded, the performance will immediately be made for all the conditions regarding the transfer of the registration. The performance will be performed immediately, and this document will be observed by Kim$$$ 155-25 of the said amount.”

G) On December 28, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name on December 23, 2006, with permission for a land transaction contract on land 155-25, and on January 3, 2007, with regard to the above land (Evidence Record 29 pages, 30 pages).

(d) Determination:

In full view of the above facts and the following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant concluded a sales contract on behalf of the victim 155- 25- Yeamamambadong 155-25 and concluded the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the victim and received KRW 2770,010,000 from the victim as land purchase price for the victim. Thus, the Defendant may fully recognize the criminal intent of the Defendant’s defraudation.

1) The circumstances in which the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the instant land under the name of the Defendant before soliciting the purchase of the instant land to the victim 155-25

The victim's statement is consistent with the circumstances where the victim transferred 30,010,000 won to the defendant as the contract deposit and the introduction fee on October 205, 2005, when the victim made a proposal from investigative agency to this court that "the defendant would purchase the victim's land 155 - 25 - 25 - the defendant would purchase the victim's land." The victim's statement is consistent with the circumstances where the victim transferred 30,010,000 won to the defendant as the contract deposit and the introduction fee, and the credibility of the statement can be acknowledged.

Ultimately, even though the Defendant had already concluded a sales contract on October 19, 2005 with the name of the Defendant on the land 155 - 25 o'clock 15 o'o-dong 155 o'clock o'o-25 o'clock and paid the down payment to the Defendant, the Defendant received the purchase price for the land from the victim by declaring that he would conceal such circumstances and purchase the said land from the victim at the same time on the same day. Accordingly, such circumstances should be inferred by the Defendant's criminal intent.

2) Examination of the respondent's change in the name of the defendant as to the conclusion of a sales contract for the land 155-25

As to the fact that the Defendant entered into a sales contract in the name of the Defendant for the land 155 - 25 - the following changes are not consistent.

A person shall be appointed.

In other words, the defendant made a statement to the effect that he/she concluded a sales contract with the defendant instead of the victim due to the permission of a land transaction contract in the second and third police interrogations. The defendant changed his/her statement to the effect that he/she concluded a sales contract with the defendant as the purchaser on the date of the first interrogation of the prosecution and this court without sufficient explanation. The credibility of his/her statement is doubtful.

On the other hand, in order to obtain permission for a land transaction contract on land (farmland) around October 2005, 15 - 25 - 25 land (farmland), the farmland ledger was, in principle, required under the buyer’s name if it is not for the purpose of cultivation of facilities. (Evidence record 951 pages) The farmland ledger, which the defendant proposed when filing an application for permission for a land transaction contract with respect to the above land, is recorded as of September 8, 2006 by the first date of preparation, not only is it doubtful whether the farmland ledger exists in the name of the defendant at the time of the sale contract (Evidence Record 960 pages), but also there is no fact that the victim has confirmed that the farmland ledger exists in the name of the defendant at the time of the sale contract, but also it is difficult to obtain the victim’s farmland ledger from the victim because it was impossible to acquire the farmland ledger.

In addition, it is difficult to view that there is an urgent circumstance that the defendant would have entered into the sales contract on the day of the contract even if the victim becomes the buyer. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain the defendant's appeal that the defendant entered into the sales contract with the buyer on the wind that the victim could not leave the place of the contract as the bad day.

3) The circumstances in which the victim did not notify the material contents of the contract

The victim, from the investigative agency to this court, was aware of the victim's name in front of the victim's three-dimensional land (197 square meters) and then received the purchase price, and later, he would make it known about the victim's name at the end of 12, and he did not know about the fact that "I cannot know about the fact that I concluded a sale contract in the name of the defendant, and did not show the sales contract, and there was no question such as the fact that I would like to obtain permission for a land transaction contract. The defendant did not inform the victim of the fact that I would like to say that I would like to know about the fact that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to know about the fact that I would like to know about the above fact of "I would like to know about the above fact" and that I would like to inform the victim of the fact that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to know about the fact that I would like.

A. The victim merely expresses 155 - 25 land in front of the multi-story and multi-dimensional housing in the victim's day of October 19, 2005, the victim's day of November 2, 2005, and the day of September 9, 2006, "Iskin 00" as the victim's day of November 19, 2005, the day of November 2, 2005, and day of September 9, 2006, "Iskin 155 - 25 land", and does not specify the lot number of the land. The credibility of the victim's day of November 29, 2006 * * on November 3, 2007 and the day of November 6234, 2006, if Iskin 63634 and 6634 of the evidence, and the above circumstances are consistent with the victim's statement.

Ultimately, even if the Defendant was entrusted by the victim with the purchase of land 155-25, the Defendant did not perform the basic duties that should be performed by the mandatory, such as presenting a sales contract to the victim, notifying the important contents of the sales contract, etc., and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the above land in the name of the Defendant, and concealed such fact to the victim. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had the intention to complete the registration of ownership transfer for the above land from the beginning.

4) The circumstances in which the victim received any balance from the victim prior to the payment date of the purchase price in writing.

Although the Defendant was able to sell 155, 250,000 won for a purchase price of KRW 250,000,000 (in a sales contract, only KRW 18,000,000 shall be stated, the remainder of KRW 148,549 shall be recorded, the evidence records shall be 549,), and the victim shall be 26,000,000 won for purchase of the above land, and the victim shall be paid KRW 26,00,00 won for the remainder of KRW 30,000 on November 30, 2005. In addition, the remainder of KRW 26,000,000 from the victim on October 25, 2005, the remainder of KRW 206,000,000,000,000 from the victim on October 25, 2005, the remainder of KRW 2006,000,00.

Ultimately, the Defendant, based on the sales contract made between Kim & Kim & Kim and the fact that he did not notify the victim of the details of the loan certificate on October 19, 2005, and the amount of the purchase price and the remaining payment date, etc., deceiving the victim. This circumstance leads to the Defendant’s criminal intent to defraud the entire purchase price by fraud.

5) Other circumstances

On July 4, 2003, the Defendant purchased the forest and field, which was the basis of the “multi-dimensional from Kim & Kim” land (Evidence No. 965 to 979 of the evidence record) and intended to purchase the said land together with the land adjacent to the said forest and field (Evidence No. 965 to 979 of the evidence), but it did not sell the said land for the purpose of constructing Kim & Lee Housing. However, it appears that the Defendant had sufficiently motiveed to acquire the ownership of the said land.

E. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel did not receive the above argument that the defendant did not have any criminal intent to acquire by deceit.

3. As to the fraud of Paragraph 3 of the holding

A. Summary of the defendant's defense counsel's assertion and the issues of the case

Around September 2005, the defendant and his defense counsel agreed to take over 00 art galleries between the victim and the victim, and they demanded the return of the church site by opposing the new construction of the church on the land 196 and 197. On December 9, 2005, there was only a fact that the victim paid KRW 760,000 from the victim for 00 art gallery taking over the church site with KRW 720,000,000 under the pretext of the victim's acquisition of the church site, and there was no fact that the sales contract was concluded with the victim on the land 196,197,000,000 won, and that the defendant did not receive KRW 700,000 from the victim as stated in paragraph (3) and received KRW 700,000 from the victim for a set-off of KRW 700,000 under the name of the victim.

① Therefore, whether the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the victim for the land 196, 197, and received KRW 766,000 from the victim as the purchase price (the act of deception), and ② If so, whether the Defendant had the intent or ability to transfer the ownership of the land 196, 197 to the victim (the criminal intent of defraudation) is the issue of this part.

B. Determination

1) Whether the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the land 196, 197, 197, and received KRW 760,000,000 from the victim as the purchase price, between the victim and the victim

A) The statements and credibility of the victim

The victim, from the investigative agency to this court, "the defendant tried to place 00 buildings on December 5, 2005, 196, 197 on his own land on the 197 land, "the 196, 197, and the believers were unable to leave the church on the 5th anniversary of the purchase price, so the 760,000,000 won will be created as the purchase price before the above land. The above land is expected to be 70,000 square of 130,000 square of 70,000 and 1.30,000,000 square of 70,000,000 square of 1.6,000,000,000 square of 7,000,000,000,000,000,000 square of 1,000,000,000 won.

In light of the following circumstances revealed from the evidence lawfully adopted and examined, i.e., one (423 to 462 pages) that the victim submitted to the investigation agency, i.e., 00 million won, 20 billion won per day, and the victim’s thoughts and implements. There are no circumstances to see that the above contents were involved, i.e., 00 million won, 60 million won per day, 70 million won per 70 million won per 60 million won per 70 million won per 60 million won per 70 million won per 50 million won per 60 million.

B) Review of the defendant's appeal

On December 9, 2005, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant was paid KRW 760,000,000 from the victim under the name of 00 art gallery acceptance fees from the victim on December 9, 2005 during the police interrogation” (Evidence Records 207, 574, 921, 997), and “in the examination of the prosecution and this court, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 76,00,000 to the victim on December 9, 2005, in lieu of the payment of the amount of KRW 76,00,000,000,000,000,000 from the victim on December 17, 200, 17, 178, and 78). The Defendant stated to the effect that “The credibility of the statement was not consistent.”

On the other hand, the court has duly adopted and examined the following circumstances: ① around February 10, 2006, the victim was unable to operate the art gallery 200 billion won due to the finding of the defendant's husband and wife, and it was 1.6 billion won for the first time to take over the art gallery 200 billion won; ② the victim was 1.6 billion won for the first time to take over the art gallery 200 billion won from the art gallery 200 million won, and the victim was 1.6 billion won for the first time to take over the art gallery 200 million won, and the victim was 1.6 billion won for the first time to take over the art gallery 200 million won from the 60 billion won, and the victim was 1.6 billion won for the second time to the effect that it was difficult for the victim to take over the art gallery 200 million won from the 600 billion won, and ② the victim was 200 billion won to the 206th day of the record.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the victim provided support to the defendant for KRW 760 million in total, which was previously owned by borrowing KRW 700 million in a situation where the financial condition is not good. As seen above, it is reasonable to view that the victim first received a proposal to take over art galleries from the respondent for the first time around February 2006, and that the victim received a proposal to take over art galleries 00,000.

On December 9, 2005, prior to the occurrence of the foregoing, the Defendant’s appeal that received KRW 766 billion as support payments from the victim and agreed to offset the above KRW 7660 million against the acquisition price of the art gallery around that time is difficult to accept.

2) Whether the Defendant had an intention or ability to transfer the ownership of the land 196, 197 to the victim

6) On the 7th day of February 6, 200, the Defendant, at the time of 100 ambalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalmalm.m.m.m.m.m.m.m.m.m.m.m.m.m.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, this part of the facts charged is fully convicted of the defendant's deception and the defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted, since it is sufficiently convicted of this part of the facts charged that the defendant acquired 760 million won under the name of purchase price of land 196, 197.

4. As to the fraud of Paragraph 4 of the holding

A. Summary of the defendant's defense counsel's assertion and the issues of the case

On November 19, 2007, the defendant and the defense counsel merely received KRW 200 million from the victim in the name of acceptance price of 850 Dod Dod Dod Dod Dod 850, and they do not call for the establishment of a 00 cultural group without any fact that they planned to establish the 00 cultural group. The defendant and the defense counsel do not deceiving the victim as stated in paragraph 4 of the ruling, thereby deceiving the victim to acquire KRW 200 million from the victim as a financing for the 00 cultural group.

Therefore, there is a fact that the defendant received KRW 200 million from the victim for the purpose of investment in the 00 Cultural Group (the deception), and ② If so, whether the defendant had the intent or ability to establish the 00 Cultural Group at the time, or not (the criminal intent of defraudation) is the issue of this part.

B. Determination

1) Whether the defendant has a fact of receiving KRW 200 million from the victim under the pretext of investment in 00 cultural groups

A) The statements and credibility of the victim

피해자는 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 , “ 피고인이 2007 . 11 . 경 피 해자에게 ' 이탈리아의 삐꼴로 예술품 , 와인 , 보석 등과 이탈리아의 문화를 수입하여 판 매하는 사업을 하려고 하는데 , 이를 위해 00 문화그룹을 설립할 계획이니 3억 원을 투 자하라 ' 고 하였다 . 이에 피해자는 2억 원을 대출받아 피고인에게 송금하여 주었다 . 피 해자는 00문화그룹에 대한 사업이 논의되거나 진척되지 않자 피고인에게 사업이 어떻 게 되어 가는지 물었고 , 이에 피고인은 ' 현대자동차그룹에서 10억 원을 후원받으면 바 로 사업을 진행할 수 있으니 기다려 달라 ' 고 하였고 , 그 후 ' 안00이라는 사람이 사업 에 참여할 수 없게 되었다고 하면서 00 문화그룹을 진행하기가 힘들다 ' 고 하였다 . 00 문화그룹 설립이 무산된 후 피고인에게 송금한 2억 원 중 8 , 000만 원은 올드 와인을 구 입하는 비용으로 , 나머지 1억 2 , 000만 원은 율란다컬렉션 ( 이탈리아의 율란다 . 가문에서 사용하던 가구 , 그림 , 은그릇 등의 모음 ) 대금으로 각 상계처리하기로 피고인과 협의하였 다 ” 라는 취지로 일관되게 진술하고 있다 .

The victim's statements are not only concrete and consistent with the contents of the 00 Cultural Group and the developments leading up to the establishment of the 00 Cultural Group, but also it is difficult for the victim to find reasons to make a false statement against the defendant. Thus, the victim's statements can be sufficiently recognized as credibility.

B) Circumstances supporting the victim’s statement

피해자의 위 진술에다가 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들로부터 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 , 즉 ① 피해자가 작성한 수첩 중 2007 . 11 . 19 . 자 부분 에 “ 아주문화 출자 2억 , 하나 2억 대출 감사 ( 농협 00 - 0 - 000 이OO ) ” 이라고 기재되어 있는 점 ( 증거기록 333면 ) , ② 피해자의 처 이 * * 가 작성한 메모지에 “ 2007 . 11 . 19 . 투자 비 2억 원 , 하나은행에서 2억 대출받아서 2억 송금함 , 와인 8 , 000 포함 , 가구 1억 2천 ” 이라고 기재되어 있는 점 ( 증거기록 475면 ) , ③ 안00은 이 법정에서 ' 2007 . 12 . 경 유럽 여행으로 이탈리아를 방문하던 중 피고인의 집에 잠시 머무르면서 피해자 부부를 만난 적이 있다 . 당시 피고인이 이탈리아의 삐꼴로 예술품 , 와인 , 보석 이런 것들을 수입해와 서 국내에 판매하는 사업에 대해 말하는 것을 들은 사실이 있다 . 피고인이 이러한 사업 을 해보자고 제의하였으나 , 생각해본다고 한 다음 분명히 거절하였다 ' 는 취지로 피해자 의 진술에 부합하는 진술을 하고 있는 점 , ④ 피고인은 올드와인대금으로 2억 원을 받았 다고 주장하나 , 피해자가 피고인에게 2억 원을 송금한 시기는 2007 . 11 . 19 . 이고 , 와인이 국내로 반입된 시기는 2008 . 7 . 23 . 인바 ( 증거기록 564면 ) , 와인이 국내로 반입되기 8개월 전에 은행에서 대출을 받아 와인대금 전체를 미리 지급한다는 것은 선뜻 납득하기 어려 워 위 2억 원을 와인대금으로 보기 어려운 점 등을 종합하여 보면 , 피고인이 2007 . 11 . 19 . 00문화그룹에 대한 투자금 명목으로 피해자로부터 2억 원을 송금받았음을 충분히 인정할 수 있다 .

2) Whether the Defendant had the intent or ability to establish a 00 cultural group

From the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following reasons can be revealed by the court: (i) there was no fact that the defendant specifically promoted the establishment of 00 cultural group in addition to the fact that the defendant proposed to make an investment in the business of importing and selling Italian goods to AO in Korea; (ii) there was no confirmation as to the overall business, such as the scope of business, the number of investors, and the scale of investment; (iii) there was an occurrence of an amount of 1 billion won per year, including the occurrence of a deficit of 1 billion won in the first year; and (iv) there was no ability to pay interest on bank loans to the defendant at the time, and there was no ability to pay the interest on bank loans to the defendant at the time, and (iii) there was no ability to return the amount of 00 billion won to the victim by linking D and D with D and D and D and D, and there was no intention to return the amount of 200 billion won to the victim at the time of the establishment of 200 billion won.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, this part of the facts charged that the defendant deceivings the victim and took 200 million won as the contribution of the 00 Cultural Group is found guilty, and the defendant and the defense counsel are not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment of 3 years to 22 years

[Determination of Type] Fraudulent Crimes, Type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won) among the general fraud

[The favorable circumstances] There is no previous conviction

[Disadvantageous Circumstances] The victim caused serious damage

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation 8, 4 years to 7 years of imprisonment

[Determination of Sentence] Five years of imprisonment

The Defendant, as a church pastor, committed the instant fraud against those who believe himself/herself, and the nature of the crime is not very good. Moreover, considering the following: (a) the fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant fraud is equal to KRW 1.83 billion; (b) the amount of damage caused by the instant fraud is equal to KRW 1.83 billion; and (c) the victim is faced with the situation in which the interest on loans corresponding to each month is to be borne by the instant crime; and (d) the victim suffers from extreme economic and mental pain, taking into account the fact that there is a heavy need to punish the Defendant. In addition, taking into account all of the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, the sentence identical to the order shall be determined.

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

Judges Ahn Byung-chul

Judges Hong Jin-young

Judges Kim Byung-hun

1) A day-book submitted by the victim to an investigative agency (Evidence Nos. 423 to 462 of the evidence record) is almost every day the victim had been on the day.

It is prepared by arranging the thoughts, symbolss, etc. of Japan and victims.

2) If the registration of ownership transfer has been made under the name of the defendant, 10-3, 10-41, 10-3, 10-3, 200

I refer to the land located from 155 - 93 to 99, and the land of 155 - 25 - is adjacent to the above "multi-dimensional land".

(Evidence Records 81 to 99).

3) The term "the victim's ownership" means "the Doma-dong 141 - 14 commercial buildings located in Seo-gu, Daejeon." The victim means K2 commercial buildings on October 5, 2005.

The building was sold to the twoO, and on October 24, 2005, the remainder of 4440 million won was received from the twoO. The victim was the victim.

Of the balance of 4440 million won on 10, 2405, 7 million won on 2005, 300 million won on 100 million won on 2005, and the defendant as seen above.

The loan was made to the person, and the remainder of KRW 14,00,000 on the following day is part of the balance of the land 155 - 25

was paid to the deceased (Evidence No. 79, 80, 165).

4) The victim's remittance and disbursement statement (Evidence No. 45-48 pages) presented to the defendant on September 9, 2006 that 'the victim proposed to the defendant on September 9, 200' was damaged.

The details of the money paid to the defendant up to that time are summarized.

5) The victim has farmland in the second interrogation of the police against the defendant at the time of the second interrogation of the defendant, such as "the victim has farmland in a low-level place, such as Hasan-si."

The farmland ledger has been recorded even if how is now, and if there is no farmland ledger. If there is no farmland ledger, the farmland ledger has been established.

At that time, making it difficult to do so, and at that time, only once a document with the intent to buy it to the low-waterer.

I stated that it is necessary, in itself, that we do not have any fact (Evidence No. 581 of the evidence record).

6) On July 4, 2003, the Kim$$100, which arranged the above forest sale and purchase contract between the defendant and Kim & Kim, in the police investigation, " Kim & Lee" and this State in the police investigation.

The changed land was sold to the defendant in 2003 and the defendant was sold later in 155 - 25 and the defendant was not sold while living in the last place.

(c) A low-report while selling the above land as it is expected that such small and medium enterprises, which they live in Kim & Lee, will be redeveloped;

As a result, it is required that the defendant communicates with the defendant, and that the defendant is in the vicinity of the land.

I also stated that it has been purchased and that it will be accepted on the road (Evidence of Evidence 589).

-patch).

7) A statement on January 26, 2012: (i) the person’s written opinion; (ii) the person’s opinion on March 21, 2012; and (iii) the second date of trial; and (iv) the statement on the second date of trial.

8) Method of dealing with the same concurrent crimes in fraud: Determination of type on the basis of the sum of the amount of profit, among the types,

In consideration of all the circumstances, selection of a range of sentence deemed appropriate;