Defendant

Maximum number of defenses

Attorney Man-Pho (Korean)

Defendant (Defendant 1 of the first instance judgment) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten months.

1. The whole crime;

On July 24, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment for fraud and 2 years of suspended execution at the Seoul Central District Court on August 1, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 1, 2009.

2. Fraud of common membership status in the door-gu and the legal services rendered by the law;

In fact, the defendant was unable to fully secure the right of a vinyl farmer in the prospective site for the legal construction site in which the victim Nonindicted 32 was to be sold, and at the time, there was no intention or ability to allow the victim to have the right to move into the commercial building because the compensation guidelines of the related agencies on the grant of the right to enter into the commercial building in the prospective site for the legal construction construction site were not established.

Nevertheless, around December 2006, the Defendant made a false statement to Nonindicted 37, an employee who is aware of such fact, at the real estate development company office, “Nonindicted Co. 13,” the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, to make an investment because he would be entitled to receive compensation for the right to occupy a commercial building later from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City EAD Corporation. Accordingly, Nonindicted 37 made a false statement to the victim of the trade name in Buddhist wedding place where Nonindicted 37 was located in Seoul at around that time.

On December 4, 2006, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of Non-Indicted 7’s employee on December 4, 2006, and KRW 95 million, including KRW 85 million, from Non-Indicted 37’s corporate bank account on December 7, 2006.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

3. Fraud of common share certificates in the distribution complex in the south-dong area;

In fact, the Defendant concluded a contract with Nonindicted 58 for the purchase of commercial share certificates in the distribution complex in the south-dong area and did not pay any balance, and thus, the contract was rescinded, and the financial pressure to the said company was serious, and there was no intention or ability to sell it to the victim by purchasing the right to occupy the distribution complex in the south-dong area

Nevertheless, around November 2007, the Defendant had Nonindicted 37, who is aware of the fact at the above company office, make the victim know of the scheduled site project under the law of Seodaemun-dong, change the right to sell commercial buildings in the south-dong distribution complex that can be immediately transferred to the right to sell commercial buildings. Accordingly, Nonindicted 37 found Nonindicted 37 at the victim's house located in the Dong-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter 15 omitted), thereby making the victim make a false statement as above.

The Defendant received a total of KRW 38 million from the victim, including KRW 25 million on November 8, 2007, and KRW 13 million on February 20, 2008, from the victim, to the national bank account of Nonindicted 37.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

4. The forgery and use of the name of Nonindicted 58 agreement

When the victim continuously demanded a written contract for a share certificate to enter the distribution complex in the East-west area, the defendant had the intention to forge a sales contract in the name of Nonindicted 58 and deliver it to the victim.

A. A. Around September 2008, the Defendant, using an authorized color pen in the office of the above company, carried out Nonindicted 58 Nonindicted 58’s seal which was kept in advance on the name of Nonindicted 58, stating in the column of the location of the real estate sales contract, “Seoul, Dong-dong Distribution Complex Co., Ltd.”, “Seoul, Dong-dong Distribution Complex Co., Ltd.”, “Seoul, Dong-dong (hereinafter 16 omitted)”, “Seoul, Dong-dong (hereinafter 16 omitted)”, “(resident registration number omitted)”, and “Non-Indicted 58” in the seller’s address column.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant forged a real estate sales contract in the name of Nonindicted 58, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

B. On September 23, 2008, the Defendant issued a false real estate sales contract with Nonindicted 37, who was aware of such fact at the above company office, and the Defendant concluded a contract with the victim, and Nonindicted 37 claimed the above real estate sales contract at the victim’s house around P.M. on the same day, and exercised the right to the victim as if the above real estate sales contract was duly established.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police over the accused and the examination of the suspect by the prosecution;

1. Police officers against Nonindicted 37 and each protocol of examination of suspect by prosecution

1. The police interrogation protocol regarding Nonindicted 7

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 32, 58, and 59

1. A criminal investigation report, each investigation report (the indictment of a related case and attachment of a summary order, a copy of the relevant judgment, and reference materials (Attachment of a written judgment);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 347(1), 231, 234, 34(1) and 31(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

In light of the fact that the amount of damage in this case was not a large amount of damage, the sentence to the defendant is inevitable. However, the sentence shall be determined by taking into account the fact that the defendant did not commit each of the fraud in this case with a conclusive intention, the fact that the defendant was judged at the same time as the crime of the previous offense in this case, the equity thereof, and the balance with the defendant's case, including the fraud against the defendant who

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

Judges Kim Dong-young