(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.9.14. 선고 2016고합1376 판결

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years for each of the crimes in subparagraphs 1-B, (c), (e) and (f) of the Decision of the case No. 2016 Highest 1376, and by imprisonment for three years and six months, and by imprisonment for two years for each of the crimes in the Decision No. 2016 Highest 1376, 2016, 1376, and 2017 and 419, respectively: Provided, That with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date this decision becomes final and conclusive. Of the facts charged against Defendant B, Defendant C is acquitted.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On January 15, 2013, Defendant A was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court) and two years of suspended execution, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 13, 2014. On June 9, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced three years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. and six months of imprisonment, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 11, 2017.

1. The sole crime committed by Defendant A;

(a) Basic facts

Around July 2010, the Defendant concluded a contract with D to purchase 4.2 billion won of Gangnam-gun E, F, G, H land, and slaughterhouse buildings and facilities on the ground thereof (hereinafter “the slaughterhouse”) from D, and the contract was terminated because it did not pay the remainder of the down payment. A contract was concluded to purchase the slaughterhouse at KRW 4.8 billion of the KRW 4.2 billion of the instant slaughterhouse from D around October 2010, the Defendant paid the remainder of the KRW 1.6 billion of the instant slaughterhouse to D 200 million but did not pay the remainder of the purchase price. Around March 1, 2012, the Defendant agreed to 200 million of the instant slaughterhouse under the consent of D 19.20 million won of the instant slaughterhouse (hereinafter “K”), and the Defendant did not receive the remainder of the KRW 1.6 billion of the instant slaughterhouse from D 200 million of the instant maximum debt amount, and did not receive the ownership of D 19.2 billion of the instant slaughterhouse under the name of D 16.

On the other hand, around July 26, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with D and the Defendant stating that “A shall take over approximately KRW 1.9 billion obligations of D against L, M, N, etc., for which the instant slaughterhouse made a provisional disposition, etc., instead of taking over the obligation of D and D’s balance of the above sales.”

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against victims0;

On December 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) purchased the instant slaughterhouse from the Manan-gun P, Man-gun, Man-gun; (b) purchased the instant slaughterhouse at KRW 6 billion to 0,000; and (c) owned the building subject to reconstruction in Guro-gu, Seoul. Although the instant slaughterhouse was established with a collateral security right of KRW 4 billion with the maximum claim amount; (b) the actual claim amount is KRW 70 million; and (c) the amount of the remainder of the provisional attachment right holders is limited to KRW 300,000,000,000; and (d) the amount of the claims of the instant slaughterhouse is limited to KRW 300,000,000,000,000. The Defendant extended a loan to the existing creditors, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the principal would be repaid with the loan of the said bank.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was merely a person to whom the obligation to purchase and sell the instant slaughterhouse was acquired from D who sold the instant slaughterhouse as described in paragraph 1(a) and was not the owner of K, but the reconstruction building in progress in the said R itself did not exist. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to reduce the shares of the said K and the rebuilding building.

In addition, since the net I's claim amount is approximately KRW 1.9 billion, and the defendant's obligation to the provisional disposition right holder who received the above claim from D while taking over the above claim reaches KRW 1.9 billion, it was not possible to receive additional bank security loan.

In addition, the Defendant did not have any particular property or income at the time, but did not have the ability to pay the above money to the victim because the Defendant had a debt such as the borrowed money exceeding one billion won.

From January 10, 2013 to October 23, 2013, the Defendant received from the victim KRW 51,00,000 in total for the loan as shown in attached Table 1 (excluding KRW 6,14,16,20, KRW 1,000,00 among 20, KRW 21,23, and 26, KRW 20,000 among 26, KRW 27,000, and KRW 30) from the victim, and acquired it.The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim S.

Around April 2013, the Defendant: (a) at a place where it is impossible to know at a time less than Mapopo-si, the Defendant was the actual owner of the instant slaughterhouse, and (b) he was expected to receive approximately KRW 5 billion subsidies from Mana-do; and (c) the instant slaughterhouse was finalized to receive loans from the bank as collateral. Since money for repayment, etc. to existing creditors is required; (d) if money is loaned, the Defendant would be repaid with the above subsidies or bank loans; and (e) he would be reimbursed with KRW 130,000,000,000,000,000,000 from Mapo-si. Since there is a large-scale land processing company operated in the Seoul metropolitan area, the Defendant would not be likely to recover money.

However, in fact, the defendant was not the actual owner of K as described in the above paragraph 1 (a), but did not have intended to receive subsidies, and did not have intended to obtain a bank loan.

In addition, the above meat processing company did not exist, and the defendant did not have any particular property or income, while the defendant did not have any obligation to repay the above money to the victim because he did not have any obligation such as the borrowed money exceeding one billion won.

The Defendant received a total of KRW 1,606,700,000 from the victim from April 29, 2013 to September 3, 2013 as shown in the attached Table 2 of Crimes List from around April 29, 2013, and acquired it by deception.

(d) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Victims T;

Around September 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the V Certified Judicial Scriveners Office located in U, Mapo-si, the Defendant: (b) “A” was the actual owner of K that operates the instant slaughterhouse; (c) the instant slaughterhouse was deposited with the bank as collateral; and (d) W, the Plaintiff decided to invest KRW 2.2 billion in the instant slaughterhouse; and (c) the amount of KRW 1.9 billion out of the domestic amount of money is deposited with the instant slaughterhouse; (d) if money is loaned to the existing creditors for repayment, etc.; and (e) if money is needed for repayment to the existing creditors, the said investment would be repaid; and (e) the Defendant would also be able to repay the said amount of money to S. A large-scale meat processing company operated in the Seoul metropolitan area. At the same place on March 26, 2014, the Defendant continued to lend money to the victim; and (e) at the same time, “A bank loan to the existing bank” and “a bank immediately borrowed money.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not intend to obtain K's actual stock price, but did not intend to obtain bank loans as described in paragraph 1(a) above, and there was only a lot of talks about W and investment, but there was no actual investment.

The Defendant received 400,000,000 won from the victim on September 3, 2013, and 700,000,000,000 won around March 26, 2014, and 1,100,000,000 won in total from the victim as the borrowed money. E. The Defendant acquired 40,00,000 won in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim X.

Around September 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around the foregoing V’s office, the victim X, the land of the said T, actually sold the instant slaughterhouse; (b) the instant slaughterhouse was deposited with the bank as collateral; (c) the instant slaughterhouse was to pay the principal and interest KRW 100 million upon lending money to the bank; and (d) a large-scale land processing company operated in the Seoul metropolitan area would not be likely to recover money because of a large-scale land processing company operating in the Seoul metropolitan area.

However, as the above 1-A, the defendant was not the actual owner of K, and did not intend to obtain the above bank loan.

In addition, the Defendant did not operate the above meat processing company, and did not have any particular property or income, while there was a debt such as the borrowed amount exceeding one billion won, so the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the above money to the victim.

The defendant received 1,700,000,000 won on the same day from the victim as the borrowed money, and acquired it by fraud.

(f) Fraud against the victim N.

1) On September 26, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around September 2013, at a “ZZ restaurant in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, the Defendant: (b) paid KRW 50 million immediately; and (c) paid KRW 70,000,000 to the creditor N of D, who took over his/her obligation, for the release of provisional seizure set up in the instant slaughterhouse; and (d) received a slaughterhouse as collateral from the bank to pay KRW 70,000,000 to the bank until October 10, 2013.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have to obtain the above bank loan, but did not have any particular property or income, but did not have any obligation such as the loan exceeding one billion won, and thus, the Defendant did not have the ability to pay KRW 70,000,000, which was promised even if the victim cancelled the above provisional seizure.

The Defendant, on September 11, 2013, received only KRW 50,000,00 from the victim, and released the above provisional seizure, which caused the claim amount to KRW 119,00,000,00, and had K, the owner of the slaughterhouse of this case obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the real estate value of the slaughterhouse of this case.

2) On October 2013, 2013, the Defendant, through AA, lent KRW 25 million as the bank loan is delayed due to a creditor who filed an application for compulsory auction with the victim via AA for a compulsory auction on the instant slaughterhouse. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would receive bank loan immediately after the auction is withdrawn, and would repay it together with the above promised KRW 70,00,000.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have to obtain the above bank loan, but did not have any property or income, while there was a debt such as the loan exceeding one billion won, and therefore, the Defendant did not have the ability to repay the above money to the victim.

On October 1, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 25 million from the victim as the borrowed money, and acquired it by fraud.

2. Defendant AC (hereinafter referred to as “AC”) on September 1, 2014, for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant A and B, purchased the instant slaughterhouse through a voluntary auction on September 1, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the site and building around September 30, 2014. Defendant A planned to obtain money by deceiving the future prospects, etc. of the instant slaughterhouse while carrying out the work as if he had an exclusive right to purchase the instant slaughterhouse from AC, and Defendant B, the spouse of Defendant A, was willing to take part in the crime of defraudation.

On November 2014, 2014, at the office of the victim AB located in the third floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul AD Building, the Defendants: (a) purchased the slaughterhouse at the victim’s office in Seocho-gu Seoul, through AE, “A” and (b) granted AE the exclusive right to purchase KRW 4.1 billion of the slaughterhouse’s loan 2.9 billion of the AF Bank loan 2.9 billion of the said real estate as security; (c) AE concluded a purchase contract with the AF Bank to succeed to the KRW 2.9 billion; and (d) the remainder was paid only a down payment of KRW 200 million after the operation of the slaughterhouse. From January 2015, 2015, the Defendants were to start the slaughterhouse business, and receive KRW 4.1 billion of the deposit from the distribution company of by-products while slaughter. When the above contract deposit and operating funds are insufficient, the Defendants immediately returned the shares to AFF Bank’s investment principal.

However, there was no difference between Defendant AE and AE, and there was no understanding from AE on the exclusive purchase authority or the timing of payment of the balance, and the report on succession to the status of AC was rejected at the time, so it was impossible to start the slaughterhouse business, and there was no fact that Defendant A was to receive the deposit from the by-products distributor.

In collusion, the Defendants received a total of KRW 843,70,000 from November 13, 2014 to July 3, 2015 from the victim, as shown in the attached Table 3, from around November 13, 2014 to the victim, and acquired it by deception.

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant A and B;

On January 1, 2015, the Defendants entered into a contract to purchase AC with the victim AB, the creditor of the instant slaughterhouse, who made an investment as referred to in the above paragraph (2) at the coffee shop in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. From March 2015, the Defendants came to start business from around March 2015, and received a deposit amount of KRW 00 million from the distributor of the by-products generated from slaughter. If the operating funds are insufficient to lend money until the commencement of business, the Defendants borrowed the right to be supplied with the maintenance of by-products (small and swine oil) as a monopoly to 50% of the wholesalers’ 50% of the wholesale. Upon commencement of business, the Defendants said that the shares of AC would be excessive to a certain extent, and that the principal would be repaid immediately after the receipt of the said deposit.

However, in fact, since the report of succession to the status of AC was rejected at the time of Jeonnam-do, it was impossible to start the said slaughterhouse business, and there was no fact that the Defendants did not receive the deposit from the by-products distributor, and the Defendants did not have any particular property or income, while the Defendants did not have any obligation such as borrowed money exceeding KRW 00 million, so there was no ability to repay the above money to the victims.

The Defendants conspired with the victim from February 9, 2015 to August 21, 2015, and acquired a total of KRW 1,033,000,000 from February 9, 2015 to August 21, 2015 as stated in the crime list 4.

around July 2, 2015, Defendant A, at the office of the AJ (hereinafter referred to as "AJ") (hereinafter referred to as "AK"), a representative director of the victim AK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AK"), will start business from August 2015. At least 70 cattle, pigs, and pigs 800 boxes will be slaughtered each day, so that Defendant A would have a large amount of profit when operating the Deputy Director of the AJ (hereinafter referred to as "C") who will take advantage of the vehicles to be transported, recommended the lease of the Deputy Director at the above slaughterhouse located within the slaughterhouse.

However, in fact, since the report on succession to the status of the slaughter business operator was rejected in the Jeonnam-do and the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the return of the report was still pending, around August 2015, Defendant A was unable to commence the above slaughterhouse business. From around January 2015 to around September 4, 2015, Defendant A promised 50% of the above slaughterhouse’s share in the process of purchasing the above slaughterhouse from AJ, AG, and N, and thus he was not a legitimate owner of the above slaughterhouse. Defendant A entered into a lease agreement with the victim on August 1, 2015, stating that “AK leased the above Vice Slaughter within the above slaughterhouse,” and received KRW 200 million in total as the above lease deposit amount from the victim from around August 5, 2015 to around September 4, 2015, Defendant A received KRW 200 million from the victim to around 2015, 2005.

Summary of Evidence

January 2016 1376

○ Decision 1-b, c, d, e.

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each statement of the witness T, X, S, and0 in the protocol of the first, second, and third trial;

1. Details and basis of remittance, statement of transaction, detailed statement of transaction, statement of statement of transaction (Evidence Nos. 16, 17, 19, 29), statement of transfer, takeover contract (Evidence No. 44), statement of agreement, statement of agreement, investment agreement, receipt (Evidence No. 76-78), mortgage contract (Evidence No. 80), cashier's check (Evidence No. 81,82), statement of mediation, agreement, deposit certificate (Evidence No. 86, 87, 88), account details, etc. (Evidence No. 99);

1. Paragraph (f) of paragraph (1) of this ruling, in relation to an investigation report (to hear Written Statements for Witnesses);

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Statement of witness N in the sixth protocol of the trial;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of AA;

1. Each police statement concerning N;

1. An agreement on the performance of obligations, notarial deeds and promissory notes, written rulings on provisional seizure, the progress of cases on provisional seizure, promissory notes and notarial deeds, copies of passbooks (Evidence Nos. 101-105), account details (Evidence No. 117);

1. The investigation report (as to a copy of passbook A0), the investigation report (as to the flow of the damaged amount), and the part of each legal statement of the defendant A and B in the judgment No. 2 and No. 3 ( as to the flow of the damaged amount);

1. The legal statement of the witness AE;

1. The statements made by witnesses AB and AG in the fifth and seventh trial records;

1. AC sales contract, receipt, contract for share transfer and takeover, each share agreement, each share transfer and takeover contract, each account transaction investigation (Evidence List Nos. 131-137), power of attorney, certificate of personal seal impression (Evidence List Nos. 141-142), written judgment (Evidence List Nos. 145), certificate (Evidence List Nos. 146), power of attorney (Evidence List Nos. 149), loan certificate (Evidence Nos. 149), register of shareholders (Evidence No. 159), register of shareholders (Evidence No. 192-194), each ledger of shareholders (Evidence No. 192-194), account (Evidence No. 227), additional contract for by-products (Evidence List No. 231), each transcript (Evidence No. 238-2444), AG account transfer (Evidence No. 245), list No. 2501, No. 25294 (Evidence No. 251, No. 254945)

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Legal statement of a witness AL;

1. The statements made by witnesses AP and Q in the 8th and 9th trial records;

1. The details of transfer of the deposit to the third Deputy Director, the details of remittance of the deposit to the third Deputy Director, the ground plan of the office of each suspect, and the details of remittance related to stock transfer";

1. Criminal records, etc. inquiry reports, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 6297 and seven court rulings, investigation reports (Attachment to Acriminal judgments);

Application of Statutes

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

○ Defendant A: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the fraud against the victim0, S, T, X, AB, and AG, including each victim, Article 30 of the Criminal Act as to the fraud against the victim AB and AG), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of fraud against the victim N, AK, fraud against the victim N, and fraud against the victim N), Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act (the addition of Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act, and choice of imprisonment)

○ Defendant B: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including each victim)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant A: B between the crimes of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) (the first-B, (c), (e), (f), and (3) of the Criminal Act, as indicated in the Decision 2016Gohap1376, and between the crimes of fraud, which became final and conclusive on March 13, 2014, each of the crimes of Article 1-4, (2), and (3) of the 2016Gohap 1376 Case, and part of the crimes of fraud, which became final and conclusive on August 11, 2017) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: the penalty provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act)

○ Defendant B: Aggravation of concurrent crimes provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act with heavy penalty for victims AG in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

○ Defendant A and B: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “contributive circumstances”)

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration has been made more favorable than the reasons for sentencing)

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

"2016, 1376

1. The sole crime committed by Defendant A;

A. As to the fraud against the victim 0

1) Summary of the assertion

A) The Defendant did not borrow money from the victim, but received money as investment money for the same business, and the Defendant did not make a statement as stated in the facts constituting a crime at the time of proposing the same business to the victim. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intent to commit deception and fraud.

B) Most of the money invested by the victim in the Defendant is the victim O borrowed money from S and the Defendant, and the Defendant paid 700 million won directly to S, and thus, most of the aforementioned investments were already paid to S. Therefore, the victim did not have any property damage.

2) Determination

A) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in accordance with the evidence adopted and examined by this court as to the assertion that there was no intention to commit deception and deception, it can be deemed that the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not have the ability to repay as stated in the facts constituting the crime, by deceiving the victim0 and taking the money out of 511,00,000 won, and the intent of the defrauded can be recognized. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is rejected.

(1) It is true that the Defendant provided 0 victims with the intent to share in the K and R reconstruction building as stated in the facts constituting a crime and to pay the principal to the bank loans.

The victim stated that, in lieu of the investigation agency and this court, the victim is the actual owner of K in order to receive money, and the defendant owns the building subject to reconstruction in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The victim established a mortgage of KRW 4 billion on the slaughterhouse, which is the former owner of the slaughterhouse, but the actual amount of the credit is KRW 70 million, and the amount of the remainder of the provisional seizure rights is limited to KRW 300 million, so it is possible for the bank to receive a secured loan from the bank. If the money for repayment, etc. to the existing creditor is needed, if the money is lent, it is 30% of the K equity and 30% of the shares in the above reconstruction building and the principal that the bank was lent to the bank."

The defendant also stated at an investigative agency that he would be well aware of the victim's memory, but he would be well aware of K or R reconstruction building, and that he would be able to lend money from the bank after resolving the collateral security. The same shall apply to opening and making a statement that he would be between 3 and 5 months (Evidence No. 155, 157 pages of evidence record), which corresponds to the part corresponding to the victim0's statement. Considering the fact that the victim's statement about the contents of the statement that the defendant made is very specific, consistent, and supported by the defendant's investigative agency, the victim's statement that meets the criminal facts is credibility.

(2) It is difficult to view that the Defendant had an intent or ability to repay the above money to the victim 0. At the time, the Defendant, as indicated in the facts constituting an offense, acquired D’s obligation for L, M, N, etc. which was subject to provisional disposition, etc. on the instant slaughterhouse, while taking over the remainder of D’s purchase price claims as indicated in the facts constituting a crime, and acquired D’s obligation for L, M, and N, etc. In addition, the instant slaughterhouse was established as the cause of the maximum debt amount under I’s name. In other words, in order for the Defendant to normally take over the instant slaughterhouse and operate the instant slaughterhouse

However, the actual collateral obligation under the I’s name was not more than KRW 70 million at the end of the Defendant, but about KRW 1.9 billion at around August 2013 (see, e.g., evidence records 5: 17 pages; hereinafter referred to as the “agreement”). The amount of the credit of the provisional disposition right holder established in the slaughterhouse was not more than KRW 1.9 billion at the end of the Defendant, but more than KRW 1.9 billion (see, e.g., evidence record 6: 107 pages, bonds transfer, and acquisition contract). In addition, it appears that considerable amount of operating expenses or slaughterhouse remuneration costs were required to operate the slaughterhouse in order to actually operate the slaughterhouse of this case. Nevertheless, as seen earlier, the Defendant did not have sufficient means to secure large amount of money other than lending money from S, T, X, etc., other than the victim’s debt settlement, slaughterhouse remuneration, and operating expenses. This is even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the ability to obtain a loan from the slaughterhouse of this case within a short period of time.

(3) It is not true that the Defendant and the Defendant did not merely lend money to the victim 0, but that they invested money in the instant slaughterhouse to jointly operate the instant slaughterhouse.

There is no evidence suggesting that there was a specific agreement between the Defendant and the victim 0 on the joint operation method of the slaughterhouse and the distribution of profits (the Defendant asserted that the investigative agency prepared an investment contract with the victim, but failed to present it. The evidence record No. 1:50 pages) and the account under the name of K were all managed by the Defendant or B, and there is no evidence suggesting that the victimO was involved in the operation of the slaughterhouse of this case.

As seen earlier, the Defendant also stated that “the Defendant was given a preferential repayment of money from a bank after resolving a collateral security at the police station.” This also appears to have been prepared in the form of a request for bank loans, etc. on June 10, 2013, which was made between the Defendant and the victim and the victim on June 10, 2013. It is difficult to view the nature of the money that the victim paid to the Defendant as an investment amount.

B) The following circumstances revealed in accordance with the evidence adopted by this court as to the assertion that the victim did not incur any loss, namely, ① the date of defraudation and the amount recorded in the annexed crime list 1 as to the victim and the amount of the victim and the amount recorded in the annexed crime list 2 as to S, respectively. ② The victim submitted the details of transfer or withdrawal from his own account to the remainder other than the part not guilty as shown in the annexed crime list 1, and there was no evidence to see that the above money was borrowed from S. in the above account. ③ The victim also stated that the above amount of damage to the defendant did not overlap with that of the victim 0 as a result of comparison with that of the victim 494). Even if the defendant paid 70 million won to S, this part of the victim cannot be accepted.

B. As to each fraud against C, D, E, the victim S, T, X in the holding

1) Summary of the assertion

When borrowing money from the victim S, T, and X, the Defendant provided a collateral of 4 billion won with the maximum debt amount exceeding the actual debt amount, and the victims recovered the claim by executing a voluntary auction based on the above collateral. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have any intent and ability to repay the borrowed money, and the victims did not incur any property damage.

2) Determination

A) Relevant legal principles

In a case where, in borrowing money from a third party, if the other party has failed to comply with the true notice as to the purpose of the borrowed money or the method of raising funds to repay money, and the other party has received money by notifying the fact contrary to the truth as to the purpose of use thereof or the method of raising funds to repay, a crime of fraud is established. In such a case, the conclusion does not vary solely on the ground that the said party provided a security for the borrowed money obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005).

B) Determination

Examining the following circumstances revealed in accordance with the evidence adopted and examined by this court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, insofar as the Defendant received a loan from the victim S, T, and X by deceiving the victim S, T, and X about the method of raising funds to be repaid or its ability to repay, fraud is established and the victims cannot be deemed to have no damage. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is unacceptable.

(1) The Defendant, while borrowing money from the victim S., T, and X, was determined to receive approximately KRW 5 billion subsidies from S.C. or to receive loans from the bank, "W was to make an investment of KRW 2.2 billion in the instant slaughterhouse," and "large-scale meat processing enterprises operating in the Seoul Metropolitan area are also able to repay other funds rapidly." However, in fact, W, having decided to receive subsidies from Jeonnam-do or make an investment to receive bank loans, it was impossible for the Defendant to do so at the time of the instant provisional disposition on September 2, 2013, because it was destroyed the investment contract, and it was actually impossible for the Defendant to receive funds from the instant slaughterhouse as well as the maximum amount of debt at the time of the instant provisional disposition, and it was not possible for the Defendant to actually operate the slaughterhouse at the time of the instant provisional disposition as well as the maximum amount of debt.

(2) On August 21, 2013, K paid KRW 1.6 billion to Ma who was a creditor of D in the Gwangju District Court branch of the Gwangju District Court on August 21, 2013, but upon payment of KRW 1.00 million by September 30, 2013, MA decided to withdraw a provisional disposition, etc. filed against the instant slaughterhouse, and instead of paying the remainder of KRW 600 million by March 31, 2014, K adjusted to transfer the ownership of movable property owned by K to Ma for the purpose of securing the performance of the said obligation (Evidence 228 pages of evidence record). However, the Defendant was aware of the result of the conciliation by ordering C, who was the representative director under the name of K, to coordinate the said contents in the actual possession of K (see evidence record 3:373, 373, and the prosecutor’s protocol of the prosecution against C).

The Defendant, at around August 21, 2013, knew of the fact that the ownership of movable property, such as machinery necessary for the operation of the instant slaughterhouse, was transferred to M through an alteration of possession, and subsequently, borrowed money from the victims without notifying the victims of such circumstance that they continued to borrow a bank loan as collateral for the instant slaughterhouse. It is obvious in light of the empirical rule that, if the victims knew of the fact that the said movable property, such as the slaughter machine, which was assessed as worth KRW 1140 million, had already been transferred to M, it would have not been lent money to the victims, even if the victims knew of the fact that the said movable property had already been transferred to M.

(3) As follows, the victims seem to have received considerable portion of the amount of damage.

The facts pertaining thereto are as follows: (a) around September 3, 2013, the victims transferred a loan of KRW 400 million to the Defendant; (b) KRW 2.15 billion, including the loan of the victim S; and (c) KRW 4.5 billion to the slaughterhouse in order to secure the claim, KRW 4.7 billion. The Defendant borrowed KRW 1.7 billion from the victim X around September 9, 2013; (d) KRW 1.77 billion from the distribution date of the instant slaughterhouse; and (e) KRW 3.4 billion from the distribution date of KRW 1.5 billion from the distribution date of KRW 3 billion; and (e) KRW 1.4 billion from the distribution date of the instant slaughterhouse; and (e) KRW 1.5 billion from the distribution date of the instant slaughterhouse; and (e) KRW 3.4 billion from the distribution date of KRW 1.5 billion from the distribution date of KRW 400 billion to the victim; and (e) KRW 1.5 billion from the distribution date of the instant slaughterhouse 1.3 billion from September 24.8, 2013 billion.

As a result, even if the victims partly recover the amount of damage through the auction procedure due to the value of the slaughterhouse in this case, it is only circumstances after the crime of fraud is established, and it cannot be denied the damage itself due to deception.

C. As to the fraud of No. 1 of the holding with respect to N of the victim No. 1

1) Determination as to Article 1-1(f)(1)

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant did not commit any deception against the victim N in relation to the loan or financial status of K, and the victim N also cancelled the provisional attachment by his own reasonable judgment.

B) Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court: (i) the Defendant stated to the effect that: (ii) the Defendant would immediately pay KRW 50 million to the victim N; and (iii) would receive a slaughterhouse loan from the bank as collateral to pay KRW 70 million until October 10, 2013; (iv) the due date for payment was issued until October 10, 2013; (v) the Victim N received only KRW 50 million on the condition that it would pay 50 million within 20,000,000,000,000 from this court; and (v) the Defendant would not be able to obtain a loan from the bank due to the fact that it would be difficult to obtain a loan from the bank to obtain a maximum debt amount of KRW 400,000 from the bank; and (v) the Defendant would not be able to obtain a loan from the bank to the maximum debt amount of KRW 13,100,000,000.

2) Determination as to Article 1-1(f)(2) of the judgment

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant did not request the victim N to lend KRW 25 million to the victim N, which is the defendant's employee and requested by AA.

B) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and examined by this Court, the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 25 million from the Victim N through A, an employee, even though the Defendant did not have the ability to repay is sufficiently recognized. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

① The victim N made a statement from investigative agency to this court that ‘A' requested a loan of 25 million won when the Defendant requested a loan to cancel the provisional attachment of A0.0 million won.’

② The Defendant also stated in the Prosecutorial Office that “AO was trying to prevent a loan of money to AO.” The Defendant received from AA a time report from that time, and agreed that A would proceed so by doing so (Evidence Record 6: 407 pages);

③ The victim: (a) remitted KRW 25 million to K’s account other than AA; (b) the Defendant transferred the said money to another account under the name of the Defendant or under the name of K on the date of deposit; (c) used it as the employee’s pay, etc.; and (d) the Defendant first resolved the employee’s pay, etc. to the effect that “A0 was not paid money.”

2. The defendant A and B's joint criminal conduct (as to the fraud against the victim AB and AG of the crime committed in the market)

A. Summary of the assertion

1) The victim AB agreed to invest KRW 3 billion in the process of re-taking the slaughterhouse from the AC representative director AE and receive 49% of the AC’s share in the process of acquiring the slaughterhouse, and ultimately, did not interfere with the financing which was ultimately promised. In addition, although the victim AB attempted to distribute the AC share to some of the money invested by the victim AB, the distribution of the share would be interrupted by the defendant A’s wind which is bound by the AAB, and there was no intention to commit deception or deception against the victim AB.

2) The victim AG made an investment in the instant slaughterhouse, not just lending money. In addition, even though the victim AG intended to distribute part of the AC shares to the victim AG, as seen earlier, Defendant A did not distribute shares on the wind bound by AA, and there was no intention to commit deception or fraud.

3) Defendant B only lent the name of the head of the Tong to Defendant A while accompanying him at all times instead of driving, and did not have been involved in the instant slaughterhouse operation, investment, borrowing, etc.

B. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence that the court adopted and investigated the judgment of the criminal intent of deception and deception against the victim AB, it may be deemed that the Defendants commenced the slaughterhouse business of this case within the earlier time as stated in the criminal facts, and that the Defendants deceiving the victim AB as if it is possible to receive the deposit from the slaughter-products company and receive the deposit money, thereby deceiving the victim AB, thereby recognizing the criminal intent of defraudation. The Defendants’ assertion on this part is rejected.

A) The victim AB had been talked with AF bank to succeed to KRW 2.9 billion of the AF bank loans 2.9 billion of the AF bank loans, which the Defendants borrowed this real estate as collateral, in a consistent manner with the investigation agency and this court. The victim AB entered into a slaughterhouse purchase contract with AE and the instant slaughterhouse, and the remainder was paid first and paid in full, and the rest was to be paid in full. The investment of KRW 200 million was made only by the Defendants.

From January 2015, 2015, i.e., that a slaughterhouse business may begin, i.e., that a company that distributes livestock by-products receives a KRW 00 million from the company that distributes livestock by-products, and thus, i.e., that the principal of the investment will be returned immediately after receiving the deposit. The statements made by AB of the victim AB so specific and consistent are credibility.

In fact, unlike the horses of the Defendants, there was no agreement between the Defendants and AE that only a part of the sales contract amount should be paid and the remainder should be paid in full. Since the report on succession to the status of the slaughter businessman of this case was returned at the time and the administrative litigation requesting the revocation of the report is pending, it was impossible to immediately commence the slaughterhouse business, and there was no fact that the Defendants would receive a deposit amount of KRW 00 million from the slaughter-by-products distributor.

B) The Defendants’ assertion that the victim AB agreed with the Defendants to receive 49% of the AC equity interest in return for the investment of KRW 3 billion is not true.

According to the sales contract made between Defendant B, the victim AB and the seller AE on December 23, 2014, the sales price of the slaughterhouse in this case is KRW 4.15 billion. Of them, the amount of KRW 2.90 million is the condition that AF bank loans are taken over, and the actual amount of money that the Defendants and the victim should pay to AE was KRW 1.25 billion, and there is no ground for the victim to invest KRW 3.00 billion. Furthermore, according to the record of the conversation between Defendant A and the victim AB (Evidence 273 page), it is difficult to view that Defendant A and the victim made a statement that Defendant B made a statement that Defendant B would have deposited KRW 499 billion in the face of four hundred million in the face of the period of January 28, 2015, and that Defendant B made a statement that Defendant B would have made an investment in the face of KRW 1.5 billion in the face of February 3, 2015.

C) The Defendants’ assertion that Defendant A did not adjust shares on the wind bound by Defendant A, but did not have any intention or ability to reduce AC’s shares from the beginning does not affect the establishment of fraud.

The deception of this part of the facts constituting a crime is in progress due to the return of the report on succession to the status of the slaughter business operator on the slaughterhouse in this case and the revocation lawsuit is pending, and thus, it was difficult to immediately commence the slaughterhouse business and there was no fact that the company was expected to receive the deposit from the by-products distribution company. Therefore, even though the Defendants did not immediately return the investment principal, the Defendants made it contrary to such objective circumstances to make the victim AB pay the investment amount. In short, the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to reduce the shares of AC even if they received the investment amount from the victim AB, is difficult to accept.

2) Determination on the criminal intent of deception and deception against the victim AG

A) The injured party AG stated that the Defendants were consistently running a slaughterhouse business from March 2015 in place at the investigative agency and this court, and that the Defendants would receive KRW 100 million from the distributors of by-products from slaughter. If the operating funds are insufficient, they would be able to exclusively supply the maintenance of by-products to 50% of the wholesalers, and at the time of commencement of the business, AC shares would be able to pay the principal immediately. It would be able to believe that the statements of the injured party AG are in life and body. It would be possible to collect money from the victim AG and AB, and that the victim would be 10 billion from the victim’s by-products to be reimbursed. According to the victim’s recording on January 24, 2015 (Evidence No. 90, 31, 31, 2015, hereinafter “the victim’s by-products”).

B) Defendant A’s words are contrary to the objective circumstances at the time, and Defendant A, who led to the takeover of a slaughterhouse, should be deemed to have been well aware of such circumstances. In other words, at that time, Defendant A was immediately unable to commence the slaughterhouse business, and there was no fact that Defendant A was able to receive KRW 00 million from the seller of the slaughterhouse by slaughter because the report on succession to the status of the slaughterhouse operator was rejected at that time, and the revocation lawsuit was pending.

C) Even if Defendant A agreed to provide Defendant A with a right to be supplied for five years at a price less than 50% of the other companies with respect to the maintenance in which Defendant A slaughtered and emitted from the lawsuit, this can be viewed as compensation for lending money. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the existence of the above contract alone is not a loan, but an investment loan, the nature of which the victim AG paid to Defendant A.

3) Determination as to Defendant B’s participation

The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court of this case: (a) the victim AB and AG were almost accompanied by the defendant B at the time of delivery of the defendant with respect to this part of the crime; and (b) the defendant B stated the same purport as the defendant A; (c) the victim AB and AG deposited a considerable portion of the investment funds or loans into the passbook of the defendant B; and (d) some of the funds deposited by the victim AG directly requested payment to the victim AG (refer to evidence record 9:60 pages, recording, etc.); and (c) the defendant B did not know of the detailed contents of the slaughterhouse; but on September 2015, the defendant B did not accept the allegation that the defendant B conspireded with the victim AB and the victim AG as stated in the crime and acquired money.

2017Gohap419

1. Summary of Defendant A’s assertion

A. Part of the deposit money for lease to the Head of the Three Division of the slaughterhouse 1 of Nos. 5 of the annexed crime sight table 1

At the time of the first lease agreement, the victim K was aware of the fact that there was a lawsuit seeking revocation of the return of succession to the status of the slaughter business operator of the slaughterhouse in this case, and in fact, the victim K was engaged in the business of the head of the tax office in this case. Therefore, there was no deception by the Defendant.

B. At that time, the Defendant agreed to engage in the business of supplying only one credit to the Government of Malaysia in accordance with the Agreement on the Certification of Livestock Products and the Purchase of Slaughtered BC, which is the “C” between the slaughterhouse and the instant slaughterhouse, and decided to jointly lease the office in BB to this end. The victim AK, who became aware of this, requires an additional office related to the logistics business that the Defendant had previously performed, and thus, the Defendant paid part of the above BB office with human test expenses, etc., and thus, the Defendant did not commit deception.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the part of the deposit money for lease to the Head of the Three Division of the slaughterhouse 1 of No. 5 of the annexed crime sight table 1

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted by the court and examined by the court: ① the Defendant appears to have not notified the victim K of the succession to the status of the slaughterhouse operator at the time of concluding the lease agreement for the instant slaughterhouse operator; ② the representative director of AK knew at the early August 2015, after the contract was entered into, and continued to pay the deposit after being aware of the circumstances in which the instant slaughterhouse was in progress; ② the Defendant did not know that the instant slaughterhouse operator was operating the slaughterhouse at around August or September, 2016, and the Defendant did not receive money from the first director of AB at the time when the agreement was concluded; ③ the Defendant was aware that the instant slaughterhouse was operating the slaughterhouse at around October 4, 2016, and the Defendant did not receive money from the first director of AB at the time when the agreement was concluded, and the Defendant did not know that the Plaintiff was operating the slaughterhouse at the time when the agreement was terminated.

B. The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence adopted by the court to determine the deposit amount for the lease of the BB office No. 5 BB office. ① The victim AK representative director at this Court decided that the instant slaughterhouse will be exported to the witness of the Malaysia on September 17, 2015, and for which the BB office was established. For the purpose of export transportation, AK also stated that the Defendant’s request for deposit of the above money under the name of BB office rent even if the Defendant sent text messages to the victim, or that the Defendant could not be seen as having concluded a lease agreement between BB and B office rent for the purpose of the BB office rent (see evidence record No. 26 text messages) and the Defendant’s request for deposit of the above money for the purpose of the BB office rent. In light of the fact that BB office rent agreement was concluded between BBC and B office rent and the Defendant’s deposit money, but the above agreement or loan agreement was concluded for the purpose of the BJ office rent, and thus, the Defendant could not be seen as being exported to the B office rent.

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for each year and six months from June to June 22;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

○ Defendant A: The sentencing criteria do not apply because the previous convictions of the ruling and the ruling have the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.

○ Defendant B

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud. Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won)

[Special Mitigationor] The degree of deception is weak;

[Determination of Sentence] Reduction Area, one year to six years of imprisonment

3. Determination of sentence;

Defendant A did not accurately notify or falsely notify information on the details of obligations, scheduled time of business, possibility of loans, etc. relating to the slaughterhouse in order to take over the slaughterhouse of this case without any other financial resources, and received large amounts of loans or investments from the victim, S, T, X, N, AB, AG, and AK. Furthermore, Defendant A had the victim N who is the provisional attachment authority for the slaughterhouse of this case cancelled provisional seizure as if he would repay the remainder of the debts within the short period. Defendant B participated in the process of receiving or borrowing money from the victim AB and AG in collusion with Defendant A. The crime committed by the Defendants is not good in view of the fact that the amount of damage is very large and many victims. The Defendants did not pay the amount of loans or investments to the victims until now. This is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, Defendant A appears to have actually made efforts for the acceptance or normal operation of the slaughterhouse of this case, and the considerable amount of the money invested or borrowed from the victims is considered to have been actually used for the slaughterhouse of this case. The victims are also responsible for the occurrence and expansion of damage by lending money to or investing in the slaughterhouse of this case without accurately ascertaining the Defendant’s horse, and making a large amount of profit. Furthermore, the victim S was paid KRW 700 million out of the loan around September 9, 2013, and the victim X, S, and T transferred the right to collateral security in the name of the victim X to AC in the course of the auction of the slaughterhouse of this case to KRW 3.6 billion, and was partly repaid with each of the obligations with the proceeds of the transfer. In addition, the victim N and K expressed their intention not to be punished for Defendant A under an agreement with the Defendant A, and the latter part of the Criminal Act No. 1376-13, Dec. 13, 2014; the crime of fraud of this case becomes final and conclusive.

The equity should be taken into account when the judgment is rendered at the same time in the world, which is favorable to the defendant A.

Defendant B has no record of crime beyond the fine, and Defendant A’s wife involved in the instant case, but the degree of participation in the instant crime appears to have been weak compared to Defendant A, shall be considered as favorable circumstances.

In addition, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances that serve as the conditions for sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and method of committing the crime, and the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines.

The acquittal portion

"2016, 1376"

1. Of the frauds against Defendant A’s victim 0, 1,00,00,009, 21, 23, X 26 X 20,00,00,000, 27, 30 out of attached Table 1 6, 14, 16, 20, 200, 27, 30

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant A received 346,50,000 won in total as stated in the attached Table 1 6, 14, 16, 200,000 won among 21,23, 26, 27, and 30 won among 21, 26, 200, and 27, as stated in Section 1-B(b) of the criminal facts of the case in 2016Gohap1376.

According to the pertinent part of the list of crimes No. 1, most of the money was sent by account transfer. However, as evidence for this, only includes a list of sights, such as remittance, prepared by the victim’sO, and there is no other objective evidence to find out the details of passbook transaction and the details of withdrawal. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant acquired this part of money from the victim.

Ultimately, the charges of 1,00,000 out of 6, 14, 16, and 20 of the attached Table 1-6, 16, and 20,000 among 21, 23, 26, 20,000, 27, and 30 of the attached Table 1-20 of the crime committed falls under a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of fraud described in Article 1-2 of the crime of this case, the charges shall not be separately pronounced.

2. Defendant C.

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant C, an employee of AC, in collusion with Defendant A and B, received a total of KRW 843,70,000 as investment money from the victim AB as stated in the criminal facts of the 2016 Gohap1376 case.

B. Determination

As can be seen in accordance with the above evidence, it is true that Defendant C made a good talk about Defendant A at the time of the first receipt of the instant slaughterhouse from Defendant C, or that Defendant C was able to slaughter up to a maximum of 200 maris and pigs 1,500 mas per day from the instant slaughterhouse, and the victim AB deposited KRW 12,30,000 in the passbook in the name of Defendant C.

However, the following circumstances revealed through the evidence revealed, i.e., ① even according to the victim AB’s statement, Defendant C was merely an exaggeration of the value of the slaughterhouse in this case and the financial history of Defendant A; it is difficult to view that Defendant A and B were directly engaged in the act of deceiving the victim AB by demanding investment funds in the course of acquiring investment funds; ② the victim AB stated to the effect that “the amount of KRW 12.3 million deposited in the passbook in the name of Defendant C is deposited in the Defendant C account in the investigative agency and this court as necessary for the business of Defendant A or B; ③ all remaining investment funds except KRW 12.3 million deposited in the name of Defendant C used as a gold recipient; and Defendant C did not own any share after the acquisition of AC; and there is no lack of evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A and B conspiredd to obtain investment funds from Defendant A and B from the beginning, or that it was extremely difficult for the victim to recognize that Defendant A and B received some amount of money from the victim.

Ultimately, since the facts charged against Defendant C constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is sentenced to innocence under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

“2017Gohap419

1. Regarding the loan money borrowed in sequence 5 in the annexed list of crimes (Defendant A, B);

A. Summary of the facts charged

On September 7, 2015, the Defendants obtained KRW 190 million from September 7, 2015 to October 30 of the same month and acquired money as the borrowed money from around September 7, 2015 to around September 30 of the same month.

B. Determination

The Defendants asserted that they did not commit a deceptive act, such as borrowing money from the AJ operating cost and actually using it for its original purpose, and making a payment with U.S. invested money in the process.

In this part of the facts charged, there is a police statement about AP, a victim's general director, which is a victim AK-general director, and this part of the facts charged stated that "B requires KRW 200 million due to the issue of processing the AJ-based investment funds." Since Qu General is doing work to attract the investment funds in the United States, it is demanded to return money if Qu General is returned to the U.S. (which is 68 pages). However, in this court, the AP stated that "the above statement is not directly experienced but rather a statement made by AL and BD to the witness, and the witness statement was made at the investigative agency." Accordingly, the AP police statement constitutes a specialized statement, and it is difficult to prove that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state, such as death, disease, or unknown whereabouts, and that it was made after the statement was made at the AP-based investment funds in the United States. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, it is not admissible for the victim's investment funds in the AP-based investment.

2. Regarding [Attachment] Nos. 1 and 2 of the List of Crimes (Defendant B);

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant A, received KRW 20 million as the deposit money for the lease from Defendant AK, and acquired KRW 2767 million as the deposit money for BB office, in collusion with Defendant A, as indicated in [Attachment 1, 2017 Highest 4194] No. 1, 200 million.

B. Determination

The evidence of this part of the facts charged lies in the statement of the police officer against AP, a victim AK general director. This is the fact that the defendant A and B concurrently discussed about the conclusion of the lease agreement or the BB office for the slaughterhouse of this case. However, in this court, AP stated that the above statement was made to the witness and that the witness was stated in the investigation agency, and that the witness did not actually negotiate with the defendant A and B in connection with the lease agreement of this case. According to this, the AP's statement of the police officer constitutes a professional statement, and it is not possible to make a statement due to reasons such as death, disease, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, etc., and that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the police officer's statement of AP cannot be admissible as evidence. On the other hand, the victim's representative director's statement that "AP was made under the lease agreement of this case and the BP office of this case, and there is no special fact that the BP had been involved in the BP's export of this case.

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged in addition to the police statement of AP, which cannot be used as evidence, and it is difficult to view that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A with this part of this case.

3. Conclusion

Of the instant cases, the facts charged by 3 No. 5 in the list of crimes in the attached Table 3 against Defendant A among the instant cases in 2017Gohap419 constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, and thus, the innocence is to be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the Defendant found guilty of the crime of fraud listed in the attached Table 5 No. 1 and 2, which are related to the blanket crime, the judgment of innocence is not to be rendered separately in the text of the Criminal Procedure Act. The facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B constitute cases where there is no proof of

Judges

The presiding judge and the deputy judge;

Judges Regular General

For judges the last place:

Note tin

1) The crime committed after March 13, 2014 out of the facts constituting the crime in the case of Seoul Central District Court 2015 Godan6297 (attached Form 10 No. 50)

18, 20 (victim part), 22 (victim AS, AT part), 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33 through 40, 43, 45, 50 (victim AU, AV, and AW part)

The remainder of the same Table except for crimes]

2) 10,18,20 (victim AR part), 22 (victim AS part, AT part), listed in the separate list of offenses in the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2015 Godan6297;

23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 33 through 40, 43, 45, and 50 (victim AU, AV, and AW) of the same Table, except for the crimes specified in the same Table.

Attached Form

A person shall be appointed.