Defendant 1 and 14 others

The Prosecutor (Defendant 9, 10) and the other Defendants except the Defendant 10

St. L. L.C.

Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorneys Choi Jong-soo et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Ma1188 (Separation), 2005 Godan1389, 1617, 1845, 1979, 2210 (combined) Decided June 8, 2005

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1, 3, 4, and 5, and Defendant 2, Defendant 6, 9, and 10, Defendant 7, and 8, Defendant 11, and Defendant 15, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months, and imprisonment for two years and six months, and Defendant 6, 9, and 10, respectively.

The number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be 120 days each of the above punishment against Defendant 1, 2, 5, and 9, the 114 days each of the above punishment against Defendant 3, the 118 days each of the above punishment against Defendant 4, the 115 days each of the above punishment against Defendant 6, 10, and the 108 days each of the above punishment against Defendant 11.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments against Defendant 6, 7, 8, and 15 shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

One copy of the seized head of Tong (No. 1 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 and No. 500), two pages (No. 2) and one (No. 3) shall be confiscated from Defendant 1.

Defendant 1’s fraud by computer use to the agricultural cooperatives and Defendant 12, 13, and 14 are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Grounds for appeal by the prosecutor (as to the defendant 9, 10)

In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed systematically under a thorough prior plan, and that Defendant 9 and 10, who worked as an executive officer or employee of a financial institution, committed the crime of this case by taking advantage of his position, and even if there was no substantial damage, the amount of damage is up to KRW 10,000,000, the sentence imposed by the court below against the above Defendants is too uneasible.

B. Grounds for appeal by the Defendants

(1) Defendant 1

㈎ 사실오인

Upon introduction of 11, the Defendant only verified whether Defendant 2 was actually deposited in an account in the name of “international commerce” in the foreign exchange bank in which he knows, and the instant crime was committed by Nonindicted 1, etc., and the Defendant did not have been involved in the instant crime. In particular, even though the criminal facts of paragraph (3) of the lower judgment were committed regardless of the Defendant under Nonindicted 1’s instruction, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged by misapprehending the facts.

㈏ 법리오해

In reality, it is impossible for the Defendants to gain more than 70 trillion won from the amount of damage caused by the instant crime. Thus, the instant facts charged constitute an impossible crime. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on impossible crimes.

㈐ 양형부당

In light of the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

(2) Defendant 2

㈎ 사실오인

The Defendant, by deceiving Defendant 1 and 11, was aware that he was involved in the crime and did not intend to commit the crime of this case, even though he was aware that he was aware of the transfer of funds from government agencies as a national book work, the lower court convicted Defendant 1 and 11 of the facts charged.

㈏ 양형부당

In light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime and the family environment of the Defendant, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(3) Defendant 3

㈎ 사실오인

The defendant was requested by the defendant 5 to introduce and request the executive officers and employees of financial institutions to realize the real name of government funds, and the defendant 6 and co-defendant 1 of the court below, known to the general public, introduced the defendant 9 and 10 to the defendant 5 through his request to introduce the executive officers and employees of financial institutions, and thereby, introduced the defendant 9 and 10 to the defendant 5. The defendant did not commit the crime of this case in collusion with the defendant 2, and the transfer of government funds to the defendant 2 was aware that the government funds was carried out under the control of the government, and there was no intention to acquire the government funds transferred,

㈏ 양형부당

In light of the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

(4) Defendant 4

In light of the fact that the crime of paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment below was fully returned to the victim non-indicted 2 with regard to the crime of paragraphs (2) and (3) of the crime, and the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

(5) Defendant 5

㈎ 사실오인

In order to realize the real name of the funds managed by the government of the defendant by the defendant 4, the defendant was requested to introduce and request the executive officers and employees of the financial institution to the third party, and the defendant 9,10 was introduced to the defendant 4 through his request, and the defendant 2, etc. was not conspired with the defendant 2, etc., the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged.

㈏ 양형부당

In light of the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

(6) Defendant 6

In light of the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case and the family environment of the defendant, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

(7) Defendant 7

In order to realize the real name of the funds managed by the Government from Co-Defendant 2 of the lower court, the Defendant introduced the executives and employees of the financial institution to the request, and requested Defendant 15, who is the senior co-defendant, to introduce the executives and employees of the financial institution, and thereby, introduced Defendant 9 to Co-Defendant 2 of the lower court, and did not commit the instant crime in collusion with Defendant 2, the lower court convicted Defendant 1 of the facts charged.

(8) Defendant 8

㈎ 사실오인

In order to realize the real name of the funds managed by the Government from Defendant 15, the Defendant introduced and requested the executive officers and employees of financial institutions to request them to introduce Defendant 9 who was known to the general public, and did not conspired with Defendant 2, etc. to commit the instant crime, the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged by misapprehending the facts.

㈏ 양형부당

In light of the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

(9) Defendant 9

㈎ 사실오인

Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant 2, etc. committed a crime with the knowledge that the government funds were transferred to account in cooperation with the government agencies, and there was no fact that Defendant 2, etc. committed the instant crime in collusion with Defendant 2, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

㈏ 양형부당

In light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(10) Defendant 11

㈎ 사실오인

As indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not commit the instant crime according to Defendant 1’s instruction, but did not commit the instant crime in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1 (Seoul Kim-soo) and Defendant 2’s instructions, and did not commit the instant crime in a leading manner, the lower court convicted Defendant 1 of the facts charged by misapprehending the facts.

㈏ 양형부당

In light of the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

(11) Defendant 12

㈎ 사실오인

When Defendant 11 committed the instant crime, the Defendant only conspired with Defendant 11, and did not participate in the instant crime or participated in the said crime, the lower court convicted Defendant 11 of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

㈏ 양형부당

In light of the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

(12) Defendant 13

㈎ 사실오인

Defendant 11 and Defendant 2 received KRW 15 million from Defendant 2, along with Defendant 2’s request, “to introduce and request employees of foreign exchange banks to work in real name the government funds in foreign exchange banks.” However, the Defendant merely received a request from the foreign exchange banks to introduce and request the employees of the foreign exchange banks to verify whether the government funds are deposited in the foreign exchange banks, and the Defendant did not receive a request from the employees of the foreign exchange banks to transfer the funds deposited in the foreign exchange banks as stated in the facts charged. Furthermore, the Defendant did not commit the instant crime in collusion with Defendant 2, etc., the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

㈏ 양형부당

In light of the degree of the defendant's participation in the crime of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

(13) Defendant 14

Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant 13 was committed in collusion with Defendant 2, etc., the lower court convicted Defendant 13 of the charge by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime. In so doing, the lower court found Defendant 13 guilty of the charge by misapprehending the fact.

(14) Defendant 15

In order to realize the real name of the funds managed by the government from Defendant 7, a person who was engaged in the same relationship with the high-ranking relationship, the Defendant introduced and requested the introduction of the officers and employees of the financial institution to Defendant 8, who was known to the general public, and thereby introduced Defendant 9 through the introduction of the financial institution, and the Defendant did not commit the instant crime in collusion with Defendant 2, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 15

A. Factual relations

According to the evidence of the court below and the defendants' respective statements in this court, and the witness's statements in this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) On December 16, 2004, Defendant 1 presented the account number of the foreign exchange bank in the name of “international trade” and “Non-Indicted 4” to Defendant 11, who became aware of through Non-Indicted 3, and suggested that “The account holder has deposited the above amount in the above account, but the bank staff who will be in charge of the above work would be in color and changed in order to transfer the amount to another account under the support of the six economic ministries, so he would be able to pay the amount equivalent to 10% of the transferred amount as a higher expense if he successfully participates in the account transfer. At that time, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, who became aware of Defendant 11 as well as Defendant 11, committed the crime with the same purport.

(2) Defendant 1 initially did not impose any restrictions on the employees of the financial institution to commit the crime, but around that time, he heard from the employees of the Korean bank who had been blicked by Defendant 2 that the account he presented by Defendant 1 cannot account the said account in another financial institution due to the relationship between the foreign exchange bank account and the other financial institution. After that, Defendant 1, 11, and 2 were limited to the employees of the financial institution to commit the crime and the employees of the foreign exchange bank.

(3) Accordingly, on January 2005, Defendant 11 offered to Defendant 13 as follows: “The staff of the foreign exchange bank who will be in charge of account transfer shall be placed in a physical face to face a large amount of money; Defendant 13 has been employed by the staff of the foreign exchange bank to commit the crime by making such a proposal again against Defendant 14.

(4) Meanwhile, in addition to Defendant 11, Defendant 2 proposed crimes to the same effect as the preceding paragraph in sequence to Defendant 4, Defendant 4 to Defendant 5, Defendant 3 to Defendant 6, Defendant 6 to Defendant 2 to the lower court, Defendant 2 to Defendant 7, Defendant 7 to Defendant 15, Defendant 15 to Defendant 8, Defendant 8 to Defendant 8, and Defendant 8 to Defendant 9 who worked as an agent for the branch of foreign exchange bank (name omitted).

Accordingly, on February 2, 2005, as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, Defendant 9, through Co-Defendant 2, through Co-Defendant 1, through Co-Defendant 2, Defendant 11, etc., attempted to issue 7 cashier’s checks of KRW 990 billion at face value and deposit them at the National Bank (name omitted) branch. On the same day, Defendant 9 entered money into the foreign exchange bank account (name omitted) with Nonindicted 5’s account (name omitted) by using a computer device installed at the office of the branch office of the foreign exchange bank (name omitted) on the same day.

(5) On January 14, 2005, prior to the crime of this case, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 suggested that “When there exists an approved account, and if the account is transferred to the said account or the ARS is made by a check, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 9 to pay an amount equivalent to 10% of that amount as a bonus for merit.” After that, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 were indicated in the preceding paragraph, Defendant 2 did not know such fact. However, Defendant 11 did not inform Defendant 2 of the fact that Nonindicted 1 was involved in the crime of this fact.

(6) On the other hand, as seen earlier, Defendant 3 suggested that Defendant 6 would commit the crime as described in paragraph (4) upon Defendant 5’s request to exchange bank employees. On January 2005, Defendant 1 also proposed that Defendant 1 had the same intent, and Defendant 1 had the same intent with Defendant 1, who had been working as the Nonghyup branch (name omitted) in Ansan-dong, which is not an employee of the foreign exchange bank.

At the time of receipt of such a proposal, Defendant 10 did not proceed with fraud against Nonghyup, which had been committing a fraud against the Korea Exchange Bank. However, even though the money was deposited with Nonindicted 5’s account as stated in paragraph (4), Defendant 11 was suspended from withdrawing the money from the Korea Exchange Bank on February 2, 2005, and was unable to withdraw the money, Defendant 11 decided to commit a crime again against Nonghyup using Defendant 10 under the name of Nonindicted 10. Defendant 10 on February 7, 2005, as stated in paragraph (3) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, Defendant 10 had Defendant 10 deposited 66 trillion won in the account in the name of Nonindicted 3 (Account Number omitted) of the lower court, using a computer terminal installed in the branch office of the Agricultural Bank branch (name omitted). After the crime, the head office was discovered that the financial accident occurred immediately after the crime was committed, and Defendant 1 did not withdraw the money from the said account in the name of Defendant 3’s account.

B. Determination

(1) Determination of the misconception of facts as to Defendant 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 15

In relation to co-offenders who process two or more crimes, the conspiracy is established only when two or more persons agree to realize crimes by co-processing together with the intent to commit the crimes, and even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of the intent is formed by agreement either successively or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established. Even if a person does not participate directly in the act of the commission, even if he did not participate directly in the act of the commission, he/she cannot be exempted from criminal liability as a co-principal with regard to the other

According to the facts found in Paragraph A, it is reasonable to view that all the above Defendants were aware that they engaged in the crime with the intent to obtain pecuniary benefits through an abnormal computer manipulation conducted by the officers and employees of financial institutions, even though they were not aware of the details of the crime, such as the method, amount of deposit, and deposit account, or they did not know of the specific crime, or even if they were to commit a crime differently from the initially anticipated, they could not be exempted from liability as co-offenders, as long as they participated in the crime with the intent to obtain pecuniary benefits through an abnormal computer manipulation conducted by the officers and employees of financial institutions and actually committed the crime by such a method, and there is no intention to commit fraud.

The above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(2) Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts by Defendant 13 and 14

Defendant 11 was colored by the staff of the foreign exchange bank in charge of account transfer through Defendant 13 and 14, and Defendant 2 et al. deposited 6-9 and 30 billion won in the account in the name of Nonindicted 5 separately from Defendant 11.

However, in order to constitute a joint principal offender, there should be a combination of the co-offenders in order and the intent to realize the crime. As such, Defendant 13 and 14 had a combination of intent with Defendant 1, 11, and the criminal intent, and Defendant 2 and 9 did not have any combination of intent to commit the crime, and even Defendant 13 and 14 did not have any evidence to deem that Defendant 2 et al. had known that Defendant 2 et al. had colored the employees of the foreign bank for the crime of this case.

Therefore, there is a co-offender relationship between Defendant 1, 11, 13, and 14, separate from the fact that the co-offender relationship between Defendant 11, 2, and 9 is established, the co-offender relationship between Defendant 13, 14, and Defendant 2, and Defendant 9 cannot be said to be established, and Defendant 13, and Defendant 14 cannot be said to be held liable as co-offender on the ground that Defendant 2, etc. committed fraud using computers, etc. by Defendant 2, etc. (the crime committed by the above Defendants constitutes the preliminary or conspiracy stage of the crime by using computers, etc., but there is no provision to punish them).

The appeal filed by the defendant 13 and 14 shall be reasonable.

(3) Judgment on Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

First, with respect to the crime of fraud by the use of computers, etc. against the victim bank, Defendant 1 conspired to obtain benefits by means of the account transfer through physical color with Defendant 11 and 2, and accordingly, Defendant 2, etc. committed the crime by physical coloring Defendant 9, who is an employee of the foreign exchange bank. However, even though Defendant 9, etc. did not actively intervene in the account transfer through electronic manipulation or did not know such fact, Defendant 1 cannot be exempted from liability as accomplice unless he conspired to obtain pecuniary benefits by means of abnormal computer operation through the officers and employees of the first financial institution, and committed the crime ( Defendant 1 did not seem to have specifically participated in the process of the crime after he conspired to commit the crime with Defendant 2, etc., but it cannot be deemed that he was withdrawn from the crime before Defendant 1 committed the crime. Defendant 11 did not appear to have been involved in the crime in the above process of the crime, since the victim’s instructions did not appear to have been involved in the crime in the process of the crime by Defendant 1 and his accomplice.

The defendant 1's argument in this part is without merit.

Next, with respect to the crime of fraud by the use of computers, etc. against the victim No. 11 and 2, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 conspired to acquire profits by means of account transfer by manipulating the computer system with Defendant 11 and 2 staff members of the foreign exchange bank. Thus, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 conspired to commit the crime of fraud against the agricultural bank, it is difficult to view that the act of conspiracy against the agricultural bank was included in the act of conspiracy of fraud against the agricultural bank, unless there is any evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 conspired to commit the crime of fraud against the agricultural bank, it is difficult to view that Defendant 11 et al. was included in the act of conspiracy of fraud against the agricultural bank. Since Defendant 11 et al. could not withdraw money from the account in the name of Non-Party 5 of the foreign exchange bank, it cannot be said that Defendant

This part of the appeal by Defendant 1 is justified.

(4) Judgment on Defendant 1’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

The crime of fraud by the use of computer, etc. is established when a person acquires or has a third party obtain economic benefits by making another person obtain information processed by inputting false information or improper orders into a computer or any other information processing device (Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act). Each of the crimes of this case is established by inputting false information by using computers, etc. installed in a foreign exchange bank, etc., and it cannot be deemed an impossible crime because it is impossible to withdraw money from the bank account due to the deposit amount up to the deposit amount to the deposit amount. Moreover, it cannot be said that it is impossible for Defendant 1, etc. to withdraw money deposited in the above account, or that there is no

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant 12

According to the facts charged, Defendant 11, Co-Defendant 4’s statement and the record of the main text attached to the investigation agency of the court below, and the seized pocket book (Evidence 602 subparag. 3 of Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office 2005tension 602) that correspond to the facts charged, Defendant 12 met or becomes aware of Defendant 11 who provided security brokerage business in order to obtain real estate mortgage loan around 2002. (2) Defendant 11 notified Defendant 12 of the bank account number, etc. in the court below’s name and Defendant 12 paid money to the above account by account transfer similar to the crime of this case, and Defendant 12 cannot be concluded to have committed an act of co-defendant 5 with Defendant 1’s account number on the following grounds: (3) Defendant 12 did not have any other evidence as to Defendant 12’s behavior at the time of the crime of this case, and Defendant 12 did not have any other evidence as to Defendant 140,000.

4. Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11’s assertion of unfair sentencing and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant 9 and 10’s assertion of unfair sentencing

A. Determination on Defendant 9 and 10

Although the Defendants were primary offenders, and the Defendants were suspected of committing each of the instant crimes due to suspicion to Defendant 11, 2, etc., who are accomplices, they were aware that the account transfer at will was unlawful, the Defendants are expected to receive a large amount of money to be received in the event of success in the instant crime and committed the instant crime, and the Defendants cannot be deemed to be less than the degree of participation as a principal offender of the instant crime, and even though they did not incur any real loss due to the prompt departure suspension measure of the victims, considering the fact that the amount illegally processed into another’s account under the name of another person reaches a total of KRW 10 and also shows that socioeconomic risks are considerable, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing against the defendant 9 and 10 is with merit, and the defendant 9's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. Determination as to Defendant 2, 6, 8, and 11

Considering the fact that the crime of this case was committed under a thorough prior plan, the deposit which was falsely computerized due to the act of the above defendants reaches several hundred trillion won, and the process and degree of participation of the above defendants in each of the above crimes, the sentence imposed by the court below against the above defendants is deemed appropriate, and the above defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

C. Determination as to Defendant 1, 3, 4, and 5

Considering the process and degree of participation of the above Defendants in each of the instant crimes, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is deemed to be too unreasonable.

5. Ex officio determination

ex officio, the court below found Defendant 12, 13, and 14 guilty of all the facts charged on the premise that Defendant 1 and 12 conspired to commit the crime No. 2 of the facts charged as indicated in the judgment of the court below and participated in the crime No. 3 of the court below. However, as seen in the above, the court below found Defendant 1 and 12 guilty of all the facts charged on the premise that the above defendants conspired to commit the crime No. 3 of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, and the facts charged as to the remaining defendants are different from that of the court below. Thus, the court below

6. Conclusion

Therefore, under Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part against the Defendants among the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows after the pleading.

1. Defendant 4:

Non-Indicted 6 dispatched to the Board of Audit and Inspection in the course of serving as a secretary of the circumstances of the Blue House as well as a secretary of the Blue House, and even if such person is known, he/she does not reverse the case where he/she had already been suspected by the prosecution or have no intention or ability to return management rights and stocks of the company beyond others; in collusion with Non-Indicted 6

Around January 19, 2001, the victim non-indicted 2, operated by the non-indicted 7 located in the Changdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (trade name omitted), shall be the victim non-indicted 2, "it may well see the result of the case of fraud, etc. against the non-indicted 8, who was suspected of non-indicted 8 by means of force to him, and shall reverse the result of the case, such as the fraud, etc. by means of force against him, and find a secret enterprise. Therefore, the business promotion expenses and teaching expenses shall be changed from the victim's place, 5 million won from the victim's place of residence, 100,000 won from the flood bank located in Gangseo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government on or around March 9 of the same year, 100,500 won from the flood bank located in Suwon-dong on or around May of the same year, 300,000 won from the place of non-indicted 4 of the same year, and 500,000 won from the national bank,500 won.

2. Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Co-Defendant 2, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 11, Co-Defendant 4, Defendant 15 of the lower judgment, Co-Defendant 5 of the lower court, Co-Defendant 5 of the lower judgment, and Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 10, 11, 12, 13, 5, 3, 14, and Nonindicted 1 of the lower court, the government, under the real name of the sum of KRW 100 managed by the financial institution as the borrowed name or dormant account from the financial institution for the purpose of using it for the State’s book business, to obtain money by means of making money deposited in a specific account through the computer work of the terminal of the financial

around 204.12. Defendant 1 was introduced to Defendant 1 through Nonindicted 3; Defendant 1 and 11 were introduced to Defendant 2 through Nonindicted 13; Defendant 2 was planned to use 60 trillion won only to exchange funds managed by the Government; Defendant 1 and 3 were paid 10% of the funds real name at the Government on the face of the week; Defendant 2 was issued to Defendant 4 and distributed 5% of the total amount of money to Defendant 1 and the remaining 5% of the money deposited to Defendant 2. It was proposed that Defendant 4 would have been distributed to Defendant 5, Defendant 3, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, Defendant 15, Defendant 7, and Defendant 15, Defendant 8, Defendant 2, Defendant 7, and Defendant 15 were assigned to the Seoul Government on the face of 5,000 won.

3. Defendant 2, 3, 5, 2, 9, 10, 3, 11, 4, 5, 6, 15, and 16 in collusion with Paragraph 2, and in collusion with Paragraph 2, co-defendant 1, 10, 3, 11, 4, 5, 5, 6, 15, and 16 in the name of the court below.

Defendant 1, on December 2, 204, notified Co-Defendant 2 to the Seoul High Court 100 million won in real name, Defendant 1 entered the funds under the name of the Seoul High Court 200 million won in order, and Defendant 3 decided to transfer the funds under the agreement of six ministries in the lower court to the Seoul High Court 2005. Defendant 1, who entered the Seoul High Court 200 million won in the name of the Seoul High Court 200 million won in the name of the non-indicted 2's account. Defendant 1, who entered the Seoul High Court 200 million won in the name of the non-indicted 5's account, and then transferred the funds to the non-indicted 2's Seoul High Court 100 million won in the name of the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's account.

[Fact 1]

1. The defendant 4's partial statement in the original trial

1. Each statement in each of the original trials rendered by the witness Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 17, and Nonindicted 18

1. Receipts bound in investigation records and entries of deposits without passbooks;

【Facts 2 and 3 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendants' statements in each part of the court below's decision and each of the court below's decision

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of each prosecutor's suspect against the Defendants

1. Statement of the witness at the court of the first instance by Nonindicted Party 1

1. Each statement of each police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 10

1. Each statement made by the police in relation to Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 36, and Nonindicted 37

1. Each entry in the police seizure record;

1. Issuance and cancellation of each cashier's checks bound in investigation records, checkbooks without passbooks, destruction register of important documents, pocketbooks and joint copies, each agricultural bank passbook, detailed statement of free savings account transactions, return slip, written request for deposit, and entries in the passbook of foreign exchange banks; and

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

Articles 347, 30 (Act No. 1 in the Market), 347-2 and 30 (Act No. 2 and 3 in the Market) of the Criminal Act.

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50 (Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 (Objection to the other Defendants except for Defendant 7, 8, and Notarial Order)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act (Defendant 1)

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the point of Defendant 1’s fraud by using a computer against the agricultural cooperative and the summary of the facts charged against Defendant 12, 13, and 14 are as follows:

(1) Defendant 12, 13, and 14, in collusion with Defendant 1, etc., obtained the pecuniary value equivalent to KRW 66,30 billion by inputting information into the information processing device without authority in collusion with Defendant 1, etc., and (2) Defendant 1 and 12 obtained the pecuniary value equivalent to KRW 66,00,000 by inputting information without authority in collusion with Defendant 11, etc. as stated in paragraph (3) of the crime.

2. The above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts as stated in paragraphs (b) and (3) of Article 2-2 of the judgment on the defendants' assertion, and thus, all of the above facts charged are acquitted under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Attachment Pronouncement of Judgment]

Judges Heungn (Presiding Judge)