2016 Highis214, 2016 Highis53 (Joint), 2016 Highis63 (Joint)

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

(b) Fraud;

(c) Embezzlement;

(d)an accusation;

1. (a) b. d.

A

2.(a)(b)

B

Maho-ho, Kim Sung-hun, Go-ho (prosecution), Go-ho, Go-sung, Woo-ho, Woo-ho (Public trial)

Attorney Kim Jong-chul (for the defendant A),

Law Firm Barun (for Defendant A)

Attorney Ha Young-ho, and White-gu

Law Firm Shin (for Defendant A)

Attorney Kim Hyun-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Jin (Defendant B)

Attorney Park Yong-sik (for the defendant B)

Law Firm Woo (for the defendant B)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Attorney Park Dong-jin (for the defendant B)

January 18, 2018

Defendant A shall be sentenced to three years of imprisonment, and Defendant B shall be sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment. Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant A, and each of the frauds against Defendant BD

The summary of the judgment of the acquittal part is publicly announced.

1) On October 14, 2015, Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents at the Seoul Eastern District Court on April 16, 2016. On August 18, 2016, Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year of imprisonment for the crime of forging securities at the Seoul Central District Court on August 26, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 26, 2016. Defendant B is the actual representative director of Company E and the F of Company F, and Defendant A is the representative director of Company E and the actual representative of Company F, from May 10, 2010 to August 10, 201, from August 23, 2010 to November 13, 2010.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal (2016Gohap214)

The Defendants, while running the imported tea sales store operation business together, failed to operate the business fund, and, in order to reach the pressure of repayment of interest, profits, principal, etc. from the existing creditors, ordered the operator of the advertising company to act on behalf of the exclusive advertising agency for G car and G car page, they received money from the advertising company as the contract performance guarantee, and conspired to use it for debt repayment, etc.

A. The Defendants concluded that the victim HH representative director I may be given the exclusive right to advertise G motor vehicle to only I in advance, and Defendant A, at the office of the victim H, Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant, located in the former J, in early March 2011, provided “A” with the right to sell G motor vehicles, and the K Group provided funds, thereby importing G motor vehicles from September 201. The Defendants would set the sales amount of KRW 5.7 billion, which is 5% of the sales amount, as an advertising budget and execute the advertisement in an intensive manner until the end of each year.” However, the Defendants were in the stage of preparing for the sale of G motor vehicles by leasing a building located in a large number of places around that time, and thus, the Defendants were unable to perform the contractual obligation under the pretext of establishing a performance bond under the pretext of a contract.

Since it was intended to use it for the purpose, the victim H did not have the intention or ability to exercise the exclusive advertising right of G cars.

Defendants, in collusion, deceiving I as above, prepare an advertising agency contract, and Defendant A operates 200 million won as contract deposit.

was remitted to a bank account in the name of the bank.

B. According to the Defendants’ above conspiracys, around July 19, 201, Defendant A continued to engage in the above public offering, Defendant A made it false to the effect that “A would be allowed to exclusively offer 100 million won (100 million won of contract performance deposit to be permitted to act on behalf of the company E to act on behalf of the company, because it is also a coffee-based business using G brand.” However, in fact, the Defendants were required to move out of the above building because they failed to properly pay the rent for the building located in the 0th place leased for the use of the G car page, and the progress of the automobile import sales business being promoted was also supported, and the intent was to use the contract performance guarantee under the pretext of granting the right to act on behalf of the company, and thus, the victim H did not have any intent or ability to reduce the right to act on behalf of the G car page.

The Defendants conspired to induce I as above, prepare one advertising agency contract with I, and then receive KRW 100 million from I as contract deposit money under the name of E company.

C. According to the above public offering, the Defendants ordered P, the vice president of F, to leave the advertising company to display G car monopoly advertisements as proxy, and P excluded the victim Q representative director R. P in accordance with the Defendants’ order. From the office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, the victim Q Q’s representative director, “A” has the right to sell G car, and K has the right to receive funds from K Group to import G automobile from September 201. The amount of KRW 5.7 billion, which is 5% of the sales amount, was set as advertising budget, and executed in an intensive manner until the end of each year. Defendant B obtained the victim’s right to use the contract performance bond as proxy for the same purpose as the advertising company’s sales contract, and signed and sealed it to the effect that it was impossible to use the contract performance bond as proxy, and Defendant B obtained the victim’s right to use the contract performance bond for the same purpose as the advertising company’s sales contract for the same purpose. However, Defendant B was not able to use the contract performance bond for the same purpose.

The Defendants conspired with P to induce R, prepare an advertising agency contract, and receive from R to the N Bank account in the name of E, the sum of KRW 100 million around April 25, 201, and KRW 100 million around April 29, 201, as contract performance guarantee.

D. According to the above public offering, the Defendants made a false statement to the effect that, on May 201, the said P would import G car from around September 201 to R, and that, currently, the current right to operate GKa P, which is leading a fluorial machine in Europe and Japan, is holding in our E. The contract performance guarantee amount of KRW 100 million on an exclusive basis. The Defendants made a false statement to the effect that the said P would be able to exclusively act on behalf of the State.

However, in fact, the Defendants were in a state of leaving the above building because they failed to properly pay the rent for the instant building leased for the purpose of G Kapet, and the progress of the car import sales business that has been promoted was also supported, and the intent of the Defendants was to use it for the purpose of paying the debt by receiving contract deposit under the pretext of giving the right of advertising agency due to the shortage of business funds. Therefore, the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to grant the right of advertising agency to Q Q.

The Defendants conspired with P to induce R, prepare an advertising agency contract, and receive from R to the N Bank account in the name of E, a sum of KRW 100 million, including KRW 50 million on May 27, 201, and KRW 50 million on May 31, 201, as contract performance guarantee.

2. The sole criminal conduct of Defendant A (2016 high-priced214);

(a) Embezzlement;

From March 16, 2012 to July 17, 2012, the Defendant received a total of KRW 1.6 billion from the victim C in the name of the V fund investment of the U.S. established led by T city, and kept in custody for the victim. On July 19, 2012, the Defendant embezzled the remainder of KRW 400 million by using 1.2 billion investment in the U.S. in the name of C Co., Ltd. and by arbitrarily using it in terms of personal business expenses and repayment of debts.

(b) Fraud;

Around February 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the victimY office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul X, the victim Y Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant: (b) “A, the wife, created a fund of KRW 5 billion in the amount of KRW 4.85 billion in the amount of KRW 50 million in the amount of KRW 150 million in the current amount of KRW 4.5 billion in the amount of KRW 4.5 billion in the amount of KRW 4.5 billion in the amount of KRW 10 billion in the amount of KRW 10 billion in the amount of capital in the amount of KRW 10 billion in the amount of KRW 10 billion in the amount of capital in the amount of KRW 5 billion in the amount of capital in the amount of KRW 5 billion in the amount of capital in the amount of KRW 5 billion in the amount of KRW 5 billion in the amount of capital in Seoul; (c) at the time, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the funds from C to the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the Z as such, was transferred from the Z to the AB bank account of AB bank account of the victim Y Co., Ltd. on February 14, 2013 and on the pretext of the loan, KRW 150 million.

On April 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) established and operated a law firm AD office located in Seocho-gu Seoul, a law firm company located in Seocho-gu, with money from B; (b) established and operated a company F, a company selling imported vehicles, etc.; and (c) released from B to B due to business depression; and (b) requested the attorney to prepare a false complaint against B for the purpose of having the criminal punishment imposed upon B; (c) “The fact that B was the Defendant was the Defendant” did not have the intent or ability to return the money under the pretext of investment and borrowing from A, the complainant to operate his own foreign automobile import and sales business; (d) the Defendant could only obtain profits from the company operating the foreign automobile import and sales business; and (e) the Defendant could, within several months or at least one year, deceiving the complainant as if he were to return the principal and interest to B; and (e) the Defendant could either obtain KRW 2,109,900,000 from the complainant and receive the money from B through borrowing or punishing the Defendant and the Defendant.

Nevertheless, on April 3, 2013, the defendant had the staff of the above AD office submit the above complaint to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office, which is located in 158 according to the distribution of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

3. Defendant B’s sole criminal conduct (2016,553)

Around March 31, 2011, the Defendant drafted an advertising agency contract with the AJ to the AJ, the representative director of the victim AI, in order to import and sell theG cars to Korea. The Defendant would be allowed to advertise the G car exclusively in the face of KRW 100 million as a contract performance guarantee. The advertisement fee is KRW 570,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won in one month.”

However, in fact, since the Defendants had been prepared to establish a place where G car was sold by leasing a building with investment in many places around that time, there was a situation where it was impossible to execute the advertisement by setting the amount of KRW 5.7 billion as the advertising budget, and the intent was to receive contract performance guarantee money under the pretext that the funds for the business are insufficient to provide exclusive advertising agency, and to use the Defendants' debts for the purpose of paying off the obligations. The aforementioned situation was that the other advertising companies entered into the same contract with the victim and received the money as the performance guarantee, and there was no intention or ability to grant the victim corporation the exclusive advertising agency right of the AI car.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving AJ, the representative director of the victim AI Co., Ltd., and received KRW 100 million from the victim AI as the contractual performance bond.

Summary of Evidence

[2016Gohap214, 2016Gohap553]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Partial statement of the witness B;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C, I, Z, and D;

1. The witness's statement in P in the fourth trial record;

1. The statements of witnesses AK and AL in the fifth trial records;

1. Statement made by a witness AM in the sixth trial records;

1. The statements of witnesses, J,N and R in the seventh trial records;

1. Some statements made by the prosecution against the Defendants in the suspect interrogation protocol (including each statement made in C, AM, Z, P, R, and I's large-scale investigations);

1. Examination protocol of suspect suspect of P by prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement against the AL, C, Z and AJ;

1. Some statements made by the police suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant A (including each statement made in the C's comparison investigation);

1. Some of the statements made by the police interrogation protocol regarding Defendant B (including each statement made in the investigation of the A, N, and I, and limited to Defendant B, in the case of each statement made by Defendant B);

1. Each police statement made to AM, R,N, AK,L, I, and AJ;

1. A written statement of the Z and an explanatory note of the R;

1. Reporting on the preparation of a record, and video CDs;

1. Transfer of funds and investment funds, documents related to investment in AO including U.S. investment certificates, etc., loan certificates, W AB bank account details, revocation of complaint, advertisement agency contract (E, M), advertisement agency contract (E, Q), advertisement agency contract (E, Q, advertisement agency contract (E, Q, advertisement agency contract (E, M, AP), advertisement agency contract (E, M, M, and AI), real estate lease contract (E, M, real estate lease contract (L building), construction work contract (LR), MOU (AR), advertisement agency contract (E, GAS), Gcar PP agency contract (E, H, July 20, 201, loan certificates, bill certificate, certificate of payment, transfer of funds, agricultural and fishery transaction information related to AL, business report, certificate of deposit transaction information, promissory notes, receipt, certificate of deposit, receipt, report on the investigation report, and submission of a promissory note related to AB report on July 16, 2011 (E), investigation report and submission of evidence.

1. The description and the existence of the complaint filed by Defendant A and C on April 5, 2013

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Each investigation report (suspect B's disposal and confirmation report), and the results of inquiry about Defendant B 2);

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the victim H and Q, each fraud about the victim corporation, each fraud about Q, each of which is about the victim corporation), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of fraud about the victim corporation Y), Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of fraud about the victim corporation Y), Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of embezzlement, choice of imprisonment), Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Article 156 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the respective frauds against the Victim H and Q, each of the frauds against the Victim Q, each of the frauds against the Victim Q, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor), and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the frauds against the Victim AI, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: the latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes against Victim Q Co., Ltd., Ltd., the most severe punishment and criminal circumstances)

B. Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes as provided in a crime of fraud on April 201, in relation to Qa Co., Ltd. with the largest criminality)

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. Determination as to each of the alleged facts of fraud regarding performance guarantee under an advertising agency contract

A. Summary of the defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1) Summary of Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion

A) On March 17, 2010, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) entered into an advertising agency contract with Defendant M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”), and there was no provision that the said advertising agency contract will receive a security deposit. However, Defendant A entered into an advertising agency contract with multiple advertising companies under the said advertising agency contract, and received a security deposit for contract performance at will of Defendant B at will. Defendant B participated in the conclusion of an advertising agency contract as the representative of E at the time M M on February 1, 201, and was allowed to receive KRW 100 million (hereinafter “E”) and M did not receive a security deposit under the name of the victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”), Qu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) and the victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) and the victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.) did not receive an advertising agency contract under the name of each of the victims Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”).

B) E had the exclusive right to sell G motor vehicles in Seoul, and Defendant B had the intent and plan to entrust the advertisement related to G motor vehicle business in fact while carrying out the G motor vehicle business. The contract deposit under each of the instant advertising agency contracts is the money received and used by Defendant A, and Defendant B was not aware of the fact that Defendant A had no intent and ability to refund the said contract deposit. Thus, even if Defendant B participated in the conclusion of the advertising agency contract with the victim company and the receipt of the contract deposit, Defendant B cannot be held liable for fraud.

2) It is true that Defendant A3 and his defense counsel made an advertising agency contract with H without the intention or ability to grant the exclusive advertising agency right, and received a total of KRW 300 million as performance guarantee money. However, the advertising agency contract with Qu was concluded with Defendant B, and Defendant A did not know about this part, and there was no fact that Defendant A was involved.

B. Determination on Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, Defendant B had been promoting the business of selling imported vehicles, such as G and AEF, while maintaining the decent relationship with Defendant A at the time of concluding each advertising agency contract of this case. During that process, it is recognized that E concluded each advertising agency contract of this case with the victim company and received the contract performance guarantee money with the victim company with knowing the fact that E cannot execute advertising expenses under each advertising agency contract of this case or have exclusive right to advertise to the victim company. Thus, the above act of Defendant B constitutes a case where the victim company was deceiving, and Defendant B had intent to commit fraud. Thus, this part of the allegation by Defendant B and his counsel is rejected.

1) The relationship between the Defendants and the Defendants’ business promotion methods, etc.

A) After being first known about the acquisition of a listed vehicle at around 2008, the Defendants have accumulated a considerable amount of 1 billion won on their own as well as around the end of 2009, the Defendants established FF (hereinafter “F”) by investing one billion won in the sales business of AEF vehicles at around the end of 2009. Defendant B was the largest shareholder of F F, who holds 95% (E75%, B20%) out of the F’s shares in its own name, and was in charge of the business of securing divers, selecting employees, and selling vehicles. Defendant A, as a representative on the F’s registry or on its substance, was not in charge of F’s investment attraction and fund execution. However, at that time, the Defendants did not have made clear division of business among the Defendants, and accordingly, the Defendants appears to have carried out the FF’s overall business with each pending issue as well as the fund raising or operating method.

B) Meanwhile, Defendant B established and operated E in around 2007 to run the imported automobile sales business. However, in the process of promoting the AEF car sales business through F, Defendant B entered E’s employees as F and demanded F to conduct the F’s business, and paid F’s monthly pay to the said employees. In short, without clearly distinguishing E and F from E, such as repeated withdrawal of funds from time to time between E and F, Defendant A operated M as one company, an advertising company from around 2009, but Defendant A operated M as an advertising company. In addition, Defendant A had been operating its advertising company from around 209, such as from time to time, Defendant A had repeated entry and withdrawal of funds from M to F’s account from M account to time to use the funds for its operation, and had been operated as “E or F’s cooperation company” or “F cooperation company.”

Furthermore, Defendant B entered into a joint agreement with Defendant A to carry out the LG car sales business in the process of preparing for the establishment of the GG car sales store on the basis of the exclusive sales right of GG Seoul, which was secured by E around February 201. Defendant A, along with Defendant A, intended to raise funds from Defendant A, etc., to lease the L and carry out artificial construction. Accordingly, Defendant B established A Q Q (hereinafter “A Q”) along with AU for the LG sales store business on April 21, 201. Defendant A changed the trade name of Q to AV (hereinafter “AV”), around July 2011, when the business of the LG sales store was no longer carried out, and used the same company for the business of personal promotion of Defendant AV (hereinafter “AV”), such as AW housing development business, and the aforementioned business was not carried out under the name of the above BG building, and the parties to the sales contract, such as the import of the BG building, were the parties to the instant sales contract.

C) On October 2011, Defendant B left Cambodia as if all of the projects promoted due to personal family problems and returned to the Republic of Korea around 2015, but it appears that Defendant B had maintained deep friendship until around 2013, such as exchanging contact with Defendant A during the period of leaving Cambodia with Defendant A. However, after Defendant B’s departure, several creditors filed a complaint against the Defendants or Defendant B with respect to the F. E’s business, and there was a dispute over the responsibility between the Defendants with respect to the above complaints, and the Defendants’ relationship seems to have disappeared rapidly since 2014.

D) If facts and circumstances arise, the Defendants seem to have maintained a public or private good relationship while running several businesses at the time of concluding each of the instant advertising agency contracts. Furthermore, the Defendants appears to have used the said companies as business groups for import vehicle sales business without clearly distinguishing the legal personality of affiliated companies, such as E, F, M, and Q, in the course of promoting business as business partnerships.

2) The process of concluding each of the instant advertising agency contracts and Defendant B’s deception

A) Conclusion of an advertising agency contract with E and M

On March 17, 2010, the Defendants entered into an advertising agency contract with E with a total advertising cost of KRW 5.7 billion to entrust the business of advertising agency for G and AEF car sales to M. However, around March 17, 2010, the above advertising agency contract was concluded, and there was no substantial progress. Even in the case of AEF car sales business, the Defendants had to raise funds of KRW 20-3 billion in Seoul, Gangnam-gu and Daejeon to establish sales stores, and thus, there was no need for the Defendants to execute an advertisement with the above large advertising cost. Furthermore, in full view of the fact that the execution of large-scale advertising cost under the above advertising agency contract was not carried out by not later than 2010,000,000 won in total, it appears that it would not be actually carried out at the expense of the nationwide enforcement of the advertising agency contract.

B) Conclusion of an advertising agency contract with AP

On February 1, 2011, the Defendants: (a) and (b) entrusted M with the advertising agency business of G and AEF car sales business to M; (b) again entered into an advertising agency contract with M re-entrusted to AP with the said advertising agency business. In determining the total advertising cost as KRW 5.7 billion, E shall pay KRW 570 million as contract deposit to MM within 60 days from the date of conclusion of the contract; and (c) E and M shall not select other advertising agencies except AP.

However, at the time of February 1, 2011, the Defendants raised approximately KRW 3 billion from AU, C, etc. to prevent them from opening a place where G vehicle was sold in L. In the case of AEF car sales business, the total sales amount in KRW 2010 was below KRW 6.5 billion. From the end of December 2010, the business promotion of F was significantly chilling due to creditors’ seizure and demand for repayment. Accordingly, at the time of concluding the said advertising agency contract, E cannot be executed by inserting a large amount of KRW 5.7 billion, and it seems that there was no need to execute the said advertising agency contract, and the Defendants also concluded the said advertising agency contract with the knowledge of these circumstances.

C) Conclusion of a G Motor Vehicle-related advertising agency contract with H

(1) On March 23, 2011, Defendant A entered into an advertising agency contract with the representative director of H, and E, with respect to the entrustment of the advertising agency business for G and AEF car sales business to M, Defendant A again entered into an advertising agency contract with H for re-entrustment of the above advertising agency business to H. The advertising agency contract is KRW 5.7 billion. The advertising agency contract is the total advertising cost, and E pays KRW 570 million as contract deposit to M within 60 days from the date of conclusion of the contract, and H pays KRW 200 million as contract deposit, and E and M are not entitled to select other advertising agencies except H. In fact, if the amount of contract deposit is excluded, it is identical to the advertising agency contract with AP on February 1, 2011; and 10 million won under the above advertising agency contract was remitted to the MN bank account of M& bank account.

(2) In relation to the above advertising agency contract, it does not seem that Defendant B did an act, such as affixing a seal to the contract directly. However, in the investigative agency and this court, Defendant B stated in the purport that “I drink and drink immediately after the conclusion of the above advertising agency contract, I drink, and I talk with Defendant B about the conclusion of the advertising agency contract.” ② Defendant B also stated in the investigative agency that “I drink and drink at the time of the above advertising agency contract, I knew about the details of the contract, but I knew about the fact that I would know about the conclusion of the contract,” while Defendant A stated to the effect that “I was aware that I would receive the contract performance guarantee from the advertising agency, I would themselves know that I would receive the contract performance guarantee from the advertising agency.” Article 13(2) of the advertising agency contract between Emph M, which appears to be well delegated to the third party without approval of the advertising agency contract.” In light of the fact that Defendant B and the advertising agency were aware that the advertising agency and the advertising agency agreed to obtain the contract with Defendant H.

In addition, Defendant B stated in the investigative agency and this court that “AP’s advertising agency contract was directly concluded on February 1, 201.” However, the contract was terminated due to Defendant AP’s failure to pay the contract performance guarantee, and there was another advertising agency event to perform the advertising business accordingly. Defendant B knowingly participated in the procedures for selecting advertising agency by witnessing other advertising agency’s gymology, and H also is one of the most important companies.” However, if a contract is concluded with another advertising agency to substitute AP, the advertising agency contract is also composed of the same purport as that of the advertising agency contract concluded with AP, and the fact that the contract performance guarantee will be received would have been sufficiently known. Accordingly, even if Defendant B does not specifically intervene in the process of concluding the advertising agency contract with H or review the content of the contract, it seems that the overall content and purport of the advertising agency contract was well known.

(3) The key content of each of the instant advertising agency contracts with H, including the advertising agency contracts as of March 23, 201, is that, regardless of whether M is included in the contracting parties, E orders a large amount of advertising as a party to the instant contract, and bears the expenses for such contracts. In other words, the exclusive advertising agency contract, which the victim company seeks through each of the instant advertising agency contracts, depends on whether E is in essence capable of taking large amount of advertising expenses, and the content of the contract is realized only when E actually executes large amount of advertising expenses. The reason why the victim company’s representative paid the contract performance bond in advance to M, etc. is that the victim company secured the exclusive advertising agency contracts by concluding the advertising agency contract with the advertising agency contracts and securing sufficient profit in securing the advertising expenses from E by carrying out the future advertising agency contracts.

However, as seen earlier, around February 201, 201, E did not have the ability to execute advertising by inserting a large amount of KRW 5.7 billion objectively, and there was no need to execute the advertising, and even until April 201, the execution of advertising expenses under the above advertising agency contract seems to have been objectively impossible because G automobile sales business or AEF vehicle sales business was an answer condition or the progress status was worse. Nevertheless, Defendant B appears to have approved the conclusion of the advertising agency contract with H under the name of E with the well-known knowledge of these circumstances, and such act by Defendant B is deemed to be an act of deceiving I. Furthermore, insofar as Defendant B knowingly committed the above act while recognizing the payment of the contract performance guarantee money by I, it should be deemed that Defendant B had the intent to acquire the said contract performance deposit.

D) Conclusion of an advertising agency contract with AI

(1) On March 31, 2011, E entered into an advertising agency contract with AJ and E to entrust E with the advertising agency business for the AEF car sales business, M again, with the content of entrusting the above advertising agency business to AI. The above advertising agency contract shall be KRW 5.7 billion, and E shall pay KRW 570 million as the down payment to M within 30 days from the date of entering into the contract, and the AI shall pay KRW 100 million as the contract deposit, and E and M shall not be selected as the advertising agency business for the AP and H except for some details, and the AJ shall transfer KRW 100 million as the contract deposit under the above advertising agency contract to M account.

(2) It is unclear as to whether Defendant B’s act, such as affixing a seal on the contract directly in connection with the above advertising agency contract. However, in the investigative agency and this court, AJ stated that “Defendant B first met on March 31, 2011 when entering into the contract,” Defendant B was at the site of preparation of the contract, and that “dices drink after eating after entering into the contract.” ② The circumstance that the AI and Q appear to have been prepared to arrange the progress and progress of the case regarding the double advertising agency contract, around June 201, and around the end of 201, it appears that Defendant B appears to have attended at the time of entering into the advertising agency contract, ③ the investigative agency and this court introduced AJ as the president of the company to proceed with the advertising contract, and stated that “C would have been paid to the obligee of 100 million won after entering into the contract,” and ④ the above advertising expenses to be paid to Defendant B’s account under the name of 1300 million won after entering into the contract.

(3) However, as seen earlier, the execution of advertising expenses under the above advertising agency contract was objectively impossible, and above all, as long as Defendant B entered into an advertising agency contract under the name of H and E one week prior to the fact that there is a dispute between the Defendants and the above companies in relation to granting the exclusive advertising agency right in the event of entering into an advertising agency contract in duplicate with AI, and that there is a problem about the existence of the exclusive advertising agency right between the Defendants and the above companies. Nevertheless, Defendant B entered into an advertising agency contract with AI under the name of AI. Such act by Defendant B is reasonable to deem that the act by Defendant B is an act of deceiving AJ, and the intent to acquire the above contract performance bond is also recognized.

E) Conclusion of an advertising agency contract with Q Q for automobiles

(1) On April 25, 201, Defendant B entered into an advertising agency contract with Q on behalf of the representative director of Q, and with Q on behalf of Q and AEF sales business. The said advertising agency contract shall be KRW 5.7 billion in total, and KRW 570 million in contract deposit shall be paid to Q within 60 days from the date of conclusion of the contract; Q shall not be paid KRW 200 million in contract deposit; and Q shall not be allowed to select any advertising substitute event other than Q. In addition, the part excluded from the contracting party is almost the same as the advertising agency contract entered into with AP, H, and AI. The R deposited KRW 10 million in the name of the contract deposit under the above advertising agency contract, and the account number shall be deposited in the name of the EN bank (Y: the account number) in the name of the EN bank.

(2) Defendant B asserts to the effect that it is only true that Q Q has observed the above advertising process, and that it did not attend the site of the above advertising process contract or affix a seal to the contract. However, it appears that Defendant B visited Q’s office on April 25, 201, and Defendant B signed the above advertising process on behalf of 300 million won and affixed a seal to the contract at least 200 million won after signing the above advertising process, and Defendant B signed the above advertising process on behalf of 200 million won, and Defendant B signed the advertising process on behalf of 300,000 won and signed the contract at least 200,000,000 won on behalf of 200,000 won on behalf of 20,000 won on behalf of 20,000 won on behalf of 20,000 won on behalf of 20,000 won on behalf of 20,000 won on behalf of 20,000 won.

(3) However, as seen earlier, insofar as the execution of advertising expenses under the above advertising agency contract was objectively impossible, and since Defendant B entered into an advertising agency contract in duplicate with H and AI in the name of H and AI prior to the past month, there was a dispute between the Defendants and the above companies in relation to granting the exclusive advertising agency right in the event that the contract is entered into in duplicate with Q and AI, and there was a problem about the existence of exclusive advertising agency right in any business entity. Nevertheless, Defendant B entered into an advertising agency contract with Q and the above agency contract under the name of Q and the advertising agency contract. Such act by Defendant B is deemed to be an act of deceiving R, and the intent of defraudation of the above contract performance guarantee is also recognized.

F) Conclusion of an advertising agency contract with Q QC

(1) On May 25, 201, P entered into an advertising agency contract with the representative director R of Q, and E to entrust Q with advertising agency business concerning any supplementary business related to GIST. The above advertising agency contract determines the total advertising expenses through mutual consultation between E and Q, and E pays the initial advertising expenses within 60 days from the date of entering into the contract, and Q appears to have the same purpose as the performance deposit (hereinafter referred to as the "contract performance deposit") in Q with the advertising agency contract executed on April 25, 201, and E pays KRW 100 million to Q as the performance deposit (hereinafter referred to as the "contract performance deposit") and it is prohibited from selecting any advertising agency event other than Q. R deposits in the name of the contract performance deposit under the above advertising agency contract. The amount of KRW 50 million deposited in the name of the bank (hereinafter referred to as the "No. 500,500,000,000) in the name of the bank, May 31, 2011.

(2) In relation to the above advertising agency contract, Defendant B does not seem to have committed an act, such as affixing a seal to the contract directly. However, considering the following as a whole: (i) Defendant A appears to have concluded the above advertising agency contract with Defendant A at the time; (ii) Defendant A appears to have been aware of the fact that the execution of the contract would always proceed to the execution of the contract with Defendant B; and (iii) Defendant B, upon entering into the above advertising agency contract with Defendant B at the same time, entered into the promissory note with the face value of KRW 100 million on which Defendant B’s personal seal impression is affixed, and delivered it to R; and (iv) the said promissory note was notarized on June 3, 201 after the deposit of the contract deposit was completed, Defendant B appears to have been aware of the fact that the above advertising agency contract was concluded and the receipt of the contract deposit was received.

(3) However, around May 25, 2011, the above advertising agency contract was concluded, the business related to the G car was in the planning phase and did not proceed specifically. Furthermore, around August 18, 2010, Defendant B leased the Seoul 0 Building (hereinafter referred to as “AZ”) B from the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building (hereinafter referred to as “AZ”) around August 18, 201, and it seems that it was difficult to establish a plan to install the G car page in that location. In addition, around May 2011, Defendant B was in the situation where it was difficult to properly pay the rent and management fee for the aboveOBA, and was in the situation where the above building was to be removed. Furthermore, considering that Defendant B concluded several times of the advertising agency contract with respect to the above G car business and did not execute the advertising expenses, it appears that the above advertising agency contract was reasonable to deem that it was objectively impossible to recognize the Defendant’s act of deceiving the above advertising agency contract through the advertising agency contract with the above Defendant B.

G) Conclusion of a contract with H for advertising agency related to G car page

(1) On July 19, 201, Defendant A entered into an advertising agency contract with the representative director of H on July 19, 201, and E to entrust H with the business of advertising agency related to the ancillary business related to G Kapet. The said advertising agency contract determines total advertising expenses through mutual consultation between E and H, and H pays KRW 300 million to H as contract deposit, and E shall not select other advertising agencies except H. The contract deposit amount under the said advertising agency contract provides that: (a) KRW 300 million shall be added to the amount calculated by adding the contract deposit amount under the said advertising agency contract related to G car as of March 23, 201; (b) pure contract deposit under the said advertising agency contract is KRW 10 million; and (c) KRW 100 million shall be deposited into the N Bank account in the name of E (Account Number) on July 21, 2011.

(2) It does not seem that Defendant B had committed an act, such as affixing a seal on the contract directly with respect to the above advertising agency contract. However, in light of the fact that “I, at the time of entering into the above advertising agency contract, at the time of entering into the advertising agency contract, at the time of entering into the existing advertising agency contract, there was apprehension that I would pay additional KRW 100 million to the contract performance deposit in a state where the advertising expenses under the advertising agency contract was not executed up to that time. Accordingly, to ensure the performance of the contract, immediately after entering into the above advertising agency contract, Defendant B met or confirmed the above advertising agency contract. At the time of entering into the above advertising agency contract, Defendant B sent KRW 100 million immediately after the date following the following day when Defendant B required to depart from Korea, and transferred the above contract performance deposit to Defendant B, ② the above I’s statement conforms with the specific and objective circumstances such as the actual entry into and departure of Defendant B, and ③ as seen earlier, it appears that the above advertising agency was concluded with the victim and the above company’s receipt of the above advertising deposit.

(3) However, around July 19, 201, when the above advertising agency contract was concluded, the business related to GIST was not specifically commenced. Defendant B had already been removed from the OBA that intended to install GIST due to the unpaid rent on or after the end of June 2011. Furthermore, as seen earlier, the contract was entered into on May 25, 201 with respect to GIST, and Defendant B had already entered into several times of the advertising agency contract with respect to the said G car business, and even if the advertising agency contract was concluded several times, it seems that it was objectively impossible to place the advertisement through the advertising agency. Nevertheless, Defendant B approved the conclusion of the advertising agency contract with QB under the name of Defendant B, which is reasonable to deem that the act of the above Defendant B is an act of deceiving the R, and it is also recognized that the intent to acquire the above contract was also recognized.

3) Defendant B and his defense counsel asserted that Defendant B and his defense counsel received contract performance guarantee from the victim company thoroughly excluded Defendant B in order to obtain contract performance guarantee from the victim company and voluntarily concluded an advertising agency contract with the victim company and received the contract performance guarantee from the victim company. The grounds for the argument that Defendant B and their defense counsel received the contract performance guarantee from the victim company B are as follows: ① each advertising agency contract entered into with the victim company: (a) separate seal impression is affixed other than E corporate or existing employee seal impression; (b) in the case of each advertising agency contract entered into after April 25, 2010, M is excluded from the parties concerned; and (c) in the form of directly entrusting advertising agency business with the advertising agency; (d) the contract performance guarantee under each advertising agency contract concluded after April 25, 2010 was deposited into the N bank account (Account Number) in the name of E established on April 25, 2010; (e) the above account appears to be useful for the victim company to obtain the contract performance guarantee from the victim company without the victim's knowledge of the above.

A) As seen earlier, at the time of the conclusion of each advertising agency contract of this case, the Defendants appears to have been jointly promoting various projects while maintaining a decent relationship or private money. Furthermore, in the absence of individual assets, Defendant A appears to have actively carried out various projects by using the house and background of Defendant B in the absence of separate assets. It does not appear that Defendant A had committed acts such as forgery of documents that could be punished for criminal acts at the risk of blocking the good relationship with Defendant B. In particular, in the process of concluding a contract with the victim company, Defendant A appears to have continuously introduced Defendant B to the representatives of the victim company while continuously introducing the victim company B to the extent that the victim was able to take advantage of the contents of the advertising agency contract, the existence of the contract deposit, and the issuance of promissory notes in the name of Defendant B. If Defendant A received the contract with Defendant B and issued the promissory notes in the name of the victim, it is difficult for the victim to accept the risk of disclosure to each of the Defendants without permission to all of the parties concerned in the instant case.

B) Each advertising agency contract of this case has a seal impression other than the E corporate seal impression. However, even according to Defendant B’s investigation agency and the statement in this court, Defendant B knowingly or implicitly approved that the advertising agency contract of this case was concluded in the name of E at the time of the conclusion of each advertising agency contract of this case. Thus, whether the seal impression affixed to each of the advertising agency contracts of this case is a E corporate entity or whether it is a separate seal impression or not is an element affecting the recognition of the crime of defraudation by DefendantB. Furthermore, considering the following factors: ① the use of a separate seal impression other than the corporate seal impression in the process of performing the duties of the company can be ordinarily seen in the process of performing the duties; ② Although Defendant B was aware of and consented to the conclusion of each of the advertising agency contracts of this case, the seal impression affixed to each of the advertising agency contracts of this case shall be deemed an effective seal impression created under the approval of Defendant B for the convenience of the business process.

C) As seen earlier, each of the instant advertising agency contracts is basically a contract that entrusts the victim with the advertising business of the business promoted by E. In addition, according to the content of the advertising agency contract with AP that acknowledges the fact that Defendant B entered into, it can be easily confirmed that E bears the duty of execution, etc. of advertising expenses as a party to the advertising agency contract, and only when E actually executes a large amount of advertising expenses, it is possible to realize the content of the contract. In other words, E is the core party to the advertising agency contract from the beginning, and Defendant B seems to have been well aware of such circumstances. Furthermore, even though the advertising agency contract concluded after April 25, 201 was changed in the form of a direct contract between E and the advertising agency without M, it appears that there is no essential difference between the status, rights, and obligations as a party to the instant contract, regardless of whether before or after the change was made. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the type of the contract was changed, Defendant Q21 and Defendant Q21 appears to have been directly requested to be changed in the form of the two contracts.

D) Furthermore, in the case of the N Bank Account (Account Number: AY) opened on April 25, 201, (i) around April 25, 201, it was necessary to receive the contract performance deposit or the contract performance deposit under the form of directly entrusting the advertisement performance to Q as required by R on April 25, 201, and (ii) as seen earlier, considerable portion of the contract performance deposit deposited into the F Bank Account under the name of E was used for operating expenses of the relevant company, such as deposit into the F Bank Account and use for F operating expenses or re-deposit into the F Bank Account under the name of E. In light of the fact that the said account was used openly in the course of such deposit and withdrawal, it is deemed that the said account was a new account for the receipt of the contract performance deposit under the permission of Defendant B, and it does not seem that there was any separate intent to open the said account.

E) In addition, Defendant B and his defense counsel held that, at the request of Defendant A on April 201, all the F’s business rights were transferred to Defendant A, and accordingly Defendant A exercised the F’s management rights over the F’s account and operated the F. Thus, Defendant B did not participate in the F’s operation, nor did it know about the details of the F’s trading account, and the F’s money deposited in the F’s main trading account were used by Defendant A.

However, as seen earlier, Defendant B maintained collaboration with Defendant A by promoting LG car sales business with Defendant A around March 201, and appears to have been using the relevant companies as a single business group. ② According to the e-mail content sent by Defendant B, a general manager of all the tasks, including the fund raising and withdrawal, while working in Defendant B’s friendship and E and F, Defendant B appears to have participated in the FF operation upon Defendant B’s order even after April 201, and ③ upon examining the details of the FG car sales account’s entry and withdrawal after April 25, 201, Defendant B seems to have been aware of the details of the deposit and withdrawal with Defendant B or E, but it appears that Defendant B was likely that he did not accurately know about the personal promotion of the business through Defendant B’s own initiative, but at least, it appears that Defendant B continued to have paid the funds to Defendant B by checking the details of its operation, etc. with respect to the AEF and the vehicle sales business from time to time.

C. Determination on Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that can be inferred from them, namely, (i) Defendant A made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “G motor vehicles or Gcars are engaged in their business and was well aware of the process of concluding the contract with Q by receiving a report from P; (ii) P also stated in the investigative agency and this court that “the process of executing the contract with Q Q was well known”; (iii) N and R entered into the advertising agency contract with Defendant B in the investigative agency and this court, but the advertising agency contract with Defendant B was stated to the effect that “the Defendant actively involved in the advertising agency contract as of May 25, 201” was stated to the effect that “the Defendant actively participated by the Defendant A”, in collusion with P and Q, Defendant A entered into the advertising agency contract with each of the attorneys to receive the deposit money, without being aware of the fact that it was impossible to grant the exclusive advertising agency right.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion on the criminal facts against Defendant A’s Y

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

At the time of borrowing KRW 150 million from Y Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as YY), the Defendant did not mean that Z create a fund equivalent to KRW 5 billion to KRW 5 billion, or received an investment of KRW 10 billion from C at the time of borrowing KRW 150 million from Y Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Y), and the Defendant had the intent and ability

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the Defendant, in the event that severe financial pressure is pressured due to a large amount of debt, received KRW 150 million from Y by referring to the creation of a fund in the amount of KRW 5 billion and the investment in the amount of KRW 10 billion from C, etc., and received KRW 100 million from Y. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

1) From October 201 to January 2012, 2012, the Defendant received approximately KRW 3.5 billion from C under the pretext of loan or investment in relation to AEF car sales business, G car sales business, AW housing development business, etc., but was unable to repay the said investment amount at all due to failure of business and low-level of project promotion. Furthermore, the Defendant arbitrarily uses the amount of KRW 1.6 billion under the pretext of V convenience investment, even though he was granted from C around July 2012, without investing KRW 400 million among them.

Around 2013, the defendant was under strong pressure on repayment by C while bearing the close debt amounting to about 4 billion won against C. In addition, it seems that it is difficult to expect sales to the extent that the defendant would pay off the amount borrowed from Y through the implementation of the project because there is no particular outcome or the substance of the project promoted at the time of February 2013.

2) In the investigation agency and this court, Z has created a fund of KRW 5 billion in size through YW with the Defendant “Co., Ltd.,” and at the same time, Z borrowed money in the current situation where KRW 4.85 billion was prepared and KRW 150 million was insufficient. On the other hand, C Chairperson provided that additional funds of KRW 10 billion are expected to be included, and C Chairperson would have delivered the above purport to BB, which is the substantial representative of Y, and BB lent the Defendant the funds of KRW 150 million in size to the Defendant. At the time, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant was determined to lend the funds because there was a lack of funds while raising large-scale funds.” In addition, BB did not prepare any document, and without securing any collateral, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that it would be sufficiently reliable in the process of lending the funds to the Defendant’s bank account without securing its credibility, and it appears that the Defendant made a statement to the public without securing its credibility within the financial base.

3) At the time of the above borrowing, the Defendant appears to have no plan to create a fund of KRW 5 billion through W or to receive an investment of KRW 10 billion from C. Furthermore, the Defendant appears to have used the above loan as living expenses, business operation expenses, etc. Furthermore, in light of the Defendant’s property status and business promotion status at the time, it seems that the Defendant was unable to repay the above loan within a short time, when the Defendant funded the above loan by the company’s operating expenses, etc. without accumulating it in a letter, etc.

3. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion on an unindicted criminal fact

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

B, while operating F, escaped to Cambodia on October 4, 201, and accordingly, from the point of view of the operation of F.

In this situation, the defendant submitted a joint complaint at the request of C, and the purpose of the complaint is that the investor C, which is the investor, has suffered losses equivalent to KRW 2 billion, and that the defendant, who operated the F together with B, has suffered damages due to failure to perform his/her business, on his/her own responsibility. In other words, the above complaint does not contain the purport that the defendant suffered losses after investing or lending money directly to B, and it does not include false contents.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant established F by investing one billion won per one billion won per each of B and B, and operated F along with B while promoting the AEF car sales business, etc., even though the defendant had been in the operation of F with B, he/she had the purpose of having B receive criminal punishment by having B receive the principal in a simple position as an investor, and invested KRW 2,10,99,000 to B, and requested B to prepare a written complaint stating false facts as if he/she was registered only as the nominal representative director of F and was not involved in F’s operation, and the above written complaint is recognized to have been submitted to the public prosecutor’s office of the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office. Accordingly, the defendant and the defense counsel’s allegation in this part is not accepted.

1) As seen earlier, the Defendant and B agreed to jointly promote the AEF car sales business around the end of 2009 and established F with investment of KRW 1 billion, respectively, and jointly operated F with the implementation of the AE AF business, G business, etc.

2) However, the complaint prepared by the Defendant by requesting AD to a law firm contains the following: “The fact that B is the Defendant is a mere investor who made an investment in 2,10,99,000 won to B and made an investment in 2,110,99,000 won to receive the principal and interest from the complainant as if it were to be returned to the company operating the business of importing foreign automobiles, even though the complainant did not have the intent or ability to return the money under the pretext of investment and borrowing from A to operate the business of importing foreign automobiles. If it was invested in the development of the business of driving the business of importing foreign automobiles, it would be able to obtain enormous profits if it was invested.” This is clear that the Defendant did not actively bear the responsibility for damages caused by the failure to operate the business with B as well as profits and interest within a number of months or at least one year.” The fact that the Defendant could not be found to have actively suffered the status of the Defendant, as the Defendant changed.

3) The above complaint clearly states the purport of punishing B, and the Defendant appeared at the Seoul Gangnam Police Station Investigation and the Economic Team Office on June 9, 2013 after submitting the above complaint, and also stated the contents of the above complaint as it is.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic crime: Fraud;

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

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2 years of imprisonment to 6 years (the increase in the first step as a result of the addition of the combination of the same types, the minimum of sentence shall be mitigated by 1/3)

2) Class 1 crime: embezzlement;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 (not less than KRW 100 million but less than KRW 500 million)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to three years

(c) Minority Second Crimes: Non-Dismissal;

[Determination of type] Type 1 (General Dismissal)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 6 months to 2 years of imprisonment

4) Results according to the criteria for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years to eight years; determination of sentence;

[M] While paying a large amount of advertising expenses, the Defendant concluded an advertising agency contract with the advertising agency with awareness that it is impossible for the Defendant to entrust the advertising business to the advertising agency company, and acquired the contract performance guarantee money after concluding an advertising agency contract. Furthermore, the Defendant, even though he received some investment money corresponding to KRW 3.5 billion from C and did not repay the principal in addition to paying interest, he arbitrarily consumed and embezzled the amount of KRW 400 million out of the money received from C as the fund investment, without the intent or ability to repay, by deceiving Y without the intent or ability to repay, by deceiving Y, and by deceiving Y without the investigation agency with the intent to enforce the liability, he did not submit B a complaint stating false facts. As such, under the name of promoting a business with a high profitability, the Defendant continued to commit a property crime under the name of promoting the business with a high profitability, and the amount acquired or embezzled by the Defendant reaches KRW 1.5 million,50 million,000,000,000,000 won, and the Defendant appears to be subject to punishment for the Defendant’s crime beyond the specific liability of damages.

[G] The Defendant recognized part of the instant crime, and the victim Y, and the victim Q do not want to be punished against the Defendant by agreement with the Defendant. The Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment in addition to the suspended sentence in around 1986 and the sentence of a fine twice, and the health of the Defendant has been significantly aggravated due to the spread of the horse and the liverment of liver.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account.

2. Defendant B

(a) Scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years;

(b) Determination of sentence4);

[M] While paying a large amount of advertising expenses to A, the Defendant concluded an advertising agency contract with the advertising agency company with the awareness that it is impossible to entrust the advertising business to A while paying a large amount of advertising expenses, the Defendant committed the instant crime by deceiving the contract deposit. Considering the fact that the amount acquired by deceiving the victim company reaches KRW 700 million, and that the Defendant paid off the victim Q by paying KRW 100 million, it seems that the damage has not been recovered up to the present time, there is a high possibility of criticism against the Defendant. Nevertheless, the Defendant denies all the criminal acts on the ground that he/she was not memory, while the multiple contracts and promissory notes on which his/her or E’s seal impression is affixed are affixed, and even if they were to have repeatedly affixed a defense that it was impossible to obtain the consent that he/she would belong to A, the Defendant appears to have given up all responsibilities for the Defendant, who has given up his/her personal business due to various circumstances that he/she has engaged in the various business with A, and has been aware of the Defendant’s participation in or investment in his/her business.

[Modern circumstances] The advertising agency contract with the victim company seems to have been concluded by A, and the defendant seems not to actively induce the victim company.

Victim Q does not want to punish the defendant by mutual consent with the defendant.

In addition, all the factors of sentencing indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in which judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the violation of the Act on Special Cases

The acquittal portion

1. Determination on the defendants' violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against C

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) On October 2010, the Defendants made a false statement to the victim C, “We establish and operate an import tea store in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Daejeon Special Metropolitan City by establishing the current stock company F, and operate the imported tea store in the victim C. It is temporarily short of funds to earn a large amount of profit from importing and selling AE and AF cars in the Republic of Korea. If a loan of KRW 300 million is made, the Defendants would pay monthly interest of KRW 2% of the loan interest and pay the principal one year later.” However, the Defendants made an investment of KRW 1 billion each, to establish and operate the Company F, a company importing and selling AE and AF cars. However, Defendant B invested in the money borrowed at interest from AG, BE, etc., and Defendant B invested KRW 1 billion in the amount of money borrowed from 1 billion by acquiring convertible bonds issued by 1 billion won from E Co., Ltd., and received the operating fund from BF and used it as an individual debt at the time other than the Defendant’s personal debt at the time.

The amount of debt under the name was approximately KRW 870,000,000 for the principal, and only KRW 870,000,000 was acquired from Company BG and operated Daejeon local sales stores. The amount of revenue from the business in the Daejeon area was increased every month as it was difficult to pay interest and earnings to the creditors such as the monthly salary and AG, etc., and thus, the amount of interest of KRW 600,000 per month is paid even if the victim borrowed KRW 300,000 from the victim, and there was no intention or ability to repay the principal after one year.

As such, the Defendants were issued KRW 1 billion in total three times from December 3, 2010, including deceiving the victim and being issued three cashier’s checks from the victim, and as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (1), from that time to December 3, 2010.

2) The Defendants, around February 14, 201, at the M office operated by Defendant A in Gangnam-gu Seoul, at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AH, held the exclusive right to sell G cars in Korea by the victim E Co., Ltd., “B”. The Defendants imported and sold G automobiles, and there exists a big benefit. The Defendants opened a store in Gangnam-gu Seoul L, Seoul, and opened the same business. The business in Gangnam-gu, which requires a total of KRW 3 billion as store lease deposit, etc., and invested the remainder of KRW 1 billion. In short, the Defendants would invest the remainder of KRW 1 billion.5% of E’s equity. However, the Defendants did not have the exclusive right to sell G cars in Korea at the time, and Defendant B did not have the ability to invest KRW 2 billion, and the Defendants did not have the intent to receive investments from the victim and the obligations of the Defendants, and did not perform the business with the intent of the victims and the ability of the victims.

On December 24, 2010, the Defendants: (a) enticed the victim as such; (b) drafted a joint business agreement with the victim; and (c) replaced the amount of USD 170,000 (Korean Won 194,650,000) remitted as the borrowed money with the borrower on or around December 24, 201; and (d) continued to receive 198,000 US dollars (Korean Won 220,130,841 Won) on or around March 4, 2011, and received 1 billion US dollars from the victim on April 27, 2011, respectively.

B. Summary of the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1) Summary of Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion

A) Around October 21, 2010 to December 3, 2010, C lent a loan to the Defendants. The amount of KRW 1 billion (hereinafter referred to as KRW 1 billion, in accordance with the entry of each investment agreement, which is the basis for the payment of the said amount, is the amount borrowed by Defendant A irrespective of the Defendant B. Defendant A raised and procured a loan from 1 billion in the form of AG and BE, and Defendant B did not appropriately repay the said amount. Defendant B did not know of the amount of KRW 300 million in order to pay the debt to Defendant A at the time of seizure of the corporate account of AGF, but did not know of the amount of KRW 370 million in the process of borrowing the loan. Defendant B did not know of the fact that the loan was made from 300 million in order to pay the debt to Defendant A, but did not know of the amount of KRW 370 million in the process of collecting the loan.

In addition, at the time when Defendant A received the primary investment money from C, F was operating the World AEF World Sales Complex, and F was in the state of commencement of operation by taking over the business rights and stores of Gangnam store, so it was sufficiently able and able to repay the primary investment money. In fact, Defendant A paid KRW 494 million to C as interest. Therefore, in relation to the primary investment money, the said act of deception against C cannot be recognized.

B) In the case of KRW 1 billion claimed that C invested in relation to G car business from February 14, 2011 to April 27, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “second investment amount”), Defendant B was unaware of the investment fact of C, and there was no fact that C was paid an investment amount, and there was no fact that C prepared and entered into an agreement on joint business with C or issued a promissory note to C.

In addition, Defendant B did not say that E had the exclusive right to sell G cars domestically at the time of the receipt of the second investment fund, and there is no promise to make an investment of KRW 2 billion. At the time, E had the exclusive right to sell G cars in Seoul, and Defendant B had been actually promoting G car business, and there was no fact that Defendant B had been deceiving C at all in relation to G car business.

2) Summary of Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion

A) AE AF-related projects were led by Defendant B, and F was a company with almost 100% shares in Defendant B and E, and F’s employees were employees of E who were engaged in the work of Defendant B. In other words, F was Defendant B, and Defendant B had the authority to execute funds of F.

B) For the operation of F, Defendant B attractedd KRW 1 billion of convertible bonds from E, and Defendant A also induced KRW 1 billion of the external funds raised from C, etc. In order to repay outside funds under the understanding of C. The first investment funds received from C was borrowed to repay outside funds, and F actually operated AEF World War and Gangnam Burial, but it was impossible to repay the first investment funds as a result of failure in the project. Defendant A paid to C interest of KRW 494 billion from December 2, 201 to September 201. In light of these circumstances, Defendant B did not deceiving C, and Defendant B did not intend to obtain fraud, nor did Defendant B concluded a joint project with G automobile owner in relation to G car business, and Defendant B did not intend to carry out the joint project with G 14 billion of the execution of the project, including G 200 billion of the execution of the project.

C. Basic facts

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the following facts and circumstances are recognized:

1) Progress of the AE AF project

A) On November 26, 2009, Defendant B established F on December 16, 2009, concluded a memorandum of understanding (hereinafter referred to as “MEMOO UNDDDDDING”) with a condition that F and F make an investment of KRW 3 billion in the name of F and by January 25, 2010 in Seoul and Daejeon area. The above MOU states permits BH (hereinafter referred to as “BH”) to take over the above store prior to the conclusion of the contract, and temporarily sell it from February 1, 2010 to October 10, 2010.

B) On January 7, 2010, the Defendants entered into a joint agreement with the content that the Defendants would carry out the AE AF car sales business together. The substantive purport of the said joint agreement was that the E and F invested KRW 1 billion in the form of the partnership agreement or joint agreement among the Defendants, respectively, to carry out the business together.

C) On January 2, 2009, the Defendants entered into a contract with BH on the first floor of AEF Gangnam Burial, and concluded a lease agreement with respect to the first floor of BI building on February 8, 2010, and commenced the operation of AEF Gangnam Burial. The Defendants, while operating the said store until July 2010, transferred the goodwill to BJ. From April 20 to June 2010, the Defendants sold the 22 units of AE car and 59 units of AF car at the said store.

D) In addition, on February 4, 2010, the Defendants entered into a lease agreement with the Dong-gu Daejeon and five parcels of land, and entered into a contract with the Daejeon on March 28, 2010 with the BG on May 3, 2010, and opened the Daejeon store officially on May 28, 2010. The Daejeon store seems to have continuously increased sales until around 2010, and continued to operate the Daejeon store until July 201, when BG notified the termination of the contract.

E) Meanwhile, taking into account the narrowest AEF Gangnam store in BI building, Defendant B operated the said store only until July 2010 when the temporary sales period expires, and thereafter leased a separate building to operate a AEF Gangnam store. Accordingly, Defendant B concluded a contract to purchase 2.450 million won from the BL limited liability company (hereinafter “BL”) on May 4, 2010, and concluded a new contract to operate the AEF Gangnam store in BG around June 2010, Defendant B agreed to newly establish the BG store from around 2010 to around 10, 2010, and Defendant B agreed to newly establish the BG store from around 200 to 200,000 to 300,000,000 won. However, Defendant B concluded the said contract to change the purchase fund of the said OF store from D and the purchaser of the said building to 100,0000,000,000,0000,000

2) Progress of the G project

A) On April 6, 2009, Defendant B entered into a contract with G head office and, in the event that E satisfies the various conditions presented by G head office, G head office entered into a non-exclusive import/sale contract in the Republic of Korea of G brand, and drafted the same LOI again on April 6, 2010.

B) Since 2009, G head office has been in progress procedures for acquiring and merging AS, and accordingly, has been in progress.

At around 2010, G head office was reported to the effect that there was a high possibility of importing and selling G vehicle in Korea through AS, but until 2010, it seems that there was no explicit contract between G head office and AS on the import and sale of G vehicle in Korea. In other words, by up to 2010, E was the only candidate for the sale of G vehicle in Korea according to the above LOI, and Defendant B continued to implement the G vehicle business by continuously implementing the import certification procedure for G vehicle in the relevant ministries based on the above LOI.

C) As seen earlier, around August 2010, Defendant B had a plan to operate the G car store by leasing the O BA around August 201, and Defendant B commenced the initial preparation work for the establishment of the G car store, such as commencing interior work after purchasing the OBA around September 2010.

However, in the process of interior construction, it seems that there was a fact that it is difficult to open a car store under the relevant laws and regulations of the above building, and as the interior overlaps with the interior construction, it seems that there was a de facto waiver of the opening of a car store G in OBA around the end of 2010.

D) On January 28, 2011, G head office sent to Defendant B, “G head office is not able to designate “E as a monopoly store store store store store store in Korea” to the effect that “E continues business discussions with respect to the portion determined by G and BM as a monopoly store store store store store store store store in Korea.”

E) From February 201, Defendant B planned to establish a G car retail store in L. On March 18, 2011, Defendant B planned to establish a G car retail store in Seoul (hereinafter “BN”) and on March 18, 201, the first floor of the lease deposit amount of KRW 850 million in the rent of KRW 12.4 million in the monthly rent, and the lease deposit deposit amount of KRW 100 million in the rent of KRW 750 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 750 million in the rent of KRW 750 million in the April 28, 201. Defendant B concluded a lease agreement with the MO on March 25, 2011, and concluded a MOU on the car store in Seoul and the present status of the car sales and the car sales and the car construction contract in Seoul (hereinafter “Lbuilding”) with the Defendant or the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

A person shall be appointed.

D. Determination as to fraud related to the primary investment fund

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the Defendants do not seem to belong to C, such as making a false statement with respect to the progress of the AEF car sales business at the time of payment of KRW 1 billion from C. However, in the record, the Defendants had experienced financial difficulties in the process of promoting the above business and received investment in many places, but it is difficult to deem that C received a primary investment payment without any intent or ability to pay the said amount. The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants deceiving C and received a primary investment payment of KRW 1 billion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(a) The current status of the progress of the AE AF Motor Vehicle Sales Business;

A) As seen earlier, although F does not have acquired the AE AF Gangnam Dives regularly, F did not sell to a certain extent at the first floor of BI building from February 2010 to July 2010, it appears that the Defendants had a plan to open a AEF Gangnam Burial by purchasing OBA from July 8, 2010 to acquiring AEF Gangnam Burial. Therefore, even if the Defendants referred to the “GGGGG sales” to C around October 2010, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants neglected the content of the import vehicle sales business or had the intent to deceive C in relation thereto beyond the permissible scope of transaction relations.

B) At the investigative agency and this court, C made a statement to the effect that “Around October 2010, the Defendants first made the statement to the effect that the Defendants were operating the import shop in Seoul Gangnam-gu and Daejeon.” However, the above statement made by C is the only direct evidence as to the deception in this part. However, the Defendants did not have any AEF Gangnam store operated by the Defendants around October 2010, and it can be easily confirmed as C. It is difficult to find out the motive or reason for the Defendants to make a false statement about these facts. ② A was made in around 2014, more than four years after the payment of the first investment fund, and around 2014, it was difficult for C to eliminate the possibility of memory or exaggeration while making a statement at the investigative agency and Daejeon for a long time, ③ it was difficult for C to operate the investigation agency and this court as well as the Defendants to have made a false statement or exaggeration as much as possible, and it was difficult for C to find out any false statement or exaggeration as possible.

2) The financial situation of F and the intent and capacity of Defendants to repay

In the process of establishing the F and promoting the AE AF Motor Vehicle Sales Business, the Defendants were faced with difficulties due to the lack of funds, and accordingly, they seem to have paid high interest, etc. on the said borrowed money, etc., by lending funds under the name of borrowed money or investment in various places. However, in full view of the following facts duly adopted and investigated by the court, and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants had no intent or ability to repay the said money at the time when the Defendants received the first invested money.

A) The imported automobile sales business needs a large number of capital inputs at the early stage of the business, but if sufficient investment is made, it appears that it has a long-term and considerable economic value. Moreover, the investment funds invested in F are not consumed as they are, but is converted into tangible and intangible assets such as business rights, store and facilities, lease deposit, vehicle deposit, etc. Therefore, it is possible to sell them and recover the investment capital to a certain extent if it is not smooth in the future. C In addition, in addition to the feasibility of the imported automobile sales business as seen above, it seems that the investment or loan to F has been decided after considering Defendant B’s background and financial ability.

B) As seen earlier, at the time of the F incorporation, Defendant B invested KRW 1 billion in F through the acquisition of convertible bonds, and Defendant B did not make an investment of KRW 1 billion in a lump sum, but appears to have made an investment in considerable assets, such as entering into a loan agreement of KRW 300 million in the KF account established in the Bank as security. Furthermore, the F’s demand for the establishment of AEF Gangnam Burial from KRW 1 billion to KRW 2 billion in total at least KRW 1 billion in the process of promoting the AEF sales business, and the said initial investment amount was required from KRW 1 billion in total to KRW 6 billion, including the remaining investment amount to be invested by Defendant BF and KRW 20 billion. However, Defendant B appears to have continued to have made an investment in the KF business from KRW 10 billion to KRW 20 billion in total, not from KRW 1 billion in total in the process of operating the AE sales business, and it appears difficult to have continued to have been made up of the current status of the AE sales market.

C) Furthermore, considering the details of the obligations borne by F at the time of attracting the primary investment, it is difficult to view the F’s loan of KRW 300 million in the M&C account as collateral for the real estate offered by Defendant A and the deposit for the lease of the Daejeon Burial, etc. as seen earlier, and at the same time, the loan or the deposit for investment from several creditors has been continuously repaid, and at the same time, some of the investments, etc. are replaced with new loan or investment funds, and it is not reasonable to recognize the F’s debt situation by simply recognizing the total amount of obligations to several creditors. Furthermore, the Defendants’ receipt of the primary investment funds from Defendant C is deemed to have been a measure to improve the F’s financial structure by paying the bad debt from the total amount of debt owed by F. Furthermore, it is also reasonable to further increase the F’s profits by attracting the primary investment funds.

D) In this regard, C stated in the investigative agency and this court that “A was unaware of the fact that F’s funds were insufficient or that it was an investment received from multiple creditors at a high interest rate, and if so, it would have not been paid the first investment.” However, the Defendants’ attraction of large-amount investment funds to C by guaranteeing a high interest rate of 2% per month to C refers to a state of insufficient funds. C also appears to have been carried out in view of the prospects of AEF car sales business, etc., by being fully aware of these circumstances, it is difficult to believe the above C’s statement. Furthermore, in light of the purport that “A was under the circumstance that at the time of the delivery of the first investment funds, Defendant A would incur a burden to pay the profits by receiving a high interest rate from BE, and accordingly, it appears that C would have been under the financial status of CF’s investment funds.”

E) The first investment funds paid by C are deemed to have been used as the repayment of existing debts to creditors, including BP, Q and AG, and as the operation funds of F. There is no evidence suggesting that the Defendants used the first investment funds individually or for other businesses.

F) On November 12, 2010, Defendant A received an investment of KRW 500 million from AG and used the existing debt with F’s operating funds, etc. On November 12, 2010, Defendant A requested AG to return the amount of investment. At the request of AG, the Defendants returned the amount of investment of KRW 200 million out of KRW 300 million received from C on December 3, 2010. However, Defendant AG applied for the seizure and collection order against F’s deposit claim as the claim claim, and the Defendants did not appear to have been able to obtain a seizure and collection order on December 24, 2010 because the Defendants were not able to obtain a redemption of the amount of KRW 194,60,00 after borrowing from C19,60,000, and the Defendants were not able to obtain a redemption of the remaining amount of investment KRW 100,000,000,000 from B. The reasons are that the Defendants were not able to return the remaining amount of investment.

E. Determination as to the fraud related to the second investment fund

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendants had a high possibility of securing a second investment KRW 1 billion with respect to G automobiles at the time of receiving KRW 1 billion with respect to G automobiles, and actually prepared for the establishment of a new G car store. Of the second investment funds, the establishment of a new G car store appears to have been suspended due to the ex post facto reasons that was used as a lease deposit for G car stores. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendants were either directly or indirectly willing to belong to C in relation to the progress of the G car sales business, and it is difficult to view that the Defendants received the second investment funds from C without the intent or ability of the Defendants to repay. The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants deceiving C and received the second investment funds KRW 1 billion with respect to the second investment funds, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

1) Current status of progress of G Motor Vehicle sales business

A) As seen earlier, Defendant B entered into LOI for the business of importing and selling automobiles in Korea with the headquarters of G on April 6, 2009 and April 6, 2010. Each of the above LOI stated that E is a negotiation process to obtain the status of “non-exclusive import and sale of G automobiles in Korea,” but ① E is related to the import and sale of G automobiles in Korea upon the conclusion of the above LOL.

Considering the fact that the status of a candidate or priority bidder who independently conducts negotiations with the company is deemed to have been in the position of priority bidder, ② that the G head office sent to Defendant B on January 28, 2011, also states that “G head office shall not be designated as a "exclusive store" in Korea. ③ Defendant B continued to endeavor to obtain the right to import and sell G motor vehicles in Korea since 2009, and it is difficult to deem that the possibility of its realization was low, considering the fact that “E has the right to sell local exclusive stores of G motor vehicles in Korea” is not somewhat exaggerated, but it is difficult to deem that there is no substantive basis or false expression.

B) However, the content of G head office on January 1, 201, 201, 28, deemed that it is somewhat inappropriate to use the expression “E has the exclusive sales right in the Republic of Korea” even after receiving the said LET, on the premise of the fact that “E has the exclusive sales right in the Republic of Korea,” the Defendants’ use of the said expression constitutes the act of deceiving the other party. However, in full view of the following facts recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants’ use of the said expression to C is an act of deceiving the other party, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendants intended to use the said expression to C, even after receiving the said LTS. Furthermore, in the event that the other party intended to engage in the transaction on the premise that “E has the exclusive sales right in the Republic of Korea of Korea.”

(1) On February 14, 201, the Defendants entered into a joint business agreement with C with C on February 14, 201, with the aim of “E’s G L retail business operation,” and the Defendants and C’ roles are limited to investment and business performance, etc. In addition, the investigative agency stated that “the secondary investment amount is the amount invested in relation to G L retail, and the price was 25% of the share in L retail.” Thus, the secondary investment amount is clear that it is the amount invested in relation to the individual L retail business, not all of the G car import and sales business, and the secondary investment amount is also limited to 25% of the share in L retail. This is inconsistent with the part of the facts charged that “the Defendants were 25% of the share in E in return for the secondary investment amount.”

(2) As seen earlier, Defendant B received LTS from G to the effect that it will continue to negotiate about the Seoul regional monopoly, and entered into a MOU with BO on March 25, 2011. In short, the Defendants appear to have no special obstacle to opening and operating G car L shops at the time of receiving secondary investments from C, and it appears that it is possible for the Defendants to sufficiently carry out 25% of the shares in G store. Furthermore, in addition to the fact that the Defendants completed the preparation for the implementation of the joint project agreement with G head office on January 28, 2011, Defendant B appears to have continuously endeavored to acquire the exclusive sales right or conjection in the Republic of Korea, and it is difficult to view the Defendants to have concluded the said joint project with G1 only because it is difficult to view that the Defendants were aware that it was difficult for the Defendants to have concluded the said joint project with G1 having an interest in entering into the said joint project with G20, supra, as well as that it is difficult to view the Defendants to have concluded the aforementioned joint project agreement with G1.

2) Defendant B’s investment ability, operation ability, etc. of the G car L shop

A) Defendant B seems to have invested KRW 750 million from AU around April 201, to have appropriated initial costs for the establishment of G car stores, such as the deposit for the first floor of the LA building. In addition, around 2009, the BR, which is an affiliate of the Group as Defendant B, invested approximately KRW 500 million in E with an interest in the G car business, and recommended investment in its own branch, and was likely to have been able to expect additional investment from BR when the G car business was promoted in full scale. ② The 2011, 201, and 14 joint venture agreement concluded between the Defendants and C, stated that Defendant B invested KRW 2 billion by February 24, 2011, but considering the current status of the project promotion at the time, it is difficult to view that the Defendants did not have an ability to obtain KRW 2 billion from the Plaintiff until the time when the project promotion was conducted.

B) Furthermore, as seen earlier, the Defendants concluded a lease contract on the first floor of the LA building on March 18, 201. On April 22, 2011, the Defendants concluded a lease contract on the interior of the LA building. The Defendants appears to have made considerable efforts to open the GA car store by paying a lease deposit of KRW 850 million to the first floor of the LU with the investment deposit of KRW 350 million and the second investment deposit of KRW 30 million with C with the second investment deposit of the LA, etc. Furthermore, the reason why the implementation of the GG car store business was suspended is deemed to have been due to Defendant B’s failure to perform the business due to the failure of the relationship with his/her family or making it difficult to promote the business any longer due to the failure of the relationship with his/her family around June 2011. Thus, the Defendants’ failure to repay the second investment deposit to C or to transfer the shares of the GG car store was merely due to the foregoing circumstances, and it is difficult to deem the Defendants’ intent or ability to open and operate the G car store.

3) The place, etc. of the secondary investment fund.

A) As seen earlier, Defendant A borrowed KRW 194,650,00 from C on December 24, 2010 in order to return the investment amount of KRW 194,650,00 from C, and KRW 140,000 out of the above loan amount was paid to AG. Following the conclusion of a joint agreement between the Defendants and C on February 14, 201, the above loan amount of KRW 194,650,000 appears to have been replaced with the investment amount for the G car store, and there is no data to deem that the Defendants used it for the personal purpose. Thus, if there is no circumstance, the above KRW 194,650,000 was used for the purpose unrelated to the G car store, it cannot be deemed that it was used for the purpose unrelated to the G car store.

B) Meanwhile, considering that C around March 4, 201, around 201, KRW 220,130,841, and KRW 585,219,159 were paid to the Defendants as secondary investments, the Defendants used approximately KRW 2-300,000 out of the above investment funds in connection with G car stores, such as deposit money for the first floor of LA building, and the rest of money used for F or was promoted by Defendant A for the AW Housing Development Project. However, it appears that the Defendants did not appear to have used only some of the investment funds for the purpose of 200,000,0000 and KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

F. Sub-decision

Therefore, since the facts charged in this part of the facts charged are when there is no proof of the facts charged, the remaining arguments of the defendants should be examined, and the defendant is not guilty of this part of the facts charged under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment should be published under Article 58(2) of

2. Judgment on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant A C

A. Summary of the facts charged

On May 201, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, 201 in Gangnam-gu, called “AV, separately from foreign automobile import and sale business, removed the existing house in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and newly built a new house. To this end, the Defendant purchased the existing house and removed it, and constructed and sold a new house 2, there is a big benefit. First, the purchase price entered to purchase one house is 1.6 billion won, and the bank loan is required to be deducted from the actual purchase fund. The Defendant issued a trust certificate that guarantees the principal after three months. However, the Defendant did not receive consent from residents at the time, and did not receive a resident consent, holding a resident explanation meeting, and the sample commencement of the project, and so, the Defendant did not pay the funds to the Defendant’s individual beneficiary for the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of KRW 700 million.

On May 4, 2011, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received USD 180,000 (Korean currency KRW 194,898,000) from the victim to the account in the name of F Co., Ltd. for the purpose of making an investment, and received the remittance of KRW 1,494,820,128 in total eight times from January 16, 2012, as shown in the attached List of Crimes (2).

B. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel

The Defendant removed existing houses in the Seoul AW Complex and promoted the business of newly building and selling high-class canals. During the above process, C was invested in the amount of KRW 700 million, and around May 201, 201, the amount of KRW 700 million invested by C and KRW 970 million loaned by the Defendant’s spouse AAA, one of the existing houses was purchased. Since then, the Defendant intended to promote the said house by modeling the above house and to develop and sell other houses with the consent of residents. However, in the process of investing in the AW development project, C was sufficiently reported on the structure and progress of the business from the Defendant and P, and the Defendant did not deceiving C. Moreover, the Defendant invested in the development project. The amount of KRW 1.50 million invested in the development project, including KRW 200,000, KRW 610,000, KRW 200,000, KRW 210,000.

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant appears to have sufficiently explained to C about the implementation plan for AW Housing Development Project and the current status thereof. Accordingly, C merely appears to have invested KRW 1,494,820,128 (hereinafter referred to as "AW investment") in the status of sufficiently grasping the contents of the above project, and it does not appear that the defendant would have promised to deliver trust certificates and distribute profits to C, and as alleged in the above, it appears that part of the investment funds for AW Housing Development Project was used for the liquidation of BU shares with the consent or instruction of C. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant belonged to C in relation to the progress and contents of AW Housing Development Project. Moreover, in light of the progress of the AW Housing Development Project or the use of Cinvestment Funds, etc., it is difficult to view that the defendant had no intention or ability to repay the AW investment funds to the defendant from the beginning.

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant as having received AW investment money by deceiving C, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

1) AW Housing Development Project Plan and current status, timing of returning investment funds, etc.

A) The AW Housing Development Project is a project that constructs two new houses on the site where one old house was located in the development area after removing old house from the props who own the old house in Gangnam-gu Seoul AW in the development area after being entrusted with the development by proxy, and then builds one new house on the site where one old house was located in the development area. Therefore, in order to obtain profits from the AW Housing Development Project, a series of procedures such as the consent of the prop, the selection of the time works, the removal of old house and the new construction of new house must be completed.

B) Around April 201 to 5, the Defendant recommended C to make an investment in the AW Housing Development Project, and sent a document stating "Gangnam-gu AW Development Plan," which arranged the implementation plan of the said project, and the above document is ① the interference of the construction project for the AW Housing Development Project, ② the contract for one parcel of land within the development area was concluded, ② the intention to purchase three lots of land has been resolved, ③ the process of analyzing the development environment at the time of the project is derived from the direction of development, ③ the process is scheduled to start and sell the whole development area through the opening of resident briefing sessions, confirmation of design plans, and sampling commencement, etc. Furthermore, considering the fact that C had no explanation from the Defendant to build one household as a new house, ② the fact that C had to implement the said project after the construction of a new house from the Defendant, and it appears that C had not been able to be able to provide the Defendant with a subsidy from the 10th of the said early housing development project to the Defendant and the 1st of the said project.

C) Meanwhile, upon receipt of AW investment funds from C, the Defendant: (a) took the form of borrowing operational funds from BW (hereinafter “BW U.S. corporation”) operated by C in the U.S.; (b) took the form of borrowing funds from BW corporation in F; and (c) stated the Defendant’s intent to repay the borrowed funds within 90 days in the above official document sent by C; and (d) in the investigative agency and this court, C stated to the effect that “the Defendant, while soliciting the Defendant to make an investment in AW housing development project, would give a trust certificate that guarantees the principal and would distribute profits after three months; (i) the above official document sent by CF to BW corporation appears to be in the form of document prepared by C in order to exchange funds between the corporations; (b) the Defendant prepared and delivered the borrowed funds in order from C to C; and (b) the Defendant could not be deemed to have delivered the borrowed funds during the period of delivery of the funds to CW13 months from the date of delivery of the funds to C201.

2) The Defendant’s intent and ability to repay, and the place of use of the investment fund

A) There is no evidence suggesting that the content of AW Housing Development Project is a business that can expect certain amount of profit by itself, and that there was no possibility of implementing the Project or it was difficult to expect profit even if the Project was implemented.

B) On May 13, 2011, the Defendant entered into a sales contract of KRW 1.6 billion with respect to the Seoul Gangnam-gu land within the development area under the name of the Defendant’s wife, and paid a purchase price of KRW 970 million with a loan of KRW 700 million in the name of AW investment funds issued by C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said land on September 16, 201. Furthermore, “Report on the current status of AW New Construction Project prepared by BY, which was listed on the water network at the time of the AW Development Project, around October 2012, the said Gangnam-gu BY land is written as the parcel representing the land subject to development, and the details of construction permission received for the said land are summarized. In other words, the Defendant used approximately KRW 70 million in the development area in accordance with the purpose of investment and continued to implement the development project related to the said land.

C) On the other hand, the Defendant appears to have used some of the AW 3 investments as operating funds, and some of the BU 2 appears to have withdrawn from the BU 1 check to be used for the purchase of BU 2. In this regard, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant was using approximately KRW 620 million out of the AW 200 according to C’s approval or instruction for the purchase of BU 3 investment shares, and that the Defendant was not using the BU 3 for other purposes. On the other hand, CU 2 is a company which, regardless of its own, the Defendant was promoting BU 3 with F’s funds, and BZ (hereinafter “ZB Korean corporation”) with interest in BU 3 is not related to it, so it appears that there is no reason to use its investment funds for BU 200,000 won or 300,000 won of the BU 20,000 won of the BU 30,000 won of the shares issued to CU 160,00,00.

D) Ultimately, considering the following: (a) the Defendant appears to have used most of the AW investment funds in accordance with the purport of the investment, or the approval, etc. of C; (b) the Defendant appears to have used some of the AW investment funds as personal living expenses, etc.; (c) the Defendant appears to have used F and AV as the main agent of implementing AW Housing Development Project; and (c) it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s use of the F and AW investment funds as operating funds is contrary to the intent of granting AW investment funds, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was given the AW investment funds by deceiving C, without any intent or ability to return the investment funds at the time of receiving the AW investment funds from C, or by hiding the intent to use them for other locations.

D. Sub-determination

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal

3. Determination as to Defendant B’s fraud

A. Summary of the facts charged

From around 2007, the Defendant had been unable to pay the monthly wage of 6 billion won or more to employees while operating CB and E, and had been unable to pay the monthly wage of 30 million or more to employees. Since the FG, BE, etc., established around November 26, 2009, borrowed KRW 1 billion or one billion capital invested in E from Daro from Garo and Ga, the operating fund was insufficient. The profits from the AEF World store operated by F were not enough to pay the monthly wage of employees and the creditors’ interest, the Defendant continued to increase its liabilities to raise operating funds by borrowing KRW 300 million or KRW 300 million from the CD Co., Ltd.

(i)encation of 480 million won by borrowing money;

The Defendant, around May 25, 2010, at the AU office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, through AU, stated that “F, who is in the domestic operation, obtained the exclusive sales right and the exclusive sales right from BG to AE motor vehicles, and now Daejeon is currently being open and operated well. In May, the Defendant loaned KRW 500 million to open the Gangnam-gu store as the open sales right and the repayment will be made within a week,” the Defendant said that “F, who is in the domestic operation, obtained the exclusive sales right and exclusive sales right from BG for AE motor vehicles.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the right to sell the AEF motor vehicle in the Gangnam area from BG, and even if he borrowed money due to a large amount of debt and not good financial conditions, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it within a week.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received a remittance of KRW 400 million from the victim for the purpose of borrowing 80 million.

(ii)encation of rent 180 million won by fraud;

On September 2010, the Defendant stated that “A victim D has the exclusive right to sell G cars in the Republic of Korea in E to operate E. A. The Defendant leased 01st floor to G car sales stores at KRW 20 million per week per week.”

However, at the time of fact, E did not have any intention or ability to pay rent of KRW 20 million every month even if he rents 01 floors from the victim because there was no intention or ability to pay the rent of KRW 20 million due to the fact that he did not have obtained the right to exclusive sales in the Republic of Korea of G automobiles, and

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, did not pay rent of KRW 180 million for the said period while deceiving the victim and using the said building from October 1, 2010 to June 201, and did not gain economic benefits equivalent to the same amount.

B. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel

1) Summary of the assertion as to the fraud relating to the borrowed amount of KRW 480 million

A) The Defendant, while pursuing investors for the establishment and operation of the AE AF Daejeon World, was introduced D from AU to obtain investment amounting to KRW 500 million from D. Accordingly, CF concluded a funding investment agreement with F on May 25, 2010 and remitted the investment amount of KRW 480 million to F. As such, D’s money received from D is an investment amount not borrowed, and a monetary loan agreement submitted by D to D investigation agency is only a document written retroactively from August 2010 to ensure the Defendant’s personal repayment of the said investment amount.

B) Around May 2010, F had already been operating a AE AF Gangnam store by opening it at the same time, and Daejeon has not been opened, so this part of the facts charged that the Defendant belonged to the purport that it is necessary for the Defendant to open the Gangnam store to the effect that KRW 500 million is needed for the opening of the open store at the same time cannot be established by itself. Furthermore, as seen earlier, the Defendant was invested from D, and there was no fact that the Defendant borrowed money while promising to pay for the first week, and therefore there was no deception on D related to the due date.

C) AD had the F raised KRW 500 million to F even around January 8, 2009 at the time of the acquisition of AE AF Gangnam store. As such, D had been aware of the F’s operating structure and the progress of AEF business and paid the said investment amount, even if the Defendant’s deception is recognized, there is no causation between the Defendant’s deception and the payment of the said investment amount.

2) Summary of the assertion that rent 180 million won was fraud

The Defendant did not know D that E had the exclusive right to sell G motor vehicles in the Republic of Korea, and was actually promoting the G motor vehicle business, and had the intent and ability to pay rent for the first floor of 00 million won. The failure to pay rent for the first floor was due to ex post facto circumstances, such as E’s failure to promote the G motor vehicle business and aggravation of F’s financial status, and the Defendant did not deceiving D in relation to the rent. In full view of the following facts and the circumstances acknowledged by the court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the Defendant appears to have explained the implementation plan for the AEF AF Motor Vehicle Sales Business and the current status of the AEF Motor Vehicle Sales Business, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was released by the Prosecutor in sequence with AU and D by promising to pay the rent for the first floor of 00 million won within the day without the intent or ability to pay the rent for the AF AF AF AF car sales business through the AU. The lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was otherwise released.

(a) Implementation plan and current status of the AE AF Motor Vehicle Sales Business;

A) As seen earlier, the Defendant was operating AEF Gangnam store on the first floor of BI building in F around 2010, 5, and 25, and around May 3, 2010, the Defendant commenced vehicle sales at AEF AF car Daejeon, and continued to hold an open opening event around May 28, 2010. In addition, the Defendant concluded a sales contract for OBA on May 4, 2010, and planned to newly open AEF Gangnam store in the first floor of BI building when the temporary operation period expires.

B) The Defendant explained the content of the F Company to AU prior to granting financing from D through AU, and the AU appears to have delivered the content of the F Company to D again, and the content explained by the Defendant. However, considering the F Company’s current status data delivered by the Defendant to D through AU, it is confirmed that the current status of F Company was recorded as it is around May 2010 of the above F. As can be seen, it is difficult to say that directly delivering F’s objective operation status to AU and the Defendant falsely explains F Company’s operation status differently from the above materials to AU.S. In addition, even if the above materials are easily confirmed that the Defendant already operated AEF Gangnam store, it is difficult to view that it is difficult to view that the Defendant “the use of the F Company’s operating status as the open expense if the Defendant borrowed KRW 500 million to Gangnam,” and that it is difficult to view that the Defendant made a false statement that the Defendant would use the F Company’s operating status as the open expense for the purpose of 500 million won.

2) The defendant's intent, ability, and period of reimbursement

A) With respect to KRW 480 million financed by D on May 25, 2010, there are two disposal documents, such as (i) agreement on loan for consumption with CF as creditor, (ii) agreement on June 25, 2010 on the maturity of payment with the defendant as debtor, and (iii) agreement on the loan for consumption with CF as funding source, and agreement on the loan for consumption with F as funding source on May 25, 2012, and (iv) agreement on the loan for consumption with a maturity of KRW 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

B) Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the said monetary loan agreement provides on June 25, 2010, the maturity date after one month from the date of borrowing, the Defendant is likely to have promised to repay within a relatively short period at the time of borrowing KRW 480 million from D.

① However, unlike the monetary loan agreement, the said loan agreement provides that May 25, 2012, the maturity of which is two years after the date of investment. ② D continues to engage in transactions with the Defendant, such as purchasing OBA and leasing it to F under the agreement with the Defendant on September 2010 even when the Defendant was unable to repay the principal of the above loan. ③ The Defendant paid interest or profits above KRW 100 million on the above loan to D from July 26, 2010 to November 30, 2010, taking into account the following factors: (a) it appears that the Defendant and D have made an explicit or implied agreement that the repayment period stipulated in the above loan agreement would not be particularly problematic if the Defendant paid it well with interest or profits of KRW 4% per month, and (b) it is difficult for the Defendant to conclude that the Defendant would have repaid the above loan within 200 billion on the premise that the above loan would have been repaid within 50 billion won per week or one month.

C) Furthermore, in light of the Defendant’s intent and ability to repay, the Defendant was promoting F’s business on May 25, 2010, and the AE AF Gangnam Burial and Daejeon Burial.

In light of the characteristics of the imported vehicle sales business, it is difficult to view that the forecast or expectation of such defendant was low in view of the situation where the defendant expected to sell considerable amounts of sales, and such forecast or expectation is low. In addition, ① the defendant held personal assets at the time, and appears to have had the ability to lend funds from his/her family members or their neighbors, ② the F appears to have held assets such as business rights, stores and facilities, lease deposit, vehicle deposit, and tangible and intangible assets in relation to the AEF vehicle shop, Daejeon store, Daejeon store, etc. at the time, ② the defendant appears to have used the F’s business after receiving the money borrowed from D from D to F’s account. ④ As seen above, the defendant appears to have continued to pay interest rate of 4 billion won to D until November 30, 2010; ⑤ This part of the facts charged is difficult to conclude that the defendant was not liable for debt amount of 6 billion won or more in relation to the defendant’s financial ability at the time of borrowing from 200 billion won to 6 billion won or more.

D. Determination of fraud related to rent of KRW 180 million is acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., the following facts and circumstances that can be inferred from the court, i.e., (i) insofar as E entered into an exclusive negotiation partner with G head office as seen earlier and entered into a lease agreement with G head office, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was unaware of D because it used the aforementioned expressions in the relationship with D without direct interests. In particular, the Defendant appears to have had a specific and feasible plan to establish and operate G car stores at the time of leasing OBA; (ii) the Defendant appears to have not been aware of the initial intention to pay rent of KRW 187 million in consideration of the fact that the contract amount concerning the OB subparagraph was concluded, and the Defendant appears to have not been able to receive rent of KRW 150,00,00 in the initial charge, including the fact that it was difficult for the 100,000,000 won, and the Defendant could not have paid rent of KRW 10,01,0,01.

E. Sub-decision

Thus, since the facts charged in this part of the facts charged are when there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, it shall be sentenced not to the charge under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment shall be publicly announced under Article 58(2)

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Kim Gin-han

Support for judges' organization

1) Based on facts acknowledged by the argument and records of the instant case, within the scope of not infringing the Defendants’ right of defense

The facts charged were partially revised and recognized.

2) Each of the above investigation reports and the results of inquiry are not listed in the evidence list, but included only in the evidence records, but simply omitted.

Since it is obvious that it is Defendant B, it is admitted as evidence to recognize each criminal record in the judgment on Defendant B.

3) Although Defendant A is not in the position of Defendant for criminal facts related to AI, Defendant A is not in the position of Defendant. However, this paragraph does not distinguish Defendant A from this paragraph.

India refers to “A”.

4) The Defendant’s crime of this case constitutes concurrent crimes as provided in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.