208 Highest 5784 A. Fraud

(b) Violation of the Act on Budget and Management of Subsidies;

C. Performance of official duties by fraudulent means

D. Violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development

(e) Assistance in violation of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones;

1. (a) . (b) A (53 years, south);

(d)

2.C.A2 (Year 57, South)

3.D.A3 (Year 47, South)

4.Ma.A4(61years, South)

5.D.D.

Kim Jong-hun

Attorney F (for defendant A1)

Attorney Kim Byung-hoon (Defendant A4)

December 2, 2008

Defendant A1’s imprisonment; Defendant A2, A3, and D Co., Ltd. shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000; and Defendant A4 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,50,000,00. In the event that Defendant A2, A3, and A4 fail to pay each of the above fines, each of the above fines shall be confined in the workhouse for the period of converting 50,000 won into one day. In the event of Defendant A1, 56 days of detention before the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Criminal facts

Defendant A1 is the chairperson of the committee for countermeasures against residents in the area damaged by the Kimhae Airport. Defendant A2 is a person who operates the XX Construction Co., Ltd. in Gangseo-gu in Busan, Defendant A3 is the executive director of the DDR in Busan Dong-gu, Defendant A4 is a person who runs real estate brokerage business in the name of "YY Licensed Real Estate Agents' Office" in Gangseo-gu in Busan, and Defendant D Co., Ltd is a corporation established for trucking transport business.

1. The co-principal of the defendant A1 and A2;

The Defendants planned to construct a building that can be used for common use facilities in the name of a community resident group in the processing process, using the fact that the construction permit can not be granted to a private workplace or factory within the development restriction zone, but for the purpose of common use facilities for village residents. Defendant A2, despite being aware that Defendant A1 intended to build a warehouse, etc., he/she would be in charge of the construction of the said building in the x construction company that he/she manages, and around December 2006, Defendant A1 lent 120,000 won of the down payment when he/she purchases 583,40,000 won of the Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan, which is owned by Defendant A1 at KRW 583,40,000 when he/she purchases 3,220 meters of the above land in the future.

Defendant A1 received seals from 29 Yri Village Residents on the current status of producers in the name of 'Al and 29 'Yri Village Residents', and had certified architect C, who is not aware of the fact, prepare a false village conference project plan, etc. as if there exists a 'Yri Village Association' in the above production status.

A. On January 11, 2007, Defendant A1, who is a public official in charge of building permission for the construction of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Office, filed an application for a building permit for two buildings of the utility tunnel board (492m2, each moving to a Dong, non-dong, 492m2) on the ground owned by the public official in charge of building permission for the construction of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Office, and submitted a false project plan.E, public officials in charge of building permission for the above Gangseo-gu Office, such as the above Gangseo-gu Office, provided that “Al” et al., around January 26, 2007, were to construct a utility tunnel for the village residents on the above land. Accordingly, the Defendants received a building permit by fraudulent or other illegal means at the same time interfering with the official’s legitimate examination of building permission.

B. On April 10, 2007, Defendant A1 filed an application for a construction permit of 2 Dong-dong (20 meters wide, 492 meters wide, and 20 meters wide, to F who is a public official in charge of building permission working for the building department in the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Office, and is a Class I neighborhood living facility with the total floor area of 512 square meters wide on the above ground owned by Defendant B, which is a resident joint use facility, and submitted a false project plan.

Around April 26, 2007, public officials in charge of building permission of Gangseo-gu Office such as F, etc. were aware that “Al and 29 persons” were to build a common workplace for village residents on the land and permitted construction. Accordingly, the Defendants interfered with public officials’ legitimate duty to review building permission by deceptive means and received building permission by fraudulent or other illegal means.

2. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A1 and A3;

No one may construct a building, change the purpose of use, install a structure, change the form and quality of land, cut bamboo and trees, divide land, store goods, etc. in a development restriction zone. Defendant A1 obtained each building permit as described in paragraph (1) and completed the construction of two general steel-frame buildings with a total floor area of 984 square meters and two general steel-frame buildings with a total floor area of 512 square meters on the land around June 19, 2007, respectively, around December 3, 2007. Defendant A3 was aware that he leased the said building while seeking a new automobile parts delivery base of DD companies that he works for.

On October 2, 2007, in order to use three of the above buildings as a base for the delivery of motor vehicle parts, the Defendants concluded an agreement to lease three of the above land and the above buildings with a deposit of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 9,000,000, and agreed to alter the use of the above buildings by concluding a lease agreement around October 10, 2007.

Defendant A3 leased three units of the above building. From mid December 2007, Defendant A3 changed the use to D Co., Ltd.’s automobile parts delivery base of three units of the above building. Defendant A1 conspired with Defendant A3 to change the use from July 8, 2008 to July 19, 2008, on which a fine of KRW 1,000,000 was imposed at Busan District Court, and the sentence became final and conclusive on July 19, 2008. Accordingly, Defendant A1 conspired with Defendant A3 to change the use from July 8, 2008 to November 21, 2008, Defendant A1 conspired with Defendant A208 within a development restriction zone.

3. Defendant Al

The defendant was aware that if the project to install a village common ditch in the name of "YYri Village Association" is selected as "project to install a common use facility in the area damaged by air noise" by the Gangseo-gu Office of Busan, the defendant paid the subsidy (65% of the budget for the national airport construction and 35% of the budget for the Gangseo-gu Office) to the Korea Airports Corporation and the Busan Gangseo-gu Office entrusted by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs with the project to prevent air noise damage pursuant to the related laws, such as the Aviation Act, and the subsidy is paid through the Busan Gangseo-gu Office.

In addition, the defendant was aware that, after consultation by the residents' countermeasure council for the area damaged by Kimhae Airport in which he/she is the chairperson, if he/she will operate the construction project of the utility tunnel in the name of the village, the subsidy would reach 120,000,000 won and if he/she applies for the project to the Gangseo-gu Office in the name of the above residents' countermeasure council, it would be reflected as it is, unless there are special circumstances, and if he/she implements the construction method as a private capital subsidy program

Therefore, around December 20, 2006, the defendant included a village joint-use facility installation project in the name of "YYri Village Association" when he applied for a project to install the common-use facility in the name of the chairperson of the above residents' countermeasure headquarters in Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Office in 2007.

However, although the above village council was unable to build a building to be used as a utility tunnel from the beginning, the defendant belongs to the relevant public official of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Office, and applied for permission to construct two utility tunnels as prescribed in paragraph (1) in order to receive the subsidy. The permission was granted around January 26, 2007.

On February 29, 2007, the Defendant submitted a false plan for the installation of a YY village common ditch, a plan for the installation of a village common ditch, a list of community common use facilities promotion committee, minutes, etc. to the public officials in charge of the work in the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Environmental Sanitation Division, in the name of "YYri Village Association", and was selected from the Busan Gangseo-gu Office as the operator of a resident common use facilities around February 22, 2007, and around April 24, 2007, respectively. The Defendant entered into an agreement with the head of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government on August 29, 2007 on the support for the installation of a Yri Village common use facilities with the head of Gangseo-gu Office, and around September 19, 2007, G public officials in charge of the work in the Busan Gangseo-gu Environmental Sanitation Division and working in the Busan Metropolitan Government's Environmental Sanitation Division and around September 20, 2007, respectively.

Therefore, the Defendant received a total of KRW 120,000,000, around September 21, 2007, including KRW 60,000,000, and KRW 60,000,000, around December 31, 2007, from the public officials in charge of the installation of the utility tunnel in Busan Gangseo-gu Office H and I, and received subsidies by false application or other unlawful means.

4. On September 2007, Defendant A4 was commissioned by Defendant A1 to act as a broker for the lease of the above utility tunnel and the common workplace constructed in Busan Gangseo-gu, and the above building was located in the development restriction zone through A1 and a certified copy of the register, etc. and became aware of the fact that construction permission was granted for the use of the utility tunnel and the common workplace.

Nevertheless, around October 10, 2007, the Defendant mediated the conclusion of a lease agreement between A1 and D Co., Ltd., as in Paragraph 2, and D Co., Ltd leased the above building and changed its use as in Paragraph 2.

Accordingly, the defendant made it easy to change the use of building A1 and D corporation.

5. Defendant DDR

The defendant committed the same offense as Paragraph 2 in relation to the defendant's business at the date, time, and place specified in Paragraph 2.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant Al: Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 30 subparag. 2 and 11(1) proviso of the former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development (amended by Act No. 8975 of Mar. 21, 2008); Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 31 subparag. 1 and 12(1) proviso of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Areas of Restricted Development; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 40 of the Act on Budget and Management of Subsidies

B. Defendant A2: Articles 137 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 Subparag. 2 of the former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Act No. 8975 of Mar. 21, 2008) and the proviso to Article 11(1)

C. Defendant A3: Article 31 subparag. 1 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, proviso to Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones,

D. Defendant A4: Subparagraph 1 of Article 30 of the former Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones (amended by Act No. 8975 of March 21, 2008), proviso to Article 11(1), Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act

(e) Defendant DDR: Article 33(1), Article 31 subparag. 1, and the proviso of Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones

2. Commercial concurrence (Defendant A1, A2);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

3. Selection of a sentence;

Defendant A1 shall be subject to each sentence of imprisonment, each sentence of fine for Defendant A2, A3, A4, and D Co., Ltd.

4. Mitigation and mitigation (Defendant A4);

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act

5. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant A1, A2);

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

6. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant A2, A3, A4);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

7. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention (Defendant A1).

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

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

Judges Lao Young-gu