2016Gohap1135 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

Fraud

A

The court below's convictions (prosecutions) and Kim Jong-mal (trials)

Law Firm Dogwon

Attorney Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant

July 6, 2017

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) Fraud against the victim B

In fact, the Defendant not only did not have any special property or monthly income but also did not pay capital gains tax equivalent to KRW 300 million, and there was no fact that he participated in the redevelopment project of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment complex C, so even if he borrowed money from the victim B or received money as the sale price, the Defendant did not have the intention or ability to make the purchase price of the apartment redevelopment.

Nevertheless, on September 9, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “I would be able to purchase redevelopment apartment on the face of money that needs to be incurred in implementing redevelopment apartment in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu.” The Defendant received 20 million won from the victim as the selling price on September 9, 2009, as well as from around that time until January 2015, the Defendant received KRW 140 million in total from 11,40 million in the name of the borrowed money or the selling price on 11 occasions as shown in the attached list of crimes (1).

As a result, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 142.5 million from the victim.

(b) A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

In fact, the Defendant was delinquent in paying capital gains tax of KRW 300 million as well as special property or monthly income, and the Defendant entered into a service contract, such as the event of the city and the sale by proxy, with respect to the enforcement of the “H” in Gyeonggi-gu G (hereinafter “H”), and did not receive any loan, and only received a loan from the construction company I (hereinafter “I”) but did not receive any construction participation, and it was not possible to expect the long-term profit because it is unclear whether the construction was commenced due to the lack of the authorization or permission related to the construction. Accordingly, even if the Defendant received H subscription from the victim F, it was thought that it would be used for living expenses or expenses, etc., and there was no intention or ability to include it in the down payment as the victim’s subscription money or in the contract for sale with the victim.

Nevertheless, around July 2013, the Defendant may make a lot of profits earned from the sale of H to the victim. Since pentLs only eight bonds are available, it is not possible to receive the purchase later. Pursuant to the false statement, “I will sell pentLs 1 if I first put the subscription amount into the kind of friendship and pay it in advance, and the first subscription amount paid in advance will be included in the down payment when entering into a regular contract,” and then I received 35 million won from the victim as the subscription amount for H 1, and received 35 million won from the victim to the deposit account in the J’s name from that time to October 30, 2014.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was given KRW 1.47 billion to the victim.

(c) Fraud against the victim K;

Even if the defendant receives H subscription money from the victim K, he thought that it will be used for living expenses, expenses, etc. as described in the above b above, but did not have any intent or ability to include the down payment in the trust as the victim's subscription money or in the sales contract with the victim.

Nevertheless, around July 2013, the Defendant called the victim to have the victim sell the subscription money to H in a good location by setting up the Dong and number of Dong and housing first. The first payment of subscription money to be made is to be included in the subscription money when receiving a fixed contract. It was received from the victim on July 23, 2013 as the subscription money for H 3 bonds, and it was transferred from the victim to the deposit account in the name of J. From around that time to September 26, 2014, the Defendant received the total of KRW 167 million on six occasions, such as the list of crimes in attached Form (3).

Accordingly, the defendant was delivered KRW 167 million from the victim by deceiving the victim.

(d) Fraud against victims L;

In fact, the Defendant not only did not have any special property or monthly income, but also did not pay capital gains tax equivalent to KRW 300 million, on the other hand, H Corporation that the Defendant promoted did not obtain any loan from the PF, nor did it select the contractor, and it was not clear whether the construction was commenced due to the lack of authorization or permission. Therefore, the victim L did not have any intent or ability to pay the price even if the Plaintiff was to act on behalf of the H sale.

Nevertheless, around April 2014 and April 2014, the Defendant, at the victim's office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, held that "B is responsible for the implementation of H as the vice president of N. B. The Defendant was selected as the contractor and decided to perform responsible work, and can be executed in accordance with the mind that 90 million won is set at the promotional expense marketing expense out of the project cost. Since H sale was completed at a level of 70-80%, if money is paid upon application for the sale of H, the Defendant would pay the price without the framework if he/she holds the H sale event." The Defendant made a false statement that "I will pay the victim the price without the framework if he/she holds the H sale event." From August 28, 2014 to August 29, 2014, the Defendant had the victim exercise the H sale by proxy, and did not pay the price of KRW 187,58,500 as the price.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 187,58,500 from the victim.

2. Determination

(a) Fraud against the victim B

1) Part related to the sale price of the apartment redevelopment C (Attached Crime List (1) Nos. 1 to 3)

A) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Although it is recognized that money as stated in the facts charged is received from B, there is no promise to sell the C redevelopment apartment unit, and the said money is an investment that is received in the form of indirect investment that entrusts the management of the investment fund to the general public in relation to the real estate business for which the defendant had run, not to a specific project.

B) Determination

(1) There is a statement of B and Q as evidence that the Defendant received money from B as the price for the sale of the apartment redevelopment complex as the price for the sale of the apartment redevelopment complex. It is acknowledged that B provided the Defendant with the same amount of money as that stated in the facts charged, and both B and Q stated that “I would be allowed to receive money from the Defendant on the face of the sale of the apartment complex because I would have been conducting the apartment redevelopment project,” so there is doubt that B and Q would not receive money from the Defendant as the price for the sale of the apartment complex as shown in the facts charged.

(2) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received money from B as the purchase price for apartment redevelopment as alleged in the facts charged, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant received money from B as the purchase price for apartment redevelopment,

① At around 2005, the Defendant testified that there was a fact that there was a money transaction several times prior to the instant case, and around 2008, the Defendant stated that he had made a monetary transaction with B after receiving the request from R that he would have to make an investment from B at the time of the establishment of the partnership (at the time of the investigation record 110 pages).

② At this court, B testified to the effect that the total purchase price was not determined even though B paid the money as the purchase price for the redevelopment apartment, and there was no fact that B prepared a contract related to the redevelopment apartment with the Defendant.

③ On September 9, 2009, B received a loan certificate from the Defendant while paying KRW 20 million to the Defendant. The loan certificate is written as of December 30, 2012, stating that the date of repayment is about three years after the date of loan, and there is no interest. B is more persuasive in the Defendant’s statement that it was written in the form of loan certificate without interest to the effect that the Defendant received the above loan certificate at a different intervals (152 pages of investigation record), but the above loan certificate does not contain any content regarding apartment redevelopment or the above money was paid as the sale price (152 pages of investigation record), and therefore, it is difficult to believe that B’s statement is in fact. Rather, the Defendant’s statement that it was written in the form of loan certificate without interest to guarantee the principal of the investment bond is more persuasive.

④ On September 9, 2009, B paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant, but did not receive the right of sale from the Defendant, and there was no fact that B prepared a document related to sale other than the receipt from the Defendant. Nevertheless, B did not confirm whether the project was actually conducted at the scene of C (in the investigation record 33 pages), and paid the Defendant an additional amount of KRW 15 million on March 3, 201, and KRW 5.5 million on December 201 as the sale price. In light of the general transaction concept, such transaction is very natural.

⑤ On November 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) prepared a loan certificate stating that “The 100 million won has been invested in Eunpyeong, Jeonju, S, etc. as investment funds up to November 2015; and (b) the principal KRW 100 million has to be paid up to two or three times until March 2016. Since November 15, 2015, B confirmed that there is no objection to all civil and criminal legal matters regarding the purpose of use thereof; and (c) stated in this document as if the Defendant received money from B and invested in various projects as investment funds (i.e., one right 128 pages); and (d) based on the content thereof, the Defendant’s assertion is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion. In addition, witness Q testified testified to the effect that there was no number of funds flow by mixing various names, such as investment or loan, among B and the Defendant.

④ Although Q filed a complaint with the Defendant by deceiving the Defendant that he would have the right to sell apartment redevelopment C by deceiving the Defendant to sell money, Q has issued a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on the ground that there is no other supporting document, such as an investment contract, and the money paid by the complainant appears to be a transaction related to the money borrowed, on the ground that he/she had been suspected of having been in the transaction related to the money borrowed (not more than three investigative records and not more than 890 pages).

2) The portion related to the acquisition fund of the Bank of Korea (attached Form 4-9 No. 1)

A) Summary of the defendant's assertion

As stated in the facts charged, the fact that B received KRW 67 million from B from December 5, 2013 to February 4, 2014 as the borrowed money for acquiring a company is recognized, but there was intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing. KRW 15 million received from March 4, 2014 is not the borrowed money for the investment related to Li H business.

B) Determination

(1) The evidence as shown in the facts charged that the Defendant received money as a loan for acquiring a company without the intent and ability to repay is indicated in B and Q’s statement and a loan certificate (60 million won).

(2) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence alone, which was presented by the prosecutor, was proven to the extent that the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the loan even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim from the beginning, and that KRW 15 million received from the victim on March 4, 2014 was a loan, not an investment, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

① On January 21, 2014, Q borrowed KRW 60,000 from B, “the debtor Q will borrow KRW 60,000,000 from B. The loan will be used as investment funds in the Bank of Korea. The loan will be repaid in full until February 28, 2014.” The witness Q testified to the effect that “The defendant believed that, at the time of receipt by the company, he would have been able to fully repay the funds as argued by the defendant, as the defendant asserted, in Q Q’s name (19 pages) stating the following: “The defendant borrowed money from B in the name of the acquisition price of the company.” The witness Q testified to the effect that “The defendant was at the same site when he borrowed money from B from B, but the defendant believed him as the acquisition price of the company.”

② On February 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) in fact, there was an external factor in giving up the acceptance by U to acquire the Company, which was to acquire the Company by including the borrowed money from B in order to acquire the Bank of Korea; (b) and (c) there was no external factor in giving up the acceptance (or witness Q testimony).

③ It is alleged that B lent money as the acquisition price of the company with respect to KRW 15 million as of March 4, 2014. However, although the Defendant did not pay the money on February 28, 2014, it is natural to view B as having extended money with the acquisition price of the company on March 4, 2014 without requiring the Defendant or Q to pay the money, or to prepare a new loan certificate, even though B did not pay the money on February 28, 2014, which is the due date specified in the above loan certificate related to the acquisition price of the company, in light of the general transaction concept, it is difficult to believe that B gave testimony that he/she paid the money to the Defendant and Q around February 28, 2014.

④ The witness Q testified to the effect that there were several recommendations from this court to the effect that there was a mixture of names, such as investment or lending, among B and the Defendant. According to this, it is difficult to readily conclude that the said KRW 15 million was the borrowed money under the name of the acquisition price of the company solely based on the statement in B.

3) Parts relating to the cost of construction in the Ap H test (attached Form Nos. 10, 11)

A) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Although it is acknowledged that the defendant received KRW 20 million from B, the defendant did not deceiving the victim by stating that "it is a maximum amount of KRW 70 million to pay for the interior interior of the family H, as stated in the facts charged, that "it is intended to pay KRW 70,000 to KRW 20,000,000 upon request of the person who wants to do so," and the above money was invested from B for the purpose of using it for the expense required at the H site.

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that each of the above statements is difficult to believe, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to prove that the facts charged that the Defendant received money as a result of construction payment, not investment money, was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Even if the Defendant received money from the victim as a matter of contract payment, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant deceivings the victim even though he/she had no intention or ability to harm the interior construction cost of KRW 20 million.

① At the police station, B stated that “the Defendant paid KRW 20 million to KRW 20 million by deeming that “the Defendant would do so for the 70 million balcony expansion work.” However, at the prosecution, the Defendant paid KRW 20 million as the cause of construction work on the ground that “the Defendant would interfere with “H interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior.” From V, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant did not have any interest in H at the time,” and that he was thought to have received money (163,164 pages of the investigation record).” In this court, the Defendant stated that “the 20 million Won is equivalent to the construction cost, and the 20 million Won expansion work is also included in “the 20 million construction cost,” and that it is difficult to view that the Defendant could not have the right to have the right to have the right to have the above construction work as the victim’s statement at the time of the commencement of the construction work, as the victim’s statement did not appear to have been made.”

② At the prosecution, Q made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant sent KRW 20 million to H H test costs.” The Defendant stated that “B was aware that B sent KRW 5 million to H test costs. He/she became aware that B sent KRW 20 million to H test costs.” However, in this court, he/she directly stated that “the Defendant would pay KRW 70 million to B or 20 million to the effect that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she had received KRW 20 million at his/her own expense.” The Defendant made a statement to the effect that “B and 20 million won were not the same purport, but the Defendant was aware of the fact that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was 0 million at his/her own expense.” However, in this court, he/she made a statement to the effect that Q had not been aware of the fact that it was 00 won before Q test.”

③ At the time of January 2015, when the Defendant received money from the victim, the Defendant was actually running the business, such as the completion of authorization and permission for some of the H sites, and the sales contract was concluded, and the Defendant entered into a PM service contract with N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “N”), Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “W”), and W (hereinafter referred to as “N”), which is an executor, and had a considerable authority to perform the business of selecting the tester, selecting the contractor, and concluding the contract (2°315 pages of investigation record). However, as the authorization and permission for the rest of the project site is delayed, the implementation company’s business was suspended by selling the project site to a third party, and accordingly, the interior construction was not run ultimately.

In light of the aforementioned status of the progress of the business around January 2015 and the Defendant’s authority under the aforesaid PM service agreement, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to harm the interior of H at the time of receiving money from the victim to KRW 20 million.

4) Sub-determination

The facts charged regarding the fraud against the victim B are limited to the case where there is no proof of all crime.

(b) A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

1) Parts related to the App H (attached Table 1-6, 11, 12, 15-22, 24-29)

A) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Although it is recognized that money as stated in the facts charged is received from F, most of the investment money was received as a financial support for the overall expenses of the project and the money was used for the purpose of use.

B) Determination

(1) Major evidence as shown in this part of the facts charged include F, K, V, X’s legal statement, virtual H H execution expense, additional evidence submission (Appellant F), J account withdrawal details, reply data on search and seizure warrant execution, F, and K, etc. As there are considerable parts of the details of the Defendant’s use of the money received from the victim for personal purposes, there is doubt that the Defendant would not acquire money by deceiving the victim.

(2) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, given that there is room to view the money given by F to the Defendant as an investment deposit that did not specify specific purposes, or that there was a deception by the Defendant, such as the facts charged, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the facts charged in relation to the money transaction related to H were proven to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt.

(A) As to the entire amount of money relating to the above Am H

① On June 2, 2014, F is clearly aware that “The Defendant may invest KRW 600 million in the family H new project and incur principal loss. Of KRW 600,000, KRW 300 million, the Defendant already paid KRW 300,000 to N, an executory company, and the remainder KRW 300,000,00,000, paid for the use following the progress of the project, and there is no civil or criminal objection as to the use and future usage. Of KRW 60,00,00, the principal of KRW 300,00 is guaranteed, but the Defendant waives his/her right to claim against the Defendant at the time of the suspension of the project,” (The investigation record 2: KRW 481, F claimed that the said investment certificate was forged, but as a result of the written appraisal, the signature recorded in the investment certificate was appraised as a written confirmation of FF’s completion, and it was accompanied by F’s personal seal impression, and thus, the said investment certificate should be deemed to have been duly paid to the Defendant.

(2) The base amount of KRW 610 million is almost the same as the money stated in the investment certificate. According to this, the said money is all deemed to be the money invested by the victim with the principal loss, contrary to the facts charged.

② Even based on the victim F’s statement, the H project was actually undertaken, such as joint implementation contracts, conclusion of the PM contracts, and intent to participate in construction, and F made an investment by deeming that the project could be successful when considering the location, etc. at the direct site (No. 4 right 142-143 pages of investigation records).

③ On May 22, 2013, the Defendant entered into a PM service agreement with N, W, and the joint executor of the H project. According to the above agreement, the Defendant was able to perform duties, such as the selection of a contractor and the conclusion and management of a contract, the selection of a designer and a seller-out event, and the conclusion of a contract, cooperation in financing services, cooperation in the selection of an advertising agency, and the selection of an advertising agency, and there was a right to receive service fees upon the commencement or commencement of the sale of the land (hereinafter investigation record No. 314 pages).

In addition to the joint exercise of the same day and the above PM service contract, the Defendant prepared a written agreement stating, “If the joint executor obtains the authorization and permission of approximately 70 households within 50 days from the contract date and accordingly about 20 billion won is granted, the service fee in the PM service contract shall be paid, and in relation to the authorization and permission, the joint executor shall be responsible for the payment of the service fee in the PM service contract.” (No. 317 pages of investigation record

On June 21, 2013, I submitted a letter of intent to participate in the construction of a new H on condition of securing the project site of the owner, completing various authorizations for the promotion of the project, etc. (2: 2:54 pages of investigation records).

In light of such a series of processes, if the executor completes the authorization and permission of land, it appears that the smooth progress of H business and the realization of profits within the reasonable scope through securing project costs through the lending of PF, confirmation of the intention to participate in construction, and commencement of sale. As such, as stated in the facts charged, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant did not intend to use money, or did not intend to sell money, or did not have any intent or ability to pay the money, at the time of receiving money from F, or that he did not have any intention or ability to pay the money (i.e., delay of the authorization and permission of the land he/she decided to take charge of H business, the PF loan is nonexistent, and the N actually ceased to sell part of the business site to a third party on or around June 2015, and thus, it seems that the realization of profits was at this point).

(B) As to each item:

① In relation to Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of the attached list of crimes Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the witness F testified that “When he pays money to the Defendant for the purpose of sale subscription money or sale price, he used this as expenses, etc., and later, the trust company entered into a fund management contract with the trust company and then the defendant thought that he will deposit this money again.”

However, according to Q’s prosecutor’s statement and investigation report (Attachment of the materials for reference) the Defendant made an offer to pay 90 million won to H 9 generation on September 19, 2014 for F and K on September 19, 2014, and 50 million won of subscription to 50 million won for each of the five households on September 26, 2014 and September 27, 2014 (Investigation Record 8:2,008, 2,046, 2,047). The Defendant was unable to deposit the subscription money because there was no trust account at the time of receiving money set forth in No. 1, 2, and 5 of the FO’s list of crimes (2). After the trust account was opened on September 2014, it is difficult to view that the Defendant deceiving the Defendant into the subscription money.

With regard to the table of crime (2) No. 3 of the attached Table 2, witness V testified to the effect that "the plan to store convenience points in the family H was originally made, but the defendant would have sold the F in advance, and if so, would help the F in selling the F in lots", "the sale price will be KRW 160 million," and "the defendant would give the remainder of KRW 80 million when he will give the 80 million and move the 80 million, which he received from F, to N account." Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the F and N, who is the executive company, concluded a sales contract once again between the F and N, and paid KRW 80 million,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000 won, which was paid to the F, even if the defendant did not enter into the sales contract at his own discretion, it is difficult to see that the F and N, under the circumstances that the defendant did not enter the above 300,5000,000,00 won,00 won.

③ With regard to the attached list (2) Nos. 4 and 6, F also stated that “The Defendant paid money to the Defendant on August 1, 2013 and August 12, 2013 under the name of the purchase price for the right to operate the boats within H” (Article 8:1,915 of the investigation record) and Article 8 of the Agreement drawn up by the Defendant on April 8, 2014 between N and N, and Z (the wife of I representative AA), “N (70%) and the Defendant (30%) are jointly operated according to their shares” (Article 3-682 of the investigation record). Accordingly, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to transfer the right to operate the boats to F.

According to the witness F’s testimony and statement in relation to No. 11 and No. 12 of the annexed Table of Crimes List (2), it is recognized that the Defendant received from N the receipt of the receipt (a receipt of the receipt of the receipt of the amount of the contract and the intermediate payment of KRW 200 million on October 22, 2013) and delivered it to F, that “The Defendant promised to pre-sale the unit of the class 1 household of the class 430 million won which is scheduled to be sold to F in advance at KRW 30 million.”

The witness F testified that it is suitable for the Defendant to receive a discount sale through the Defendant in this court. According to this, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, “The Defendant did not have the right to sell at discount, and even if he received money from the victim as the money for sale, it would have been used for the expenses.”

As seen earlier, with regard to Nos. 15-20 of the attached Table 15-20, the Defendant entered into a Si event and a PM service contract and had the authority to select an advertising agency. On April 25, 2014, the business that the Defendant received money from F, the Defendant, N, and V, “The selection of advertising and publicity business entities shall be delegated by N, and the Defendant and N shall be ratified by N. The selection of the Defendant and N... Advertising and promotional expenses are indicated as follows: “The Defendant will return to N.” The advertising and promotion expenses are the advertising and promotion expenses paid by the PF financial institution in advance payment of N. and the PF. Accordingly, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant did not have the authority to use the budget for advertising and promotion expenses, as indicated in the facts charged.

In addition, the facts charged are that the defendant received money as a loan, but when based on the investment certificate dated June 2, 2014 as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the money that the defendant received from April 14, 2014 to May 8, 2014 in relation to the virtual H business as a loan, instead of an investment.

6) With regard to the attached list (2) Nos. 21 and 22, “N” in Article 11 of the agreement entered into between N and Z on April 8, 2014, means “in the event that the Defendant participates in the sale of at least 70% by raising the selling price (13 million won per square year) agreed with the initial contractor, N shall pay the amount of the increase to the Defendant as piece rates” (3rd page 682 of the investigation record), and “in the sales agency agreement entered into with AC, a party related to the AB event, around July 2014, the Defendant shall sell (or delegate the power to sell) 50 households among H to AC, and the sale price shall be KRW 16,50,000 per square year (hereinafter referred to as “the investigation record No. 2485 pages”). As such, even if the Defendant received a certain amount of piece rates from the sale price to the Defendant, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s act constitutes a fraudulent act exceeding the Defendant’s investment itself.

7) According to the witness X’s testimony regarding Nos. 24 of the annexed crime sight table (2) as to the witness X’s testimony, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant did not have any intent to perform pents construction as stated in the facts charged, since the Defendant actually paid an estimate of the company to perform H pents construction. As seen earlier, around August 2014, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay to the Defendant.

8. As seen earlier with regard to [Attachment Table 25,26] Nos. 25 and 26, F is likely to regard the amount that the Defendant paid to the Defendant as the business fund as not the loan but the amount invested in the business fund, on the ground that the interest agreement or the repayment period was not separately determined. As such, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the amount.

④ Even according to the witness F’s testimony relating to Nos. 27 of the List of Offenses (2) related to the No. 27, the issue was that the Defendant did not do so even though he paid money to a witness F with intent to use the money relating to the promotional officer for the H H’s business. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant enticed the victim in connection with the discount sale as in the facts charged.

① In relation to the table (2) Nos. 28 of the Attached Crimes List 28, the witness F testified that “the defendant would not make an offer to X even, and the defendant would have lent KRW 20 million to the account under the name of X-friendly AD, the mother of X, and among them, the defendant testified that “the amount of KRW 10 million shall be offered and the amount of KRW 10 million shall be increased.” However, it is insufficient to find the facts charged that the defendant was the defendant even if he was to have been willing to use the amount of KRW 10 million at will from the beginning. On October 2014, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the amount of KRW 20 million.

① According to the witness F’s testimony relating to Nos. 29 of the annexed crime sight table (2) 40 million won, the Defendant directly confirmed the fact that the Defendant subscribed for YY 40 million won from F. As such, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had no intention or ability to resell H4 bonds or to operate Lestop as indicated in the facts charged.

2) Parts related to Busan, Gwangju, and Suwon sites (attached Form 7-10, 13, 14)

A) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Although it is recognized that money as stated in the facts charged was received from F, since such money was received in the name of an investment fund for the entire real estate business operated by the Defendant, it was permissible to freely operate the money with a project-related fund.

B) Determination

(1) In fact, the F’s statement as evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in this part is true, and its main content is that “the Defendant lent money to the Defendant’s belief that he / she s/ she s/ she s/ s/ s/ s/ s

(2) However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the F’s statement in the name of the borrowed money is difficult to believe, and the money issued by F to the Defendant was the name of the invested money. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone proves that the facts charged that the Defendant borrowed money with no intent or ability to repay are proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

① In relation to [Attachment 7-8] Nos. 7 and 8, F stated that, when the Defendant first lent money necessary to the Busan site for three months, he/she would pay KRW 70 million and that the remainder KRW 100 million was added to KRW 300 million (as to KRW 8-1,916 of investigation records), 50 million as required at the Gwangju site, he/she stated that, with respect to KRW 50 million as required at the Gwangju site, he/she lent KRW 70 million to KRW 70 million and imposed half of the amount of rebates received rebates (as to KRW 16 of investigation records) (as to KRW 30 million), Nos. 13 and 14 of investigation records, he/she lent KRW 50 million as required at the Suwon site (as to KRW 50 million, 100 million) and 100 million, he/she was given the right to receive KRW 300 million after three months after the date of loan (as to the investigation records 19818).

Considering the above amount of interest claimed by F, F is likely to make an investment with a view to making a short-term profit rather than simply lending money to the Defendant.

② From this Court testimony that “F had become aware of the Defendant through the introduction of a branch in around 2002 and then received profits from the investment in the housing redevelopment project that was conducted by the Defendant for about 2004”, and on June 2, 2014, there was a fact that: “F is aware that the Defendant may invest KRW 600 million in the family redevelopment project and incur a loss to principal.” As such, F appears to have made several investments in the Defendant’s projects. This part of the facts charged is related to money received by the Defendant in connection with the real estate redevelopment project undertaken by Busan, Gwangju, and Suwon, from August 22, 2013 to December 7, 2013, and F paid investments to the Defendant.

③ Although the Defendant appears to have made a partial exaggerated statement, the Busan, Gwangju, and Suwon site stated in the facts charged was a place where real estate business was actually underway.

3) Parts relating to the establishment cost of the Company (Attached Table (2) No. 23)

A) Summary of the defendant's assertion

Along with the due date, F was not required to borrow money, and it was intended to repay the F's profits from the investment, and it was possible to fully repay the F's profits if it was conducted smoothly.

B) Determination

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, there was a statement of F and Q as evidence consistent with the facts charged, but around August 2014, the court was expected to realize a reasonable profit through H business, and the fact that the defendant actually established AE as capital KRW 50 million around August 2014 with the money that the defendant received from F was actually paid to F. It is difficult to deem that the defendant had no intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that this part of the facts charged was proven to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt.

4) Sub-determination

The facts charged on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Fraud) against the victim F are limited to the absence of evidence of all

(c) Fraud against the victim K;

1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The fact that K received money as stated in the facts charged is recognized, but most of the money received investment money as a financial support for the overall expenses necessary for the project, and all the money received for the purpose of use was used.

2) Determination

A) As evidence as shown in this part of the facts charged, K, F, V’s statement, virtual H enforcement expense, additional evidence submission (instigator F), J account withdrawal details, seizure and search warrant execution reply materials, and deposit details such as K, F, and K are extracted.

B) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to view K’s money delivered to the Defendant as an investment deposit that did not specify specific purposes or as a deception of the Defendant. Therefore, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that this part of the facts charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

① As seen earlier, with respect to the table of crime Nos. 3 (3) Nos. 1, the time when a trust account was opened and made available to deposit subscription money was around September 2014, and it was impossible for the Defendant to deposit to the trust company as of July 23, 2013 upon receipt of KRW 20 million from K. Even according to the witness’s testimony, the fact that a contract for sale in lots was prepared around September 5, 2014 for three households, who subscribed on July 23, 2013. As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, as of September 19, 2014, by deceiving the trust company to deposit subscription money to H9 households on September 19, 2014, KRW 50 million on September 26, 2014 and KRW 50 million on September 27, 2014.

② In relation to the table (3) Nos. 2 and 3, the Defendant was delegated with the duties of selecting a man-made company pursuant to the PM service agreement concluded on May 22, 2013 (2) and around May 2014, the Defendant cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to supply art related to the sculptures to be installed within H as stated in the facts charged at the time of receiving money from K, on the following grounds: (a) when the executor completes the authorization and permission of the H business site; (b) the cost of the work is secured through the PF loan; and (c) the intention to participate in the construction becomes final and conclusive as the contractor and the H project is anticipated to smoothly proceed with the H project.

③ Regarding [Attachment 3] Nos. 3 and 4, around September 2014, when sale in lots began, the Defendant was entitled to intermediate payment of service fees when sale in lots took place under the PM service agreement (i.e., the investigation record 2: 314 pages). Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay money from K at the time of receiving money from K.

④ According to the investigation report (the fact that KRW 100,00,000, paid by the complainant, was deposited as subscription money) regarding Nos. 5 and 6 of the attached crime list (3), it is confirmed that the Defendant paid the entire amount of KRW 100,000,000 received from K as subscription money to Y account until September 26, 2014, and that the entire amount was withdrawn from March 27, 2015 to October 5, 2015 (the investigation record No. 8:2,066 pages). In light of the fact that the subscription money was not withdrawn for a considerable period of time, and that the trust account was at the time when there was a risk of seizure since a dispute related to L business, as stated in the facts charged, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant would have been the most likely sale of H, or that there was no intention or ability to have the earnings divided with K and its profits.

3) Sub-determination

The facts charged regarding the fraud against the victim K are only when there is no proof of crime.

(d) Fraud against victims L;

1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

L is recognized as the fact that he had L vicariously exercise the virtual H H sale and the fact that he did not pay the price. However, he did not make the same remarks as stated in the facts charged, and asked L to say that he would pay the cost in N, but the cost of the sale is to be paid by N, which is the executing company, so there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation against the defendant.

2) Determination

A) As shown in this part of the facts charged, L, F, V’s statement, report on the result of sale in lots, sale in lots, tax invoices, and written confirmation of completion of contract execution. According to this, it is recognized that the Defendant selected the victim L as an advertising and event agent and made the victim L to proceed with the virtual H sale event on August 28, 2014 and the next day thereafter, and that the service payment was not paid even if the victim completed the event.

B) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged, and it is difficult to view that this part of the facts charged was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

(1) L means that the defendant was delivered with the introduction of the F of the job offering F, and the defendant was first requested to sell the goods by proxy on April 2014, and the defendant is as stated in the facts charged, and the N shall pay service charges.

The contract did not have been drawn up. Since the contract was demanded to prepare the contract continuously, it was demanded to do so, it would be possible to pay the contract in I, a contractor, to the first police officer on August 2014. The defendant was ordered to be the vice president, and the first statement was made to the effect that the defendant would have been able to receive money from N, which the defendant belongs."

② Although the Defendant was not the vice president of N, the Defendant stated that V used the vice president’s name for business convenience by stating that he was the vice president of N, and that V used the name of the vice president of the Defendant, and that V used the name of the vice president of the Defendant, or that there was no fact to recognize that he had allowed the Defendant to use the name of the vice president of the Defendant or to use such position (29 pages

However, at the time of the virtual H sale events, the Defendant had been able to report the fact as the vice president of the N, and the Defendant was able to do so (2:32 of the investigation record). As such, the above statement of F is difficult to believe, and F even if the Defendant knew that he was not the vice president of N, the Defendant did not belong to his position for the purpose of deceiving L (the witness L’s testimony). Thus, it does not seem that the Defendant did not belong to his position for the purpose of deceiving L.

③ According to the report on the result of the sale in lots prepared after L's exercise of sale in lots, it is clearly indicated that it is merely an intention to participate in construction (2:58 pages of investigation records) at the distribution site at the time, and as such, L's statement that the Defendant was determined to have been responsible for executing the construction work by selecting L as the contractor is difficult.

④ In the agreement concluded on April 25, 2014 between the Defendant and N and V (in the instant case, 3:50 pages of investigation records) entered into on April 25, 2014, the following: “The selection of advertising and promotional companies is delegated by N and the Defendant is confirmed by N. The advertising and promotional expenses are indicated as follows: “The Defendant shall pay N in advance and pay advertising and promotional expenses paid by the PF financial institutions.” According to this, the Defendant appears to be entitled to demand advance payment of promotional expenses to N.

In this case, even if the defendant made a certain exaggeration to L, according to L's testimony, L was aware that L was paid from N where the defendant belongs with respect to the most essential issue of cost payment, and that the defendant agreed to pay advertising and publicity expenses in advance among N [it is stated in the agreement that it is necessary to confirm N as to the appointment of the advertising and publicity company, but the victim L was present at the events of sale conducted by the K's Chairperson, which had been held by the K's Chairperson (No. 117 pages of investigation record). Thus, even if the defendant said that N was to pay the service cost to L, it cannot be said that the defendant made a false statement to L or did not have any intent or ability to pay it.

3) Sub-determination

The facts charged about fraud against L is only when there is no proof of crime.

3. Conclusion

Since all of the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58

The presiding judge, the highest judge;

Judges of the High Instance

Judges Kim Dong-dong

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.