(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2019.8.12. 선고 2018고단1722 판결

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Cases

Defendant

Prosecutor

Defense Counsel

Applicant for Compensation

Imposition of Judgment

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

집행유예

(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2019.8.12. 선고 2018고단1722 판결

가.사기(피고인A에대하여인정된죄명사기방조)나.공문서변조다.변조공문서행사라.사기방조배상명령신청배상명령신청배상명령신청

Cases

2018 Highest 1722, 2018 Highest 3030 (Joint), 2018 Highest 3147 (Joints);

2019 Highest 24 (Joint), 2019 Highest 454 (Joint), 2019 Highest 559 (Joint),

2019 Highest 732 (Joint), 2019 Highest 888 (Joint), 2019 Highest 1542 (Joint),

2019 Highest 1707(combined)(A) Fraud (a) ; fraudulent fraud (a) recognized against Defendant A

(b) Alteration of an official document;

(d) Fraud prevention;

2018 initially 762 Application for a compensation order

2019 early 132 Application for a compensation order

2019 initially 328 Application for a compensation order

Defendant

1.(a)(c) B

2.(a) C

3.(a)(c) D

4.(a) E

5.D.F

6. D. G

7. A.

8. D. H

9.I

10.d. J

11.D.K

12.d. L

Prosecutor

Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act, the case shall be tried for the most recent term of trial;

Defense Counsel

Law Firm Sejong (for Defendant B)

O.S. (Attorney O.S.)

Attorney Lee Im-soo (for the defendant B)

Law Firm Ison (for Defendant C)

Attorney Lee Jeong-hee

Law Firm Site (for Defendant D)

Attorney Lee Do-young, Lee Jong-sung, Kim Young-han, Do-young

Attorney Park Jong-ho (Law Firm E, F, G, I, J. L.)

Law Firm LLC (For Defendant A)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of Si/Gun/Gu Office

Attorney Lee Young-young, Lee Yong-ho, and J. (Defendant H)

Attorney Ji-hun (for Defendant K)

Applicant for Compensation

1. M;

2. N:

Imposition of Judgment

August 12, 2019

Text

[Defendant B]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for twelve years.

Seized evidence Nos. 2 through 10, 14 through 19 (No. 1017 of the 2018 Goyang Branch Office of the Government's High Prosecutors' Office) shall be confiscated from the accused.

The defendant shall pay 5,00,000 won to M who is an applicant for compensation.

The above compensation order may be provisionally executed.

[Defendant C]

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Seized No. 1, 11, and 12 (No. 1017 of the 2018 Goyang District Prosecutors' Office, 2018) shall be forfeited from the accused.

The defendant pays 16,00,000 won to N who is an applicant for compensation.

The above compensation order may be provisionally executed.

The defendant of M who is the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

[Defendant D]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 320 hours.

[Defendant E]

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[Defendant F, G, H, I, K, L]

Defendant F, G, H, I, and L shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, and Defendant K shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

[Defendant A]

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 200 hours.

[Defendant J]

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 9,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine by provisional payment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 15, 2011, Defendant B was sentenced to six years of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in Seoul Southern prison on October 28, 2014 and the parole period passed on March 13, 2015 during the execution of the sentence. Defendant J was sentenced to four years of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on July 25, 2013, and was released from a permanent prison on January 26, 2017, and the parole period expired on March 31, 2017.

[2018 Highest 1722]

1. Facts of premise;

Defendant B is a person who engages in credit business through the Internet homepage (S, T) with the trade name of ‘O, Q, and R' in Man-dong-gu, Manyang-si, Manyang-si and P, and also is a person who plans the so-called ‘P2P lending' goods and raises investment funds through each company.

"P2P lending" takes the form of making a loan with funds collected from the investors who confirmed that they advertise the scale, secured security, scheduled repayment schedule, and return rate on the Internet homepage after they received an application for the loan containing the business plan, necessary funds from those who need the business funds.

Defendant B, while operating “R” from February 2017, had a joint business starters A, who is a joint business starters, employed U and V employees, and had C take over and operate “ Q from C” from March 2018, and had C take the accounts and accounts of funds, and had D et al. employ employees to recruit investment funds as follows.

2. Criminal facts;

On April 17, 2018, Defendant B had D et al and other employees raise funds for purchasing oil from a gas station on the homepage of Q Q's website to provide loans of KRW 150 million for the operation of the gas station. Around April 17, 2018, Defendant B secured the amount of KRW 229,450,000 for the oil of the gas station as security. Around the two-month period, Defendant B provided an advertisement of loaned goods to the effect that “W will pay profits of KRW 17% per annum.”

However, the above business has not been established and the defendant has not secured, and the defendant has already been under the pressure to repay the principal and interest of the loan product that was previously offered and thus, even if the investment was offered, it is thought that it would be used to repay the principal and interest of the loan product that was sold before the offering of the investment (hereinafter referred to as "defluence") or used to pretend as if the actual amount of investment was collected in another loan product (hereinafter referred to as "refluence"), so even if the investment was paid by the investor, the loan was made in accordance with the advertisement and the return was made to the investor, and there was no intention or ability to return the investment

Defendant B was transferred KRW 5 million to the victim X as investment money on the same day.

Defendant B, in addition to this, from the above date to May 31, 2018, through the foregoing method, was transferred to the sum of KRW 13.55 billion in total by deceiving 1,609 victims with respect to the total of 70 false loan products, as described in the list of crimes in the YAB (2018 Highestest 172) [1-35] and Q (22) [1] and the list of crimes in Q (2018 Highest 172] and the list of crimes in Q (22)];

As a result, Defendant B conspired with A, C, etc. to deceiving victims and received property.

[2018 Highest 3030]

Defendant B is a person who engages in a credit business through the Internet homepage (T) with the trade name of “YY” and raises investment funds by planning so-called ‘P2P lending' goods through each company.

On July 2017, Defendant B made a false statement that Defendant B would pay the principal and interest on the date of maturity in accordance with the conditions of the product, such as investment in the product on the Y website when investing in the victim Z by telephone.

However, as the number of investors due to the repayment of the principal and interest on investment in loan products already offered by Defendant B without incurring any specific profit as above, the actual amount of the investment is continuously increased. As such, as if the borrower raises investment funds of about five times the amount desired to obtain the loan, he/she has placed a false advertisement and has collected the difference as if he/she actually, and then has paid the principal and interest on investment to the existing investors later in accordance with the 'CP2P loan', and if he/she fails to attract investors continuously, he/she could not pay the agreed principal and interest on investment to the investors. Therefore, even if he/she received the investment funds from the victim, he/she did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and interest on investment as agreed upon.

Nevertheless, Defendant B received 40 million won in total from the victim until May 28, 2018, as indicated in the following crime list, from the victim, on or around August 25, 2017, via a false statement as above, from the victim, a transfer of 40 million won in the corporate bank account (A) in the name of “Y” (A) around August 25, 2017, as well as a transfer of 130 million won in total from May 28, 2018.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

List of Offenses

A person shall be appointed.

[2018 Highest 3147]

Defendant B is a person who engages in credit business through the Internet homepage(T) and raises investment funds by planning so-called so-called ‘P2P lending' goods through each company.

Defendant B, around May 30, 2018, at the Y office located in Goyang-si AB ABC, had AD et al., the Defendant’s employee of the Defendant, “Y” website was established in February 2010, and it shows stable profits in supplying goods to a partner company under a contract with each region based on the logistics center. The borrower applied for a loan of KRW 330,000,000 with the company’s operating fund for goods purchase, etc., and the borrower created a security for the goods of KRW 703,787,850 with the company’s total amount of KRW 703,787,850 with the interest rate of KRW 16% per annum.” By registering the loan products, Defendant B made an investment in the above products to the victim on the website at the expiration of February 2010, and made a false payment in accordance with the terms and conditions of interest on the website.

However, as the number of investors due to repayment of the principal and interest on investment of loan products already offered has been continuously increased in the situation where Defendant B did not generate any specific profit as seen above, Defendant B shall pay the principal and interest on investment of the existing investors with the investment deposit of an investor later made in accordance with the 'C2P loan' under the 'C2P loan', as if the actual borrower raises investment funds of about five times the amount desired to obtain the loan, it is difficult for the existing investor to pay the difference as the principal and interest on investment by making a false advertisement and pay the difference as the principal and interest on investment of the existing investor's investor later. In the event that Defendant B fails to attract investors continuously, the agreed principal and interest on investment cannot be paid to the investor. Thus, even if the victim received

Nevertheless, Defendant B deceiving the victim as above and transferred KRW 4 million to the corporate bank account (A) in the name of the victim as investment in the same day.

[2019 Highest 24]

Defendant B is a person who engages in credit business through the Internet homepage(T) and plans so-called ‘P2P lending' goods and raises investment funds through each company.

1. Crimes against the victim AG;

around May 2, 2018, Defendant B applied for loans of KRW 450,00,00 for business operation funds, such as manufacturing and expansion of storage facilities, and applied for loans of KRW 2,424,235,80,000, which are the principal and interest of KRW 2,424,235,80,00, on the homepage of “Y”, “AH, the borrower, was established in August 2014," and “AH, the owner of which is an entity, has made an investment in the goods of KRW 2,424,235,80,00 on the homepage of “Y”. The borrower would make a false investment in the goods of KRW 18,00 on the homepage of the AI. The borrower would make an investment in the goods of KRW 2,424,235,80 on a temporary basis, and would make an investment in the goods of KRW 18,000 on the website.”

Nevertheless, as seen above, Defendant B deceiving the victim, and then deceiving the victim to transfer KRW 5 million to the account in the name of Y as the same day of investment from the victim.

2. Crimes against AJ of victims;

On May 24, 2018, Defendant B applied for a loan of KRW 350,00,000 to the company operating funds for purchase and transport of goods, and (A) made a security for the goods of KRW 691,814,410 to the Defendant’s employees on the homepage of “Y” and “Y”, “AL, a borrower, was established in 04, 2014, was supplied directly at the headquarters of AK and delivered the goods to the wholesale distributor in each region and reported stable profits. The borrower applied for a loan of KRW 350,000 to the company operating funds for the purchase and transport of goods, and (B) made an application for a loan of KRW 691,814,410 to the Defendant’s employees. The loan is to be repaid at once within two months and the annual rate of return is to be 16% at the expiration of 16% of the annual rate of return on the website, thereby making a false payment to the victim on the website.”

Nevertheless, as seen above, Defendant B deceiving the victim, and then deceiving the victim to transfer KRW 5 million to the account in the name of Y as the same day of investment.

[2019 Highest 454]

Defendant B is an operator of P2P lending business in Ilyang-dong-dong-gu AB and AC, and a joint operator of Q (P2P lending business in Ilyang-si-dong-dong-gu, P2P lending business, and the joint operator of Q (P2P lending business) who was the joint operator of Q (P) who was the P2P lending business in Manyang-si-dong-gu, Seoul-si, and Defendant E is the partner of Defendant B, Defendant C is the representative director of Q (P), Defendant Q (the representative director of Q), Defendant Q (the former), Defendant D’s loan planning and overall director of Q(P), Defendant F, Defendant F, Defendant G, and Defendant H’s employees as the representative director of AO, Defendant J is a water leisure instructor, and Defendant K is a person who arranged loans of PY and Q (P) at the request of Defendant B.

1. Frauds related to Defendant B and Defendant A (State) Y products;

At around May 1, 2018, Defendant B registered an investment product of “The brand household-backed crowdfunding” (T) No. 123, OEM distribution-based crowdfunding, and advertised loaned investment products with “Loan AH was established in August 2014, which is an enterprise that manufactures and distributes household products, and is engaged in mass sales to an AI association and manages adequate profits and inventory. The borrower requested a loan of KRW 550,000,000 with a corporate operating fund, and secured household products of KRW 2,424,235,80 with a corporate operating fund of KRW 550,00,00 as security. The loan is scheduled to repay in lump sum within two months, and will guarantee annual profits of KRW 18%.”

However, in fact, Defendant B, a P2P financial product electronic payment settlement system, was used for Sk-called so-called â€˜prob" operation, such as using the investment funds newly collected as the principal and interest of the loan funds, because Defendant B did not intend to use Sk-based funds as the incentive funds for the investment funds of the loan funds (the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second back), and there was no intention or ability to return the investment profits and the investment funds to investors.

Nevertheless, Defendant B, as if he were a borrower of the above loan investment product, received the above Sypt’s request for withdrawal from the above Sypt and received a password notified to the ATR Bank AS account under the name of K, which is a virtual account registered with Y, but had the intent to conceal the investment money deposited by the investors, as above, and had the victim (state) concealed and received 5 million won from the victim under the name of the investment money and received 5 million won from the victim from the victim from the victim to May 30, 2018, and then, Defendant B received the above 123, 127, 131-13, 135, 137, 142, 143, 145, 140, 150, 140, 150, 150, 160, 160, 70, 160, 150, 160, 156, 40, 150, etc.

2. Crimes related to Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, and Defendant A’s Q (State) lending products

Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant D conspired with each other on March 2018, when they merged and operated JejuY and Q (P) organization, and registered investment products called “28 punching Fund for Purchase of Oil at Q (S) website at the above (Y)Y office on April 17, 2018.” The gas station in the operation of the loan owner operator provided services related to a large number of gas stations in neighboring areas, and operated the oil and related wholesale business. The gas station requested loans of KRW 150 million with the fund for purchase of oil and the fund for business operation. The gas station secured KRW 29,450,000 with the aforementioned loan to the borrower as collateral. The loan to the borrower would be repaid within two months, and the investor would be guaranteed the profits of 17% per annum.”

However, the fact is that the above lending borrower registered AV, which is not AU, which is a loan lender of the lending product, and received AV in lieu of the above lending product investment amount, and it was thought to have been deducted, and the actual AU did not request the lending of the loan as security, and there was no previous AU.C. loan investment product that was collected in the past, so it is not impossible to operate so-called so-called â€˜comprehion-type' because it was used for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan of the lending product. Since some of the funds were thought to be used as the incentive fund of the lending product, there was no intention or ability to return the investment profits and the investment amount to investors.

Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E, as seen above, deceiving the victim X and obtained KRW 5,00,00 from the victim’s virtual bank account under the name of investment money, and acquired it by fraud. From around that time to May 30, 2018, Defendant D, and Defendant C conspired with Defendant B, and Defendant C, and obtained KRW 7,51,300,00 as indicated in the separate crime list (2019Da454) and the crime list (1 through 36) and obtained KRW 7,51,30,00 as stated in the separate crime list (20,000, KRW 70,000 in collusion with Defendant D, and Defendant C received KRW 30,36,41, 41, 42, 400, and Q14, and KRW 50,000 as stated in the separate crime list B & C (B) and obtained KRW 50,500,000 from the victims, Defendant Q2, and obtained the total of KRW 150,50,500.

3. Defendant H’s fraudulent aiding and abetting

(a) (Week-related fraud prevention;

(A)Y’s operators B, A, around May 21, 2018, registered an investment product “PP employees, who are P2P lending companies in the P2P website,” and upon receipt of a registration of both P2P lending companies in the name of the Defendant, the borrower applied for a loan of KRW 330,000,000 with a corporate operating fund, and the borrower applied for a loan of KRW 330,000 to a wholesale distributor at low prices. The borrower applied for a loan of KRW 330,000 with a corporate operating fund, the period of circulation is long, the storage is easy, and the exchange is outstanding, and the borrower will guarantee 16 per annum’s profits.” On the same day, the borrower (PP employees), who are P2P lending companies in the name of the Defendant, requested the Defendant to pay the borrowed funds in the name of the P244.

However, in fact, the P2P financial product electronic payment system of P2P financial product, not AX advertising as above, but the Defendant was registered as a loan borrower, and then the Defendant was thought to be exempted from the investment of the above loan product. It was not actually requested by AX. Since the loan-invested product that was previously recruited was also a product with no loan borrower, it is not possible to operate so-called so-called 'dominative' due to using the investment fund newly recruited as the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan product. Some funds were thought to be used as the fund for attracting investment of the loan product (the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second order), and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the loan-invested account was deposited in the name of the investor registered in BY through the procedure of member subscription, request for withdrawal, and the account transfer was made under the name of the investor's account.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received the letter of request for withdrawal of Skypt, which is an electronic payment system for both P2P financial products, the borrower of the above loan, and sent a password notified to AW Bank AY account under the name of the Defendant, the virtual account registered with Y, so that B could be charged with the Defendant’s investment money deposited by the investors through the Skypt system, so that B could be charged with the Defendant’s above AW Bank account, thereby inducing the victim AZ corporation, and its affiliated amount was deposited in the above AW Bank account from the victim AZ corporation as a loan 144, 5 million won for the loan 186,600,000 won for the loan 144, and could be deducted, and 120,000 won for the loan 1,200 won for the loan , and 200,000 won for the loan 1,000 won for the loan 20,000 won for the loan 20,000 won for the loan 14).

(b) Fraudulent assistance related to Qua;

around April 18, 2018, Q (State)’s operators B, A, C, D, and planning office: (a) registered investment goods of “The Food Materials Security Fund for Enterprise Operation” on Q (State) website; (b) “Borrower, a borrower, applied for loans of KRW 3,50,000 to a food material distribution company handling various processed food through a large purchase of multi-items; (c) an enterprise operating fund for expanding food materials and operating networks; (d) collateral loans of KRW 3,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

However, in fact, B, etc. used P2P financial products as an electronic payment settlement system for P2P financial products, not BA as seen above, but as Defendant registered the loan borrower and received the above loan on behalf of Defendant. In fact, B, etc. did not actually request loan. Since loan investment products already offered were products with no loan borrower, it is not so-called so-called 'combrupt' due to using the loan funds newly offered as the repayment of principal and interest of existing loan funds. Some of the funds were thought to be used as the so-called 'comrupt' fund inducement fund for loan products (the second 'the second 'the second '), so there was no intention or ability to return investment profits and investment funds to investors. The Defendant was aware of the fact that P2P financial products was deposited in the account in the name of Defendant P2P financial products under the name of B, B, and B, B, etc. through B, B, and B, B, etc.’s account transfer by the investor’s request.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, after receiving the letter of request for withdrawal of S2P financial instruments from S2P financial instruments in each of the above loan borrowers, sent a password notified to Q Q (State) account under the name of the Defendant, which is a virtual bank account registered in Q (State), so that B may be transferred to the Defendant’s above AW bank account through the SP bank system so that B could be transferred to the Defendant’s above AW bank account. As such, B induces the victim BC and then its members received KRW 25,00,000 from the victim’s bank account as a loan loan 31, Q25,00,000 as a sum of the loan investment funds in Q2, and could be deducted, and aiding and abetting B from the victim’s account in relation to the crime of fraud, such as transfer of the above money to the account in the name of BB that is immediately used by B, as shown in the separate sheet No. 200, 200, Q204, as stated in Q204.

4. Defendant F’s fraud aiding and abetting

(a) (Week-related fraud prevention;

(1)Y’s operators B and A, around May 2, 2018, registered an investment product “P2P lending companies specialized in food material distribution business” on the PY website, and “BD mainly handles BE products and distributes it to wholesale and retail companies with a high ratio of purchase. The borrower has applied for loans of KRW 250,00,000 with corporate operating funds, and the borrower has advertised the loaned investment product at the P25 P2P lending company at the P25 office on the same day, and on the same day, requested the Defendant to accept the loans of KRW 250,000 with corporate operating funds, and the borrower has requested the Defendant to provide the loans of KRW 250,000 with a high ratio of purchase.”

However, in fact, the P2P financial product electronic payment system is used as P25 E-Payment and settlement system of P2P financial product, not as BD, but as the Defendant was registered as a loan borrower, and it was thought that it was possible to deduct it. In fact, BD did not actually request loan. Since the loan-invested product that was previously recruited was also a product with no loan borrower, it is not possible to operate so-called so-called 'dominative' because it was used to repay the principal and interest of the loan of the existing loan-invested product. Some of the funds were thought to be used as the fund for attracting investment of the loan product (the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second below), and the Defendant was aware that the funds deposited in the name of the investor in the name of B B B B account through the procedure of member registration, request for withdrawal of P2P financial product, and the account transfer was made under the name of the investor.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, upon receipt of the letter of request for withdrawal of Skit, which is the electronic payment settlement system for both P2P financial products, as the borrower of the above loan, sent a password notified to BF account in the name of the Defendant, a virtual bank account registered with Y, so that B could be deducted from the Defendant’s above corporate bank account through the Skit system so that B could bring the investment money deposited by the investors to the Defendant’s above corporate bank account. As such, B deceiving the victim BG corporation and then its employees would receive KRW 2 million from the victim BG corporation as the loan financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing amounting to KRW 138,400,000,000,000,000 won can be deducted, and 200,000,000,000 won from the above corporate bank account under the name of the victims immediately using the above financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing amounting KRW 1.3.

(b) Fraudulent assistance related to Qua;

Q(주)의 운영자 B, A, C, D, 기획실장 E는 2018. 5. 23.경 Q㈜ 홈페이지에 『제64호 민물장어 생산 양어장 및 가공, 체험 관광농원 펀딩』 이라는 투자상품을 등록하면서, "대출차주 BH은 농수산물 경매 및 도매유통 경력이 오래된 사업자로서 파주, 연천지역 유명사업자들과 공급계약을 맺고 중간 도매를 하고 있다. 차주는 민물장어 생산 양어장 및 가공, 체험 관광농원 신설 운전자금으로 3억 3천만 원의 대출을 신청하였으며, 담보부동산은 경기 연천군 BI 토지로 Q(주)가 2순위(채권최고액 396,000,000원)의 근저당권을 설정하였고, 수익금은 연 15%이다."라고 대출투자상품을 광고하고, 같은 날 위 (주)Y 사무실에서 AN 직원인 피고인에게 위 Q(주) 제64호 대출투자상품의 대출차 주인 양 투자금을 피고인 명의로 Q(주)에 등록한 가상계좌로 지급받아 달라고 부탁하고, 피고인은 이를 승낙하였다.

However, in fact, B, etc. used P2P financial products electronic payment settlement system of P2P financial products as P2P, not BH as above, but as the Defendant registered with the Defendant to receive the above loan investment instead of the above loan loan, and it was thought that BH did not actually request the loan. Since loan investment products already offered were products with no loan lender, it is not possible to operate so-called so-called 'dominated' due to using the loan funds newly offered as the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan funds. Some of the funds were thought to be used as the incentive fund of loan products (the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second below), and the Defendant was aware that P2P financial products’ electronic payment system, the Defendant’s deposit in the name of the Plaintiff’s account through the procedure, the procedure, and the request procedure, the account transfer by the investor’s account.

Nevertheless, the Defendant sent a password notified to the above company bank account under the name of the Defendant, which is a virtual bank account registered in Q, after receiving the letter of request for withdrawal of S2P financial instruments, both P2P financial instruments, as the borrower of the above loan, so that B could be attributed to the Defendant’s above company bank account by deceiving the victim BJ and receiving five million won from the victim BJ as the loan fund No. 64 of QJ No. 64, and aiding and abetting Q. 200,000 won can be paid to the above company bank account and deducted it, and as a result, aiding and abetting Q. 40,00 won can be deducted from the above funds under the name of the victims such as transfer of the above funds to the account in the name of the victims immediately used by Q.

5. Defendant I’s fraudulent assistance

(a) (Week-related fraud prevention;

(A)Y’s operators B and A, around May 3, 2018, registered the Investment Products, “P2P borrower” on (P27) PY website, and “PP borrower (P27)BK will take over goods at a low price through a total market and supply them at a large scale. The borrower has applied for loans of KRW 320,000,000 to a company operating fund. The borrower has applied for loans of KRW 320,000,00,000 to the company, and the guarantee will cover all raw materials and products that will be sold in the future, and will guarantee annual revenues of 18%.” On the same day, at the office of P27, the Defendant has requested the Defendant to pay the loan funds to both P2P borrower’s employees under the name of the Defendant and the Defendant has agreed to do so.

However, in fact, B et al. used P2P financial products electronic payment settlement system of P27 as S2P financial products, not BK, but the Defendant registered with the Defendant to get the Defendant to substitute for the above loan funds, and there was no thought that BK actually requested the loan. Since the loan investment products already offered did not exist, it is inevitable to operate so-called 'dominative' due to the fact that B et al. were used to repay the principal and interest of the loan funds of the loan funds. Some of the funds were considered to have been used as the fund for inducing the investment of the loan funds (the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second, the Defendant was aware that B2P financial products electronic payment system was the member account of BY, the member account transfer procedure, and the account transfer was made in the name of the investor in the name of BY account.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received the letter of request for withdrawal of SP 2P financial products from SY’s electronic payment system, and responded to the password notified to BL account in the name of the Defendant, a virtual bank account registered in P2P financial products, and made B to be deducted from the Defendant’s above corporate bank account through the SY system so that B could be charged with the Defendant’s above corporate bank account by deceiving the victim’s BM, and then its employees received KRW 5 million from the victim’s BM under the name of loan No. 127, Y127, and she can receive KRW 172,80,000 from the above corporate bank account under the name of the victim’s loan Y and receive KRW 200,000,000 from the victim’s bank account, and she can receive KRW 172,80,000,000 from the victim’s bank account under the name of BB immediately use the above money.

(b) Fraudulent assistance related to Qua;

Around April 24, 2018, Q’s operator B, C, D, and planning office: (a) registered investment products, “The Specialized in Real Estate Development Business in Pu (39)”, “BN is a real estate development company that owns a large number of land in the Seoul metropolitan area and small and medium cities; (b) applied for a loan of KRW 420,000,000 for a loan of KRW 420,000,000 for purchasing new real estate in Pu BO region; and (c) advertised loaned investment products, “The collateral is the real estate located in Gyeonggi-si BP; and (d) on the same day, the Defendant, who is an employee of Pu (P) office, requested the Defendant, who is the employee of Pu (P) 39, to pay the two investments, a borrower of loaned investment products, as a virtual account registered in Q (State) under the name of the Defendant.” (c) The Defendant consented to this.

However, in fact, B, etc. was considered to use P2P financial products electronic payment settlement system of P2P financial products as P2P lending funds (the “BN”), not as seen above, but as the Defendant registered with the Defendant to get the Defendant to substitute for the above lending funds, and there was no actual (State) BN requested the lending of funds. Since loan investment funds already offered did not exist, it was inevitable to operate so-called 'domination' because it was used to repay the principal and interest of the loan funds of the loan funds. Some of the funds were considered to have been used as the fund for inducing investment funds of the lending products. The Defendant was aware of the fact that B, the electronic payment system of P2P financial products, was the member account of B, and the account transfer was made in the name of the Defendant, the account transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff, and the account transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff’s account, the account transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff’s account.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, after receiving the letter of request for withdrawal of S2P financial instruments from P2P lending business operators, received the letter of request for withdrawal of S2P financial instruments, and sent a password notified to Q Q (State) BR account under the Defendant’s name, which is a virtual bank BR account, so that B may be attributed to the Defendant’s aforementioned corporate bank account to deduct the investment money deposited by the investors from the Defendant’s above corporate bank account through the St, thereby inducing BS from deceiving the victim’s above corporate bank account, and then, he received KRW 2 million from the victim’s BS to the above corporate bank account as the loan financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing financing No. 39, Q2P financial instruments, and aiding and abetting B from receiving KRW 213,60,000,00 from the above corporate bank account, and aiding and abetting B’s funds to be transferred from BB and Q Q to the account under the name of B, No. 3605, May 29, 2018 (No. 364).

6. Defendant G’s fraudulent aiding and abetting

(a) (Week-related fraud prevention;

( state)Y’s operators B, A, around May 3, 2018, registered an investment product of No. 126 of the Oil Security Enterprise Operation Fund (P26) on the PY website, and “BT owners are taking advantage of BU national highways and supplying a large quantity of oil to facilities, such as golf, leisure, and camping. The borrower applied for a loan of KRW 130,00,000 with the operating capital of the company. The borrower applied for a loan of KRW 130,000,000 with the operating capital of the company, and the collateral is a comprehensive collateral, including oil that will be sold in the future, and will guarantee the profits of 18% per annum.” On the same day, at the P2P lending Office, the Defendant, who is an employee of the P26 P26, who is an employee of the P26 P26, who is the borrower of the loaned investment product, requested the Defendant to pay both investment funds registered in the name of the Defendant.

However, in fact, B, etc. was considered to use P2P financial products electronic payment settlement system of P26 as P2P financial products, not as BT owners, but as BT owners registered the Defendant to substitute for the above loan funds, and it was thought that BT owners did not actually requested the loan. Since BT owners did not have any existing loan funds, it was not possible to operate so-called so-called 'probl' due to the use of the loan funds newly recruited as the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan funds. Some of the funds were thought to have been used as the fund for inducing investment funds of the loan products. The Defendant did not have the intent or ability to return the investment profits and investment funds to investors. The Defendant was aware of the fact that BY’s electronic payment system of P2P financial products was the member account, the procedure, and the procedure, the member account transfer of BY’s account under the name of the Plaintiff, which was registered in BY’s account, and the account transfer was made in the name of the said investor’s account.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received the letter of request for withdrawal from SV Bank account in the name of the Defendant, a virtual bank BW account in the name of the Defendant, the virtual bank account registered in P2P financial products, and responded to the password notified in BV Bank account in the name of the Defendant, which is the virtual bank account registered in P2P financial products, so that B could be attributed to the Defendant’s aforementioned BV bank account by inducing BM to deduct the investment money deposited by the investors from the Defendant’s above BV bank account through the SV bank account. As such, B induces the victim’s BM and then its employees received KRW 5 million from the victim’s BM under the name of loan 126 No. 126, Y No. 126, and aids and abets BV bank virtual bank account to receive KRW 86,80,000 from the victims under the name of loan 126, and 200,000,000 won under the name of the above B, and 80,006).

(b) Fraudulent assistance related to Qua;

Around April 24, 2018, Q (State) operators B, A, C, D, and C have registered an investment product of "PP 38 if QB BX, the head of the planning office registered the investment product of "PP 38" on Q (State) website, and "PY BY is a company specialized in distribution if it is a subsidiary, Incheon, or optical retail distributor, or a small and medium marina, that is supplied to a subsidiary, Incheon, or optical retail distributor. The borrower applied for a loan of KRW 300 million with the funds for business operation for expanding distribution networks and purchasing additional goods. The borrower applied for a loan of KRW 30 million with the funds for business operation for expanding distribution networks and purchasing additional goods. The proceeds are 17% per annum." On the same day, the borrower advertiseds the borrowed investment product from PY office to the Defendant, who is an employee of PP 38, in the name of the Defendant, and requested the Defendant to pay the funds to Q Q (State) in the name of the Defendant.

However, in fact, B, etc. used P2P financial products as the E-Payment and Settlement System of P2P financial products in S. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. B, not BY, but the Defendant registered the Defendant to receive the loan instead of the above loan, and then was thought to be exempted from the loan. In fact, BY did not have requested the loan. Since the loan investment product previously recruited was a product with no loan lender, it is not possible to operate so-called so-called 'def.i.e., using the loan fund newly recruited as the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. Some of the funds were thought to be used as the so-called "ref.i., using the loan fund in the name of the investor in the name of P. P. P. P. P. P. financial product B. B.’s electronic payment system, and the Defendant was aware that the account was used by the investor’s account B and B’s account transfer.

그런데도 피고인은 마치 위 대출투자상품의 대출차주인 양 P2P 금융상품의 전자지급결제시스템인 세이퍼트의 출금요청문자를 받고 Q(주)에 등록한 가상계좌인 피고인 명의의 위 BV은행 계좌로 통보된 비밀번호를 회신해주어 B로 하여금 세이퍼트시스템을 통해 투자자들이 입금한 투자금을 피고인의 위 BV은행 계좌로 빼돌릴 수 있게 해주어 위와 같이 B가 피해자 BZ를 기망하여 이에 속은 피해자 BZ로부터 Q㈜ 제38호 대출투자금 명목으로 100만 원을 입금받는 등 위 BV은행 계좌에 Q(주) 제38호 대출투자금 명목으로 합계금 139,300,000원을 입금받아 이를 빼돌릴 수 있게 하고 수고비 명목으로 20만 원을 챙긴 다음 위 돈을 즉시 B가 사용하는 BB 명의의 계좌로 이체해주어 B 등의 사기 범행을 도와주는 등 별지 Q(주) 범죄일람표 (8) 기재와 같이 B 등이 Q㈜ 제38호 대출상품과 관련하여 피해자들로부터 투자금 명목으로 합계금 139,300,000원을 편취하는 것을 방조하였다.

7. Defendant J’s fraudulent assistance

(a) (Week-related fraud prevention;

( state)Y’s operators B and A, around May 10, 2018, on the homepage of the StateY homepage, registered an investment product “The restaurant No. 133 is a delivery-specialized enterprise operation fund intermediary,” and “The Loan Borrower (PCA) renders food materials to the restaurant, such as Lo, food villages, and expanding the business network. The Borrower requested loan of KRW 350,00,000 with the business operation fund, and the borrower requested the loan of KRW 350,000 with the loan of KRW 350,000,000 with the business operation fund, and the guarantee of 18% per annum, including the goods that will be sold in the future.” On the same day, the Defendant, a management employee of B water-related leisure enterprise A Q in the Water-Related Leisure Business in the PY office, who is the management employee of B, received the loan of KRW 133 in the name of the Defendant, and requested the Defendant to pay the loan funds in the name of the borrower.

However, in fact, B, etc. was thought to use P2P financial products as an electronic payment settlement system of P2P financial products, not a State CA, but a defendant registered with the defendant to get the loan borrower to substitute for the above loan funds, and there was no actual CA's request for the loan funds. Since loan investment products already offered did not exist, it is not possible to operate so-called so-called â€˜probl' due to the fact that the loan funds newly offered were used for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan funds, and some funds were thought to have no intent or ability to return the investment profits and investment funds to investors. The defendant was aware that P2P financial products were transferred to B, the electronic payment system of P2P financial products, under the name of the defendant, B, and B, the account transfer funds was made in the name of the investor and B, and the account transfer was made in the name of the investor in the name of B, B, and B, and B, the account transfer was made in the name of the investor.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received the letter of request for withdrawal from SV Bank account in the name of the Defendant, a virtual bank account registered in BV Bank account in the name of BV Bank account in the name of the Defendant, and responded to the password notified in BV Bank account in the name of the Defendant, a virtual bank account registered in BY, so that B could be attributed to the Defendant’s above BV bank account by inducing B to deduct the amount of investment deposited by the investors from the Defendant’s above BV bank account through the SV bank account. As such, B induces the victim’s LA T and caused it to be deposited in the above BV bank account in the form of loan financing No. 133, Y No. 133, which received KRW 251,00,000 from the victim’s LY bank account, and aided and abetting the victims to receive KRW 10,000 from the victim’s loan financing account in the name of Y bank account in the name of BB bank account in the name of the above immediate use.

(b) Fraudulent assistance related to Qua;

Around May 28, 2018, Q (State)’s operators B, C, D, and planning office: (a) registered an investment product “The restaurant No. 68 - Second Real Estate Security” on Q’s website; (b) requested loan of KRW 300 million to a agricultural company, which is a loan owner’s agricultural company; (c) the security was set up from Q Q to Q to Q to guarantee profits of KRW 30,000 per annum; and (d) on the same day, the loan investment product was advertised to the Defendant, who is a management employee of Q Q in B’s water-related leisure business at Q-Y office, to pay the loan of KRW 30,000 with the loan of KRW 30,000 per annum; and (d) requested the Defendant to grant the loan of KRW 68 in the name of the Defendant.

However, in fact, B, etc. used P2P financial products electronic payment settlement system as S2P financial products, not CDs as above, but as Defendant registered with Defendant to receive the above loan on behalf of Defendant, and then did not actually request CDs to provide loan. Since loan investment products already recruited were products with no loan lender, it is not so-called so-called 'combrupt' due to the use of investment funds newly recruited to repay the principal and interest of existing loan investment funds. Some funds were thought to be used as the so-called 'comrupt' fund inducement fund of loan products (the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second). The Defendant was aware of the fact that P2P financial products’ electronic payment system, the member subscription procedure, and the cash transfer account was made in the name of Defendant P2P financial products’s account under the name of investors and investors' account transfer account.

Nevertheless, the Defendant sent a password notified to the above BV bank account under the name of the Defendant, the virtual bank account registered in Q, after receiving the letter of request for withdrawal of S2P financial instruments, both P2P financial instruments, which are the borrower of the above loan investment, so that B could be attributed to the Defendant’s aforementioned BV bank account by inducing B to deduct the investment money deposited by the investors from the above BV bank account through the SV bank account under the name of the Defendant, which is the virtual bank account. As such, B deceiving the victim’s CF and then its affiliation was deposited KRW 5 million from the victim’s CF under the name of loans subparagraph 68 of Q Q (State) 68, which was deposited in the above BV bank account, and aids and abets BV bank account to receive KRW 72,00,000 from the victim’s CF to receive KRW 68,000,000 as a sum of the above funds, and aiding and abetting BV bank account to commit the crime, such as transfer of the above money to the account in the name of the victims immediately used B.

8. Defendant K’s fraudulent aiding and abetting

(a) (Week-related fraud prevention;

(A)Y’s operators B, A, around May 1, 2018, registered an investment product of KRW 123 as the brand household-backed crowdfunding on (OEM) PY website. On the same day, AH, a borrower, was established August 2014, and is engaged in large-scale sales to AI associations and is responsible for adequate profits and inventory management. A borrower, a company that manufactures and distributes household products, requested loans of KRW 550,00,000 with corporate operating funds, secured households worth KRW 2,424,235,80 with loans as security. Loans are scheduled to be paid in a lump sum within two months, and annually guaranteed 18% annual profits. On the same day, the Defendant agreed to provide loans in the name of PY’s office to the Defendant and agreed to the loan account of KRW 123,230,00 with the loan account of KRW 550,000 with the loan of KRW 2,424,800.

However, in fact, the P2P financial product electronic payment system of S2P financial product was used as P2P financial product electronic payment system, not as AH, but as a loan borrower registered with the Defendant, and it was thought that the Defendant was to be exempted from the investment of the above loan product, and there was no actual request from AH for the loan. Since the loan investment product that was previously recruited was also a product with no loan borrower, it is not possible to operate so-called so-called 'do-called' due to using the investment fund newly recruited as the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan product. Some of the funds were thought to be used as the loan inducement fund of the loan product (the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second below), and the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to return the investment profit and investment fund to the investors. The Defendant was a member member account, the request procedure of BY’s electronic payment system of P2P financial product, and the investor’s money deposit account.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received the letter of request for withdrawal of Sypt, which is an electronic payment system for both P2P financial products, the borrower of the above loan, and responded to the password notified to the AR Bank AS account in the name of the Defendant, the virtual account registered with Y, so that B may be charged with the investment money deposited by the investors through the Sypt system to the above AR Bank account. As above, B induces the victim's LAT and caused it to be charged with the above AR Bank account, and then it shall be charged with the victim's loan of KRW 5 million from the victim's LAT to the above AR Bank account, such as receiving KRW 402,200,000 from the victim's loan of KRW 123 as the loan of No. 123, Y2,00,000 from May 2, 2018, and aiding and abetting the above AR Bank account with the victim's loan of KRW 120,200,000 from May 2, 2018.

(b) Fraudulent assistance related to Qua;

Around May 9, 2018, Q (State)’s operators B, C, D, and planning office: (a) registered an investment product of Q Q (State) on the website, “The head of Q (State) applied for a loan of KRW 340,000,000,000 for operating funds, as a specialized distribution company for food materials of KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00).

However, in fact, B, etc. was considered to use P2P financial instruments electronic payment system for S2P financial instruments such as ScG, not as advertising as above, but as the Defendant registered with the Defendant, and there was no thought that it would have been deducted, and in fact, CG was requested to lend money. Since loan investment products already offered did not exist, it was not possible to operate so-called so-called 'probl' because it was used to repay the principal and interest of the loan of the loan products. Some of the funds were thought to have been used as the fund for inducing investment of the loan products (the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second). The Defendant did not have any intent or ability to return investment profits and investment money to investors. The Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s electronic payment system of P2P financial products, through the membership procedure, and the request procedure for withdrawal, and the Defendant’s deposit in the account of BY and the Defendant’s account.

Nevertheless, the Defendant sent a password notified to the above AR bank account under the name of the Defendant, a virtual bank account registered in Q (State) after receiving the letter of request for withdrawal of S2P financial instruments, both P2P financial instruments, the borrower of the above loan and assisted the Defendant by deceiving B, etc. to deduct the investment money deposited by the investors from the Defendant’s above AR bank account through the SDR system, thereby inducing B, etc. to induce the victim’s CH and pay KRW 5 million from the victim’s CH as the loan investment money in Q Q (State) No. 52, and aiding and abetting B, etc., by receiving KRW 242,100,00 from the above AR bank’s virtual account as a sum of the loan investment money in Q 52, such as Q2, 52, and aiding and abetting B, etc. to commit fraud by deceiving B, etc., as described in the attached Form QP (18) list of crimes committed.

9. Alteration of official documents and the uttering of altered official documents by Defendants B and D;

A. At the end of May 2018, the Defendants conspired and failed to secure the collateral for the loans from Q Q(51) office, but without authority to exercise the right to collateral in Q(s)’s name, (i) and (ii) had employees CI enter into a computer with a complete certificate of the registered matters of the 'Y' issued in advance by Hongcheon-gun CJ of Gangwon-do and stored it in the computer, and (ii) exercised the certificate on the website by using the Sslock file for the original registration purpose column of the above Slock file, (iii) using the Slock’s program, using the Slock’s program, using the part of the 1,200,000,000 won of the maximum amount of the credit, and (iv) the part of the "Slcheon-gun corporation, Q(S) corporation, a public document, as if the registered matters were modified, and (iv) exercised the entire certificate on the website.

B. At the end of May 2018, the Defendants conspired to secure the collateral of Q from the loan goods under subparagraphs 61 and 62 of Q, but they failed to secure the collateral of the loan goods under the name of Q (the right to collateral security) without authority, stored a complete certificate of the registry issued in advance by the above CI with the aim of exercising the right to collateral security in Q (the right to collateral security) in the computer, and then exercised the certificate as if the registration was duly formed on the website of the above CK by using the Pototool program, using the Potool program, "re creation of neighboring mortgage" in the column for the purpose of registration, "right to collateral security", and "right to collateral security (the right to collateral security)" in the column for registration of the above Spotool file.

[2019 Highest 559]

Defendant C operated Q(State), a P2P lending business entity, from the O, P, and AM in Manyang-dong-gu, Manyang-si, Manyang-si, and P2P lending business entity, and Defendant B operated P2P lending business entity from the same Gu AB and AC.

Defendant C, who had been operating the above Q from January 2018, experienced difficulties in attracting investors in the investment products he planned, and around March 2018, Defendant C decided to jointly carry out the business with Defendant B, the operator of the P2P lending platform, who was highly aware of the industry, as the operator of the P2P lending platform. In addition, Defendant C advertised advertised as if it was a subsidiary of the KW Co., Ltd., and operated Q Q with Defendant B. After advertising as if it was a subsidiary of the KW Co., Ltd., Defendant C was in charge of accounting and fund management, customer counseling, and Defendant B was in charge of the business of collecting loans and planning goods.

On the other hand, "P2P loan" means a loan that is operated in the way of distributing profits to investors if the borrower pays the principal and interest of the loan to the applicant by examining the scale of the business concerned, secured collateral, scheduled repayment schedule, return rate, etc. after receiving an application for the loan from the person who needs business funds through a P2P platform without going through a financial institution such as a bank, etc.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

around April 23, 2018, Defendants conspired to register the investment goods of Q Q (S) from the above Q (main office) website, and secure food materials from loans of KRW 310,000,00 from Q (S). “A borrower-based LAL was established in 2014, which is a company specializing in handling and distributing food materials and food, Chinese food-based food-based food-based food-based food-based food-based food-based food-based food-based business, and large-scale food-based business companies related to each country.” The borrower requested loans of KRW 310,000,000 for business operation funds, such as the purchase of food materials, and Q (State) secured the loans of KRW 17% as advertising funds.”

However, in fact, there was no borrower who applied for a loan such as the above contents of the advertisement, and there was no collateral, and the Defendants thought that they will receive investments from investors and use them as repayment of the principal and interest of investments in loan products that have been previously recruited (tentatively referred to as â€˜defluence') or as financing for investment in additional loan products (tentatively referred to as â€˜refluence'), and even if they receive investments from investors, they did not have the intent or ability to lend it to the borrower, such as advertising, and receive the principal and interest of the loan and guarantee the profits of 17% per annum to investors.

Nevertheless, the Defendants received KRW 5,00,000,000 from the victim’s CM, by deceiving and communicating the said advertisement on the same day, as investment money, and from around that time to May 25, 2018, the Defendants received KRW 34,00,000, in total, from four victims as indicated in the following crime list 1, in a similar manner, for nine times as follows:

As a result, the defendants conspired to acquire the victims' property by fraud.

List of Offenses 1

A person shall be appointed.

2. Defendant B’s sole crime

On May 1, 2018, the Defendant, at the above (T)Y office’s website (T), advertised loaned goods to the effect that “AH, the borrower of No. 123, was established in August 2014, which is an enterprise manufacturing and distributing household products, is engaged in large-scale sales to an AI association and manages adequate profits and inventory. The borrower requested a loan of KRW 550,00,000 with company operating funds. The borrower secured the furniture amounting to KRW 2,424,235,80 with company operating funds, which is worth KRW 2,424,235,80 as security. The loans are expected to be repaid in a lump sum within two months and will guarantee annual profits of KRW 18%.”

However, there was no borrower who applied for a loan, such as the above content of the advertisement, and there was no collateral for this, and the defendant merely thought that the borrower received an investment from investors and used it as repayment of the principal and interest of the loan, or investment in additional loan products (tentatively referred to as "refluence"), and even if he received an investment from investors, he did not have the intent or ability to lend it to the borrower and receive the principal and interest of the loan and to guarantee the profits of 18% per annum for the investors.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 5,000,000 from the Victim CN, who had concealed and contacted the said advertisement on the same day, as investment money, from around that time to May 31, 2018, and acquired KRW 107,00,000 in total as investment money from 11 victims in a similar way over 30 times as indicated in the following crime sight table 2.

List of Offenses 2

A person shall be appointed.

[2019 Highest 732]

The defendant L is the head of the registration team of the law firm located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who is a person introduced as a legal adviser in charge of (ju)Y's legal and judicial affairs as the head of the registration team of the law firm located in Gangnam-gu.

(1)B, around May 9, 2018,Y operator B, A, registered an investment product of No. 132, “No. 132, construction of warehouse for manufacturing industrial machinery” on the homepage of the JejuY website, and DB requested loan of KRW 380,000 to the neighboring system-based creative enterprise, manufacturer of industrial machinery, etc. as scheduled to lease on the land under individual location conditions. The secured real estate was set up KRW 456,000,000 per annum from DC at Yangju-si, with the maximum amount of 18% per annum.” On the same day, DA’s registration team at Y office, who was in charge of the registration at Y office, requested the Defendant to pay the loan of KRW 132,00,00 in the name of the Defendant, with the loan of KRW 132,000,000,000 per annum.

However, in fact, B, etc. did not want to use P2P financial products as the E-Payment and settlement system of P2P financial products, but rather registered Defendant L with Defendant L to get the loan borrower to substitute for the above loan, and in fact DB did not request the loan. Since loan investment products already offered were non-existent, it is not possible to operate so-called so-called 'confunciated' because it was used to repay the principal and interest of the loan of the loan. Some of the funds were thought to have no intent or ability to return investment profits and investment money to investors. Defendant L was aware of the fact that B, a payment and settlement system of P2P financial products, and the account transfer was made under the name of Defendant B, which was registered in BY’s name through B, B, and B, the account transfer was made under the name of investors and B, and the account transfer was made under the name of investors.

Nevertheless, Defendant L, upon receipt of the letter of request for withdrawal of S2P financial instruments from SV bank account under the name of the Defendant, which is the virtual account registered in P2P financial instruments, the borrower of the above loan and answer to the password notified by DV bank account under the name of the Defendant, which is the virtual account registered in PY, so that B could be released from the Defendant’s investment funds deposited by the investors through the SV bank account through the SV bank system, and as above, Defendant L deceiving B from the victim’s (State) to the Defendant’s (State) bank account and then its member received KRW 5 million from the victim’s (State) bank account under the name of 132 as the loan investment funds of Y No. 132, 126,600,000, which can be deducted from the sum of the above funds, and aiding and abetting the victims to acquire the above funds under the name of BB bank account under the name of BB, as shown in attached Form 160(60).

[2019 Highest88]

Defendant C operated Q(State) as a P2P lending business entity from the O, P, and AM in Man-dong-dong-dong-gu, Gyeonggi-do. Defendant C is a person who operated P2P lending business, and Defendant B is a person who operated P2P lending business from the former AB and AC.

Defendant C, who had been operating the above Q from January 2018, experienced difficulties in attracting investors in investment planning products, and around March 2018, Defendant C decided to jointly carry out the business with Defendant B, who had a high recognition of the business industry as a P2P lending platform company.

After that, Defendant C advertised advertised as if it was a subsidiary company of Y, and operated Q with Defendant B in charge of accounting and fund management, customer consultation, etc., and Defendant B in charge of lending products solicitation and product planning.

On the other hand, "P2P loan" means a loan that is operated in a way that the borrower distributes the loan to investors if the borrower pays the principal and interest of the loan to a large number of unspecified investors by examining the scale of the business, secured security, scheduled repayment schedule, return on investment, etc. after receiving an application for the loan from the person in need of the business fund through a P2P platform without going through a financial institution such as a bank.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

피고인들은 공모하여, 2018. 4. 18.경 위 Q(주) 사무실에서 회사 인터넷 홈페이지(S)에 『제31호, 식자재 담보 기업운영자금 펀딩』이라는 투자 상품을 등록하면서, '차주인 BA은 2016년 6월에 설립되었으며, 식자재를 전문적으로 유통하는 기업으로, 다품목 대량 매입을 통해 다양한 가공 상품을 취급하여 소매 납품은 물론 2차 도매 또는 식자재 업체 그리고 점포 등에 납품하는 건실한 기업이다. 차주는 기업운영자금으로 3억 5,000만 원의 대출을 의뢰하였으며, Q㈜에서는 차주가 확보한 식자재 등으로 담보를 확보하였다. 대출금은 2개월 내 일시 상환할 예정이고 연 17%의 수익을 보장하겠다.'라는 내용의 대출투자 상품을 광고하였다.

However, in fact, there was no borrower who applied for a loan such as the above advertising contents at the time, and there was no collateral for this, and the Defendants thought that they would receive investments from investors and use them as repayment of the principal and interest of investments in loan products that have been previously recruited (tentatively named) or as financing for investment in additional loan products (tentatively named 'revolving loan'), and even if they receive investments from investors, they did not have the intent or ability to lend them to the borrower as advertising contents and to guarantee profits to the investors by receiving the principal and interest of the loan.

The Defendants received KRW 1,00,000 from the victim DF to May 31, 2018, including remittance of KRW 1,000,000 from the victim DF for the same day as investment money. From around that time to around May 31, 2018, the Defendants received total sum of KRW 95,00,000 in the name of investment money from the victims in a similar way similar to that of the victims in a total of 35 times, such as the list of crimes in attached Form (2019,

2. Defendant B’s sole criminal conduct

On May 2, 2018, the Defendant registered a company’s Internet homepage (T) product “OEM-based household-backed crowdfunding 2nd” on the company’s website (T) office. AH, a borrower, was established in August 2014, and is engaged in large-scale sales to an AI association and manages adequate profits and inventory. A borrower requested a loan of KRW 450,00,000 with the company’s operating capital, and secured a household of KRW 2,424,235,80 with the amount of KRW 2,480 with the company’s loans as security. Loans are scheduled to be repaid in lump sum within two months, and annual profits will be guaranteed by 18%.”

However, at the time of the above advertisement, there was no borrower who applied for a loan such as the above advertisement, and there was no security thereafter, and the defendant thought that the defendant would receive an investment from investors and use it as repayment of the principal and interest of the loan and the interest of the investment for the loan and the investment for the additional loan and the funds for the inducement of the investment for the loan and the additional loan. Even if the investor received an investment from the investor, the borrower did not have the intent or ability to lend it to the borrower as advertised and receive the principal and interest of the loan and to guarantee the profits for the investors.

The Defendant received KRW 5,00,000 from the victim DG to May 31, 2018 for the same day as investment money, and acquired KRW 75,00,000 in total from the victims in a similar way, such as the list of crimes (2019,No.888) (2) from around that time to around May 31, 2018.

[2019 Highest 1542]

Defendant C, while running the above Q from January 2018, experienced difficulties in attracting investors in investment planning goods, and around March 2018, Defendant C decided to jointly carry out the business with Defendant B, which had a high recognition of the industry as a P2P lending platform. After that, Defendant C advertised as if Defendant C was a subsidiary of Defendant CY and operated Q Q with Defendant B, it was in charge of accounting and fund management, customer counseling, and product planning.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

On April 26, 2018, the Defendants conspired to register the investment goods called "No. 41" and "No. 41" and "No. 17% per annum" on the company's Internet homepage (S) and registered the investment goods of "No. 41" and "No. 41" and "No. 2" with "No. 180 million won per annum" and "No. 17% per annum." The Borrower requested loan of 180 million won with the purchase fund for new real estate development in Pyeongtaek-si area, and in Q, the Borrower secured a collateral by establishing a second-order collateral security interest with the maximum debt amount of the real estate in the Gyeonggi-si area owned by the borrower. The loans are expected to be temporarily repaid within two months and are expected to guarantee profits of 17% per annum."

The Defendants received remittance of KRW 5,00,000 from the victim DH for the same day as investment money, and received KRW 15,000,000 from around that time to May 4, 2018 by means similar to those indicated in Table 1, and acquired the money from the victims in a total of three times as indicated in Table 1.

List of Offenses 1

A person shall be appointed.

2. Defendant B’s sole criminal conduct

On May 3, 2018, the Defendant registered an investment product called "No. 127 and No. 127 and No. 127 of the Do and retail retail distribution company's new crowdfunding" on the company's Internet homepage (T) office, and (BK, the borrower, was established in November 2014, took over goods at a low price through a total market, provides middle- and small-sized company-oriented supply, and secure stable profits through continuous supply. The borrower requested a loan of KRW 320,00,000 with the company's operating fund, and the collateral is a comprehensive security including raw materials and products that come into existence with the borrower in the future. The loan is expected to be paid in lump sum within three months, and it is expected to guarantee annual profits of 18%."

However, at the time of the above advertisement, there was no borrower who applied for a loan such as the above advertisement, and there was no collateral for this, and the defendant thought that the defendant received an investment from investors and used it as repayment of the principal and interest of the loan and the investment in the additional loan products (tentatively called â€˜refluence') or as the fund for attracting investment in the additional loan products (tentatively â€˜refluence'), and even if the investor received an investment from the investor, the borrower did not have the intent or ability to lend it to the borrower and receive the principal and interest of the loan.

The Defendant received KRW 5,00,000 from the victim DH for the same day as investment money, and received KRW 20,000,000 from around that time to May 4, 2018 by means similar to those indicated in Table 2 as follows: (a) from around 2018, the Defendant acquired money from the victims by means of a total of 4 times as indicated in Table 2.

List of Offenses 2

A person shall be appointed.

[2019 Highest 1707]

Defendant B is an operator of P2P lending business in Man-dong-dong-dong-si and P2P lending business in Man-dong-gu in Manyang-si and P2P lending business, and a joint operator of Q (P2P lending business in Man-dong-dong-gu in Manyang-si in Manyang-si, Yangyang-si, who is a joint operator of Q (P2P lending business).

On March 13, 2018, Defendant B entered into an investment agreement with the victim DL in the aforesaid KY office, stating that “When investing operating capital in the AO, it will give a monthly dividend, and after one year, it will convert it into the investment amount as principal repayment or as desired.”

However, even if the defendant received the above 200 million won investment money, he did not intend to use it as the operating fund of the 'AO' which was promised. At that time, the defendant thought that the defendant would have used it as the operating fund of the KY and DM, and the fund for inducing the above Y's fraudulent loan (tentatively short-term loan), Y was expected to go bankrupt as a fraudulent loan, and Y was not an intention or ability to return the principal and interest even if he received the investment money from the victim since 2017, such as the state of capital completion.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received money KRW 200 million from the victim to the DNA bank account in the name of the defendant on the same day and acquired it by deceit.

Summary of Evidence

[2018 Highest 1722]

1. Defendant B’s statement in the first trial record;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol for D, C, or E;

1. Each police officer's statement of DO;

1. Investigation report (the act of deception by each fund in JejuY & Q);

1. The amount of damage by product and the amount of damage by product;

1. Data from analysis of the accounts of YAB Bank and YD Bank accounts analysis data;

[2018 Highest 3030]

1. Defendant B’s statement in the fifth trial record;

1. Statement of the police concerning the Z;

1. The written statement of the Z;

1. Investigation reports (account analysis);

1. Details of transactions for entry and withdrawal;

[2018 Highest 3147]

1. Defendant B’s statement in the sixth trial record;

1. The police statement concerning AF;

1. Before Defendant B’s judgment: Criminal history records, etc. inquiry report (B), investigation report (the suspect’s previous record and confirmation);

[2019 Highest 24]

1. Defendant B’s statement in the sixth trial record;

1. Each police statement made to AJ and AG;

[2019 Highest 454]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B, C, F, and A;

1. Each legal statement of Defendant D, G, H, I, J, K, E, and L

1. Each legal statement of witness B, C, D, and F;

1. Examination protocol of police officer concerning CI (second time);

1. Each police statement of each police officer with respect to Q, DR, DS, DTS, DU, DV, DW, DX, DO, V, DY, N, EA, EB, EB, and EEC;

1. Each written complaint of the ED, EE, EF, EG, EH, EI, EJ, EK, EM, EM, EN, EPE, M, Q, Q, ETS, ETS, EU, ES, EV, W limited liability companies, EX, EZ, EZ, and FA;

1. A list of the complainants (O and 1,600 others) and complainants;

1. Report on investigation (as to the result of the relative investigation of the borrower);

1. Investigation reports (the details of payments of investments by each suspect), investigation reports (the details of loans by each suspect);

1. Investigation report (the act of deception by each fund in JejuY & Q);

1. An investigation report (suspect H data submission statement, etc. of account transactions);

1. Investigation report (as to the list of deposits in investment);

1. Investigation report (as to the flow of investment funds);

1. Investigation report (the details of the transfer of investment funds by suspects who commit fraud and the list of crimes);

1. Full certificate of the matters to be registered (51) and full certificate of the matters to be registered (61 and 62);

1. Details of transactions, such as a detailed statement of transactions (the inquiry of the details of transactions in Defendant F), details of transactions (the details of transactions in Defendant J), details of deposit and withdrawal transactions (the details of deposit and withdrawal transactions in Defendant G), details of deposit and withdrawal transactions (the details of deposit and withdrawal transactions in K), details of deposit and withdrawal transactions (the details of deposit and withdrawal transactions in the FB account in the operation of Defendant A), details of financial transactions (the details of financial transactions in Defendant I), and details of AW bank transactions;

1. A previous conviction in the judgment of Defendant J: A criminal investigation report (a criminal record by a suspect B, J, a person whose term of punishment has expired, a person who has served a previous conviction, and a written verdict attached);

[2019 Highest 559]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B and C

1. Statement of the police with respect to the CR;

1. A report on investigation (Attachment of principal and interest right, etc.) and a right to receive principal and interest;

[2019 Highest 732]

1. Partial statement of Defendant L's L

1. Some statements in the suspect examination protocol of Defendant L by the prosecution

1. Some statements in the police statement concerning B;

1. Investigation report (as to the flow of investment funds);

[2019 Highest88]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B and C

1. Statement by the police concerning DG;

1. A complaint;

1. Details of investment in goods by complainants (the details of account transactions, certificates of receiving principal and interest, etc.);

[2019 Highest 1542]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B and C

1. The police statement of DH;

1. A complaint filed and a statement of damage attached thereto;

[2019 Highest 1707]

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Each police statement of the DL and FC;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant B: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of single fraud), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of joint fraud), Articles 225 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of alteration of official document), Articles 229, 225, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of uttering of altered official document) of each Criminal Act

Defendant C: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant D: Articles 347(1) and 30 (Fraud) of the Criminal Act; Articles 225 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 229, 225, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 229, 225, and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of exercising altered official documents)

Defendant E: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant F, G, H, I, J, K, and L: Articles 347(1) and 32(1) of each Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, A, H, I, K, and L: Determination of each imprisonment

Defendant J: Selection of each fine (see the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant B: Article 35 of the Criminal Act / [Crime of Fraud against Victim’s Z (2018 Highest 3030) and Fraud against Victim’s DL (2019 Highest 1707)]

1. Aid and mitigation;

Defendant F, G, H, I, K, and L: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

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

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant J: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant D, E, F, G, A, H, I, K, and L: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant D and A: each criminal law Article 62-2

1. Confiscation;

Defendant B, C, and A: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant J: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Orders for compensation and sentence of provisional execution;

Articles 25(1)1, 31(1), (2), and (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, and Article 32(1)2, 32(1)3, and (2) of the same Act [the part dismissed] [the defendant C is merely a part of the crime related to Q, and it is difficult to readily conclude that he/she was involved in deception of M, an applicant for compensation who suffered damage due to Y]

Judgment on Defendants’ assertion

1. The premise for the determination

A. A lending company that implements a loan related to a P2P investment platform that applies a P2P platform, which is an Internet platform, to investments between individuals and individuals, is obligated to provide investors with accurate information about the loan borrower’s business plan, loan, security, etc. In order to obtain investment from a large number of individual investors. If the lending company provides as if it were accurately confirmed information even without inducing investors to make a decision on whether to make an investment or not, it itself, if it did not clearly confirm the aforementioned information, it should be viewed as deception under the Criminal Act.

B. The above companies that act as a broker in P2P investment are sufficient to inform the investors of the exact contents of the loan and deliver and recover the collected investment funds to the borrower in good faith. The risks associated with failure to make an investment are in principle borne by the investors. As such, the above companies that act as a broker need not operate the loan on their own to develop the investment products or to make the larger profit.

C. Meanwhile, in the process of collecting and lending investments from investors, the P2P investment platform will allow the borrower to withdraw the funds by moving the funds to the virtual account of the P2P platform (P2P platform) if the investors make deposits into their virtual account, and then moving the funds to the virtual account of the lending company after moving the funds to the virtual account of the lending company. However, in order for the borrower to receive the funds actually transferred, the borrower shall be the same person as the nominal holder of the virtual account (DW police statement) and the actual account holder to receive the funds (DW statement). In that process, the borrower shall receive the password from the lending account and approve the transfer after certifying the loan by using the mobile phone of the lending company (the police statement of the DX).

As above, P2P investment platform receives an amount of money or a loan through a virtual account in order to accurately deliver the authenticity of the borrower and the loan. As such, the virtual account is a basic tool that guarantees the authenticity and reliability of the investor and the borrower. Therefore, even if the borrower borrowed his/her real name account and is not a borrower, it shall be deemed that the act of undermining the effectiveness of the virtual account constitutes an act of undermining the validity of the loan by withdrawing the loan by using various passwords, etc. available only for the borrower, even if the borrower was not a borrower.

2. Determination as to Defendant D and defense counsel’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

On May 18, 2018, which became aware of the fact that crowdfunding has been increased more than the loan amount of a loan borrower, there was no intention on the part of May 25, 2018 only 32 through 36 times in the crime sight table (2019No. 454) No. 27 and paragraph 28 of the attached Table of Crimes (2019No. 454) and the defendant's account that the goods of this case were not normal goods due to the deposit of loans into the defendant's account, and there was no intention on the remaining goods.

B. Determination

1) In full view of the following circumstances, the fact that the Defendant, in collusion with Defendant B, etc., acquired the investment money from the victims who are P2P investors can be sufficiently recognized.

① Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the date of solicitation of investments related to Q and Q are as of April 17, 2018, and at the time, Q and Q and Y were posted on March 2018 after they were falsely announced. However, prior to the crime List, it is not clear whether the borrower actually exists (part of the investment goods is not verified as collateral) (Evidence No. 199 through 205, 208, and 209, each investigation report No. 199 through 205, 209), and each of the investment goods in the crime list and most of the investment goods in the previous investment goods or the details of investment in the goods are false (part of the borrower is an employee).

② Since the Defendant stated that each of the invested goods was consulted with the borrower or confirmed mortgage property in the course of planning and posting them on the website, it is clear that each of the invested goods was involved in the examination of each of the invested goods. During the said examination process, the Defendant was fully aware that each of the invested goods was false and the loan borrower was not able to take part therein.

Considering the Defendant’s position as a general director of credit-general director, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had different knowledge of the falsity of the invested goods, the abnormal flow of the loan, even though the borrower did not actually engage in the process of posting false investment goods near one month, or that it was difficult to accept the Defendant’s belief that the relevant goods were true.

③ The Defendant stated to the effect that, in order to make a loan at an investigative agency, the Defendant created the investment goods and Defendant E was acting as an investigative agency. P2P investments are limited to the role of the borrower in proposing investment and the P2P investment platform operator. The Defendant’s statement itself can be seen that the process of soliciting investment in the P2P investment goods was abnormal. The Defendant was aware that the Defendant, who participated in the operation of the P2P investment platform, was aware that the repayment ability of the borrower, the security, the actual loan, and the interest rate thereon should be accurately notified to the victims. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s acceptance and operation of the P2P investment platform without raising any objection during the process of receiving the investment on the ground of false investment goods, and the acquisition of certain fees, etc. is not possible.

④ For example, in the product description on Qu (1) Crime List (SP 28), among the right to separate evidence records, a false investment product summary (the location of the gas station, location condition, operation scheme), redemption resources, stability of security, investor protection scheme, secured goods and field photographs, loan process (the appraisal of security in which the MOU is participating), but it seems that there is little fact corresponding to the facts. However, in the process of planning the above content and posting it on the website to attract investment, the fact that the content is false has already been known to the Defendant. Nevertheless, as long as inducing investment on the ground of investment product, the Defendant had the intent to acquire investors can be sufficiently recognized.

2) The Defendant’s assertion itself is difficult to accept in light of the fact that the Defendant, without any particular resistance, forged a certificate of registration of the establishment of a collateral security without confirming whether the establishment of a collateral security right was established or urged to create a collateral security to Defendant B. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant forged a certificate of registration of the establishment of a collateral security without any specific resistance to the purport that he would resolve the certificate of registration of the establishment of a collateral security right, he/she was immediately aware

Furthermore, in P2P investment, the establishment of a right to collateral security is made at the same time as the loan to a borrower after an investor made an investment. As such, it is not only only only part of the data to determine whether an investor made an investment, but also the accuracy of information about loan borrowers and investment information about investment goods is more important. Even if the Defendant continued to verify whether the right to collateral security has been established, if he/she is aware that the information on investment goods was provided to a false investor while he/she was engaged in the business by taking advantage of the other co-defendants’ deception,

3. Determination on Defendant E and the defense counsel’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant B’s instructions were followed and did not recognize Defendant B’s fraud.

B. Determination

The Defendant created and provided data on investment goods by processing false facts as seen earlier according to Defendant B’s instructions without any particular details other than the collateral provided by the Defendant, and without any particular consultation with the borrower. This ought to be deemed to take charge of creating false information on the goods to be provided by the operator of the P2P investment platform.

Any investor may expect that he/she will make a decision on investment in reliance on and investment in information (such as the details of business and the source of loan, etc. of each invested product listed on the website). Even though he/she knows such circumstance, he/she planning the false investment product in accordance with the instructions of Defendant B and preparing and providing data related thereto can sufficiently be seen as participating in the act of acquiring information by fraud of Defendant B

4. Determination as to the assertion of Defendant G, H, I, J, K, L, and each defense counsel

A. Summary of the assertion

Since Defendant B was unaware of the fact that Defendant B advertised false loan products and received investment funds and used them as investment funds, there was no intention to commit fraud.

B. Determination

1) An act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to direct and indirect acts that facilitate the commission of a principal offender while knowing the fact that the principal offender is committing a crime. As such, an act of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the principal offender is an act that constitutes a constituent element. However, such an intentional act is an in-depth fact, and thus, if the principal offender denies it, it is bound to prove indirect facts that have considerable relevance to the principal offender in light of the nature of the object. In this context, there is no other way to reasonably determine the connection of the fact by using an in-depth observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule, and it is sufficient that the principal offender’s intent in aiding and abetting and abetting is not required to reasonably recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate dolusent perception or prediction (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005).

2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances that can be recognized based on evidence duly admitted and investigated, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants either knew that Defendant B instructed or asked to withdraw the amount in an unlawful manner, or at least dolusent awareness or foreseeablely committed the same act as the criminal act in the judgment, and that such act may be sufficiently determined under the Criminal Act.

① The Defendants did not intend to make an investment in goods or receive a loan, and there was no reason for them to make IDs or virtual accounts on the P2P investment platform or to verify actual names. Nevertheless, in response to Defendant B’s instruction or request, the Defendants created their virtual accounts on the P2P investment platform and transferred the loan to Defendant B’s actual account through the complex process as seen earlier, and then transferred the loan to Defendant B’s designated account.

Although it is sufficiently known that the provision of his financial transaction-related information or electronic media to another person is illegal, the Defendants committed an act of withdrawing money using the withdrawal password and then remitting money to the account directed by Defendant B, without being limited to providing a simple real name information.

② Defendant B instructed or asked the Defendants to receive a loan by using his personal information and real name certification, and let the Defendants transfer the loan to a certain account for the purpose of illegally lending the loan. The Defendants, who are employed as an employee, or who are aware that Defendant B is operating a P2P investment business, could sufficiently be determined as the investors’ investment amount in the event that Defendant B operates a large-scale fund. Furthermore, the transmission of the virtual account operating company’s message was intended to request the Defendants to withdraw and reply to the request of the companies operating the P2P investment platform, which is not Defendant B, rather than Defendant B, to the Defendants. Thus, even if objectively, it is apparent that Defendant B is not an individual.

③ Defendant B began to operate a P2P investment platform, and was given a long-term period of time from July 2017, a relatively early business commencement to many employees, and Defendant B was aware of all the Defendants’ fact that she was allowing a large number of employees to transfer money by using the aforementioned names of employees or a branch. Some of the Defendants did not simply receive Defendant B’s instruction or request once. Nevertheless, the Defendants’ assertion that the borrower believed, or did not doubt, that the borrower was not familiar with the electronic financial transaction, was unaware of the emergency Defendant B’s defense or that there was no doubt as to this.

Reasons for sentencing

[Defendant B]

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

(a) A primary crime;

[Determination of Punishment] The General Fraud [Type 4] 5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won.

[Special Aggravation] Aggravated Punishment: Where a crime is committed against an unspecified or large number of victims or repeatedly for a considerable period, the crime committed is very poor, or a crime is committed by deceiving the court in a trial procedure.

[Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations] Special Priority Area, three-year imprisonment to 13-6 months (aggravating two or more stages as a result of the combination of the same parallel parallels by one-half of the lowest sentence range)

(b) Second crimes (Alteration of official documents);

[Determination of Punishment] Offense of Official Document 01. Forgery, Alteration, etc. (Type 1) of Official Document / Non-business, Non-Organization

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment from 8 months to 2 years

(c) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Three to fourteen years (the upper limit of the first crime + the upper limit of the second crime).

2. Determination of sentence: 12 years of imprisonment;

The Defendant committed an act of causing damage to investors and loan users as above 10 billion won, which is linked to the financial structure of a non-performing lender. The instant crime also led to the presentation of false investment goods, and the receipt of enormous investment funds from many investors, and use them in mind. In addition to the fact that a lending company was changed to the operation of a P2P investment platform, it is almost similar to the previous crime.

The Defendant, on the ground of a nominal representative director, appears to have never been able to operate the P2P investment platform in conformity with its original purpose, and actually began to receive investments from investors by presenting false investment goods from the beginning. In the process, if it is difficult to receive investments from investors due to regulation, etc., not only does it commit a crime, but rather, it has achieved its purpose by using another company or using another company’s account, etc. and receiving more investments.

Various materials that the Defendant invested by using the investment funds received from investors are doubtful of their authenticity or real value, and even if that value, it is nothing more than the result that the Defendant consumeds the amount acquired from the victims in mind while investing in the amount of money acquired by the victims, and that the Defendant is not aware of the Defendant’s crime, or that the Defendant’s success in the investment would lead to a more responsible investment. The Defendant may vindicate that the investment is an investment to return the investment profits to investors, but there is no fact that the investors have paid such investment to the Defendant.

The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes. However, the number of victims who suffered from the instant crime and the amount of damage therefrom are enormous, and no particular damage recovery is conducted. The instant crime is extremely poor in the number of crimes, such as inducing a large number of additional investments through the advertisement or false merger announcement, etc., even if having caused enormous damage, it is not interested in recovery from damage, and rather, it was arrested after preparing a flight fund, and even if having received a relatively strict punishment due to the previous crime, there is a possibility of repeating the same type of crime, and therefore, there is a need to be isolated from society for a long time, and thus, the punishment is determined as ordered by the disposition, taking into account all the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc.

[Defendant C]

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

[Determination of Punishment] The General Fraud [Type 3] 50 million won or more, and the amount of less than five billion won

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Where a crime is committed against unspecified or large number of victims, or has been committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, 2 to 7 years of imprisonment (at least two stages of increase as a result of the combination of concurrent concurrents, a minimum of the scope of sentence shall be mitigated by 1/2)

2. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months;

Although the Defendant was responsible for considerable part of his liability to Defendant B, the Defendant, while operating Q, engaged in the same business with Defendant B according to the intent of the Defendant. The victims trusted the materials presented by the Defendant’s company and invested, and the Defendant did not take any measures in relation to any abnormal investment amount despite being aware of the flow of the abnormal investment amount. Rather, not only received fees, etc. from Defendant B, but also obtained such fees, etc. from Defendant B, but also escape more than resolving the occurrence of the crime.

However, considering the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing the crime, there was no record of punishment prior to committing the crime of this case, and the equity when two cases were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the related cases that could have been judged together with the crime of this case, the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by considering the overall sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

[Defendant D]

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

[Determination of Punishment] The General Fraud [Type 4] 5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won.

[Special Doctrines] Reduction element: A case where a person commits a deceptive act with dolusent intent, or where the degree of a deceptive act is weak, a case where the punishment is not paid or a significant damage is recovered.

Aggravations: Where a crime is committed against an unspecified or large number of victims or repeatedly over a considerable period.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, 1 year and six months to six years of imprisonment (at least two stages of increase as a result of the addition of the combination of the same parallels, the lower limit of sentence scope shall be mitigated by 1/2)

2. Determination of sentence: Two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended sentence;

Although Defendant 2 is not liable to Defendant 2 while denying a part of the crime, the crime liability is not weak in that Defendant C knew of the flow of abnormal investment funds and did not take any measures in relation thereto, and caused enormous damage to many victims.

However, the defendant does not want punishment for the defendant under the agreement with the victim's agent, the victim seems to have made efforts to recover damage in consultation with the victims rather than escape after the occurrence of the crime, and there is no record of punishment prior to the crime of this case, and the defendant's age, character and character, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and the overall sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the order.

[Defendant E]

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

[Determination of Punishment] The General Fraud [Type 4] 5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won.

[Special Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine

Aggravations: Where a crime is committed against an unspecified or large number of victims or repeatedly over a considerable period.

2. Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence;

The defendant's liability for the investment goods that the defendant falsely processed is not easy in that they became the main grounds for the victims' investment. However, in the case of the defendant, it appears that the defendant's employee employed by the defendant B led to the crime according to the direction of the defendant B. There is no benefit in addition to the benefits received from the crime of this case, there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine and there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and other various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by

[Defendant F, G, H, I, J, K, L]

The Defendants do not seem to have clearly known that the victims may suffer damage according to Defendant B’s instruction or request, and that there is little benefit from the Defendants’ crime, the Defendants’ criminal records, the degree of involvement in Defendant B’s criminal act, and the fact that Defendant K took part in the escape of Defendant B, and other various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as per the disposition.

However, in the case of Defendant J, the sentence of a sentence to a defendant is determined to be excessively harsh, in light of the fact that the defendant had the record of punishment for the same kind of crime and that there is a part to be considered in the criminal history of the defendant, and that there is no benefit from the defendant's crime, etc., the sentence of a fine is to be imposed.

[Defendant A]

In that Defendant B provided a means by which the victims can receive investments from the victims and provided a considerable benefit therefrom, the criminal liability is not less and more severe, and the criminal records have been punished for the same kind of crime. Provided, That the defendant recognized a criminal act, paid a considerable amount of money to the victims for recovery from damage, and the victims do not want the punishment by agreement with the victims, and other various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by taking into account all the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged around Defendant A

(a) Defendants and Defendant B’s (ju) Y Products-related fraud joint crime;

On May 1, 2018, the Defendants conspired to register an investment product of the brand furniture 123 (OEM-backed crowdfunding) on the (T) PY website (T) and advertised a loan-invested product with “Loan AH was established in August 2014, which is an enterprise that manufactures and distributes household products, and is engaged in large-scale sales to an AI association and manages adequate profits and inventory. The borrower requested a loan of KRW 550,000,000 with a company operating funds, and secured household products of KRW 2,424,235,80 with a loan of KRW 18% per annum.” The borrower advertised a loan-invested product with loans of KRW 550,000 with a company operating funds, as collateral. The loans are expected to be repaid at once within two months, and it is expected to guarantee profits of 18% per annum.”

However, in fact, the Defendants were unable to operate so-called 'for-called', such as using the investment funds newly raised as the repayment of principal and interest of the existing loan funds, because the Defendants did not intend to use the funds for the investment funds of the loan funds as the investment funds of the loan funds (the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second back), since they thought that the funds were used as the investment funds of the loan funds (the second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second back).

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired with K to receive the letter of request for withdrawal from SP2P financial instruments, the electronic payment system of the above loan 2P financial instruments, and sent a password notified to the AR Bank AS account under the name of K, a virtual account registered in the State Y, with the intent of deducting the investment money deposited by the investors from the above AR Bank account in the set system, but the Defendants concealed the victim (State) and then deceiving it from the victim (State) to the above AR Bank account under the name of the victim (State) 123, and take it over from May 31, 2018 to May 31, 2018, the Defendant conspired with Defendant B, in collusion with the victim (State 5 million won from the date of receiving deposit of KRW 5 million from the above AR Bank account under the name of the victim (State 123), and acquired it from the victim from May 31, 2018, and entered the total amount of KRW 5 million in the attached Form Y List (2019Ka4544) and No.7136-147).7

B. Fraud related to Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E’s Q (P) lending products

Joint Offences

From March 17, 2018, Defendants: (a) registered an investment product of Qu (S) on the website (S) at the above (YY office on April 17, 2018; (b) provided services related to a large number of gas stations in neighboring areas; and (c) provided a wholesale business for oil and related products. The aforementioned gas station requested a loan of KRW 150 million with the oil purchase fund and business operation fund; and (d) Q (State) secured an amount of KRW 29,450,00 as security; (b) provided loans to the said borrower, the amount of loans will be repaid within two months, and the amount of annual profits would be guaranteed to investors.”

However, the facts are as follows: (a) registered AV, which is not an AU, advertisedd as above as a borrower of a loan product under subparagraph 28; (b) got AV to substitute for the investment money of the loan product; and (c) did not actually request AU to lend a loan as security; and (d) there was no existing loan-backed investment product; (b) there was no reason to operate so-called so-called 'commencing' because it was used to repay the principal and interest of the loan of the loan product; and (c) some of the funds were thought to be used as the inducement of the loan product under subparagraph 28, and therefore there was no intention or ability to return the investment profit and the investment money to investors.

As above, the Defendants, by deceiving the victim X, received KRW 5,00,000 from the victim X to the virtual bank AW bank account under the name of Y No. 28, and acquired it by fraud, etc. from the victim X, up to May 30, 2018 in collusion with the Defendant, Defendant D, Defendant Eul, and Defendant B, and Defendant C, in collusion with the Defendant B and Defendant C, obtained KRW 7,51,300,00 in total as shown in the crime inundation (2019,454) and the crime inundation (1 through 36).

2. Determination

A. The primary facts charged against Defendant A are based on the premise that Defendant A, after March 2018, committed a joint principal offense in collusion with the other Defendants to enter the investment goods on the website as shown in the primary facts charged and to acquire investment funds from the victims. However, in full view of all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant A, etc. conspired with the victims to acquire the investment funds from the victims on or after March 2018, and played a role as a joint principal offense. (It is difficult to view that Defendant B, etc. acted as a joint principal offense by collusion with the crime of acquiring the investment funds from investors solely on the fact that the Defendant introduced the security, loan, etc. to Defendant B, etc. to Defendant B).

B. The primary facts charged against Defendant A constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, a not-guilty verdict should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the fraudulent aiding and abetting,

Judges

Judges Gangwon-ho

Note tin

1) The indictment’s KRW 14 billion is revised to the total amount of KRW 13.55 billion (=6.55 billion + + KRW 7.0 billion + KRW 7.8 billion) in attached Form 13.5 billion (i.e., total amount of KRW 6.55 billion + KRW 7.5 billion).

2) The indictment totaling KRW 251,000,000 shall be deemed to be written in writing.

3) Written indictment 549,400,000 shall be deemed to be written in writing.

4) From August 2017 to May 2018, Defendant G remitted the total of KRW 2,755,000,000 in nine occasions; KRW 1,600,000 in total on six occasions from August 2017 to May 2018; and Defendant I remitted the amount of KRW 1,720,000,000 in total on six occasions from December 2017 to May 2018 upon request by Defendant B.

심급 사건

의정부지방법원 고양지원 2019.8.12.선고 2018고단1722

-의정부지방법원 2020.2.7.선고 2019노2430

-대법원 2020.5.14.선고 2020도2551

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제25조 제1항 제1호

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제31조 제1항

-특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률