Defendant 1 and one other

Mashee

Attorneys Lee Dong-sung et al.

Applicant for Compensation (Non-Indicted 13 of the Supreme Court Decision)

1. Defendant 1 (Defendant 2 of the Supreme Court judgment and Defendant 3 of the appellate court judgment) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and by imprisonment with prison labor for three years.

2. The applicant for compensation:

A. Defendant 1 shall pay 850,000,000 won;

B. Defendant 2 shall pay KRW 600,000,000 out of the above money with Defendant 1 and each other.

3. Orders for compensation under the above two paragraphs may be provisionally executed.

On July 9, 2009, Defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on October 201 to be a crime of fraud at the Goyang Branch of the District Court, which became final and conclusive on May 27, 2010.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

Defendant 1 was a standing director of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 31 and the representative director of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 28, which is a standing director of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 30, and Defendant 2 was a chief director of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 31 as the chief director of the said Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 31 as the chief director of the said Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation. Defendant 1 knew that the victim was an applicant for compensation and was making efforts to raise funds for the apartment project of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 57. The Defendants conspired to acquire money from the victim by deceiving Nonindicted 57 even though he did not have an intent or ability to invest business funds with Nonindicted 57.

A. On November 2008, the Defendants: (a) shown in the Seocho-gu Seoul High School Gakdong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, the first floor of the New Bank department store; (b) as those who actually manage the funds of Non-Indicted 30, and (c) as those who have been promoting the business by securing financial resources for the sexual epidemation of the site of Non-Indicted 30, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter omitted); (c) Defendant 2, who wished to be invested in the project funds of OO, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, had the victim’s compensation applicant for compensation, “I would be able to help the fund,” and (d) stated that Defendant 1 would have deposited the victim’s compensation applicant with KRW 1468,00,000 in KRW 1,468,00,00,000,000,000 in KRW 2.5 billion in the account transfer money from the account to the effect that “The funds will be 1,480,0000,000 won in the account transfer money.

However, in fact, the Defendants planned to use the money received from the victim for personal purposes, such as the deposit cost of the case at the time of trial, the expenses of Nonindicted 30 Buddhist Order, the operating expenses of Nonindicted 28 and the said Nonindicted Company 28. At the time, there was no fact that there was no financial resources for the ○○○○ inspection site, and the said site was not in fact in the process of the trial on the ownership dispute between Nonindicted 30 Buddhist Order and Nonindicted 29 Buddhist Order. Therefore, even if receiving money from the victim, the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to invest KRW 20 billion in the said site.

Nevertheless, the Defendants: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) transferred the amount of KRW 50 million to the new bank account of Nonindicted Co. 28 on November 17, 2008; and (c) KRW 50 million to the same account on December 1, 2008; (b) Defendant 2 received KRW 5 million on December 5, 2008; and (c) received money from the victim on December 13, 2008 to the same account on December 13, 2008.

B. On June 12, 2009, the Defendants: (a) around 12, 2009, ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter omitted); (b) Defendant 1 loaned KRW 3 billion to the victim’s applicant for compensation by means of a loan extended by Nonindicted 49. However, Defendant 1 already demanded KRW 100 million from a bank; (c) provided for a loan of KRW 70 million from a mother-and-child; (d) provided that “on the loan of KRW 30 million, Defendant 2 would immediately repay the borrowed money and make an investment in the said business capital.” (e.g., Nonindicted 57, the victim’s missort, by phone, lent money to the loan of KRW 30 million; and (e) provided the victim with the purport that “the fact that there is good goods in the Changdong,” and that the above loan is possible.

However, the Defendants were not able to offer a house and obtain a loan from the victims as a security, and the money received from the victims was planned to be used individually, such as the operation expenses of △△△, Nonindicted 28 Co., Ltd. and the trial expenses in progress, so there was no intention or ability to pay the money already received or to reduce the business funds even if receiving the money from the victims.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired in collusion with the victim and received KRW 30 million from the victim to the △△△○ account under the pretext of loan expansion.

C. On November 5, 2009, the Defendants sought to take over KRW 60 billion the old franchise 200 billion deposited as a political fund at KRW 60 billion. In order to do so, first of all, the Defendants made a false statement to the effect that it is necessary to issue a balance certificate of KRW 60 billion at KRW 30 million. If you remove part of the said money and pay business investment money borrowed and promised to borrow money in the past. Defendant 2 created an atmosphere to the effect that “The old franchise exchange work is a considerable amount of money.”

However, there is no confirmation that the Defendants actually existed the right to receive money, and even if they received money from the victims, they did not have the intent or ability to pay the money to the victims by accepting the balance certificate.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim to transfer the amount of KRW 10 million on November 5, 2009 to the account of Non-Indicted 50, which was designated by the Defendants, for the purpose of issuing the certificate, to the account of Non-Indicted 50, which was the expenses for issuing the certificate, and KRW 20 million on November 6, 2009.

D. On December 22, 2009, at the same place as before and after the preceding paragraph, Defendant 1 made a false statement to the victim’s applicant for compensation to the effect that “The contract on behalf of Nonindicted Co. 51 was concluded at Nonindicted Co. 28, an advertising order company, and the renewal contract should be concluded. However, in order to conclude a contract, the amount of KRW 20 million is required to be paid to the employee in charge. If the contract is lent KRW 20 million, the contract will be concluded at a time with the amount of annual advertising expenses to be paid to the employee in charge.”

However, there was no room for Defendant 1 to conclude a contract with Nonindicted Co. 51, and there was no intention or ability to pay the already received money to the victim because he consumeds the money that he received from the victim to pay his personal debt or was scheduled to use it as operating expenses of △△△ and Nonindicted Co. 28.

Defendant 1 deceiving the victim as above and had the victim transfer KRW 10 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of Nonindicted 53 designated by the Defendant on December 22, 2009 as advertising order, and received KRW 10 million on December 23, 2009.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained a total of KRW 645 million, and acquired it, and Defendant 2 acquired it by fraud in collusion with Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 acquired a total of KRW 625 million.

2. Fraud;

Defendant 1, around May 7, 2009, at the Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter omitted), stated to the effect that “The victim’s applicant for compensation will come to an amount of KRW 180 billion with the passbook in the name of Defendant 2, and it is difficult to execute funds with the wind that is bound by Defendant 2. When Defendant 2 applied for release on bail, Defendant 1 would make an investment in KRW 20 billion, which is promised to receive funds immediately upon the request for release. If Defendant 2 borrowed the bail money, Defendant 2 would immediately repay the money at the time of release.” However, the fact was not scheduled to enter the KRW 180 billion, and Defendant 1 did not have any intent or ability to invest KRW 20 billion with the victim.

Defendant 1, as seen above, by deceiving the victim and remitting the amount of KRW 200 million on May 7, 2009 from the victim as the borrowed money, and obtained on May 12, 2009 the total amount of KRW 230 million by deception.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The witness applicant and the non-indicted 52's partial statement

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor concerning Defendant 1 in the interrogation protocol of the prosecution;

1. Some statements made by the police and the prosecutor's office concerning the applicant for compensation;

1. Decision on Nonindicted 48 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010No3401)

1. A copy of Nonindicted 48’s passbook, Nonindicted 48’s balance certificate, each remittance certificate, each passbook transaction statement, each passbook copy, fact confirmation, loan certificate, loan certificate, loan certificate, and each written request for the provision of financial transaction information

1. Before judgment: An investigation report (a suspect, concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 137 and disqualifications for suspended execution), assistance 207 high-level 680 case summary information and judgment;

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

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the first fraud of Defendant 1's judgment, each fraud of Defendant 1's judgment, and each fraud of Defendant 2's judgment), Section 1 of the Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the second fraud of Defendant 1's judgment, each of which is included), Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the second fraud of Defendant 1's judgment, and

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

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

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with the penalty heavier than the penalty provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

1. Orders for compensation and sentence of provisional execution;

Articles 25(1), 31(1), and 31(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings ( Issuing a compensation order for direct physical damage inflicted on an applicant for compensation)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. In relation to subparagraph 1-A (A) of the judgment, Defendant 1 told the victim to invest KRW 20 billion in the implementation project of Nonindicted Party 57, the victim's omission in the payment of interest and expenses incurred in the creation of the above funds if the victim lent KRW 1485 million to the victim while talking about the ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ Madoxian project. However, in relation to subparagraph 1-B (b) of the judgment, Defendant 1 did not deceiving the victim under the pretext of account fluctuation expenses, but it did not mislead the victim of the loan for the loan for the loan of the right to collateral security on the Pyeongtaek-dong Housing. However, in relation to subparagraph 1-B (b) of the judgment, Nonindicted Party 49, the manager of the house of Pyeongtaek-dong, did not return to the U.S. and did not deceiving the victim as it did not know that the victim did not have been issued a certificate of balance to Nonindicted Party 50 million under the name of the victim.

B. Defendant 2, as stated in Section 1-B(b) of the judgment at Defendant 1’s request, provided that Defendant 2 borrowed money by telephone to Nonindicted 57, who was at fault of the victim, but did not receive KRW 5 million from the victim on December 5, 2008, as well as Defendant 1-A(A) through (c) of the judgment with Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 did not know that he did not commit the above crime.

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant 1’s deception

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted in this court, Defendant 1 may fully recognize the fact of deceiving the victim as stated in the judgment, and thus, Defendant 1 and his defense counsel’s assertion is not accepted.

1) Around October 2008, the victim sought investment in order to attract investment in apartment implementation projects promoted by Nonindicted 57, 57, the victim, after hearing Nonindicted 52 that the Defendants were managing Nonindicted 30's Order's non-indicted 30's Order's non-indicted 17, and accessed the Defendants (2 pages of the examination of the witness who is the applicant for compensation). Defendant 1 was nominated as Nonindicted 1's suspicion of fraud in early November 2008. The victim introduced the victim as the head planning office of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-dong New Co., Ltd.'s Head Office of Planning of the Non-indicted 30's Head Office, and Defendant 2 as Nonindicted 30's Head Office of Planning of the Non-indicted 30's Head Office, the victim used the funds to attract investment to the victim or the victim's non-indicted 30's non-indicted 30's non-indicted 30's non-indicted 14 and apartment project's Head Office of Planning.

2) Regarding the first-A of the judgment, Defendant 1 displayed the victim’s balance certificate of KRW 14.68 billion in the name of Nonindicted 48 on the date of the trial on November 2008, “it is necessary to invest KRW 20 billion in the apartment project of Nonindicted 57, so it is difficult to use the funds from the victim’s 1’s account transfer to the victim or to manage the funds in the name of Nonindicted 48,000,000 won, so it is difficult to use the funds from the victim’s 8,000 won in the name of the victim’s 1’s account transfer to Nonindicted 4,000,000 won.” (No evidence recorded 1,246-247,28-32, the examination of the witness, which was an application for the above 4,000 won) and there was no possibility that the Defendants would receive the funds from the victim’s 1,000 square meters and the 29,000 square meters of the above land.

3) In relation to the 1-B of the holding, it is doubtful whether Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 30 million from the perspective of the loan of KRW 3 billion on or around June 2009 to invest in the apartment execution project of Nonindicted 57, and Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 30,000 from the victim to the loan employee (Evidence 1, 247 pages, 249 pages), ① Defendant 1 does not have to verify the existence of the house in Pyeongtaek-dong or the possibility of the loan against the person who is Nonindicted 49 (Evidence 1, 63, 250 pages of the evidence record), ② there is a question as to whether the person who actually existed, such as the relationship with the person who is Nonindicted 49, the method of raising funds, etc. (3) even if the victim received the above money from the victim at the time, it was possible to receive the above house as a collateral, or there was no possibility that the victim could actually receive the loan with the loan of KRW 57,000,000 from the victim.

4) In relation to Article 1-C (C) of the decision, Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 60 billion from the victim for the purpose of acquiring KRW 60 billion on November 2009, in order to obtain the balance certificate of KRW 20 billion, and Defendant 1 does not have to confirm the existence or acceptance of the right of subscription, as well as the acceptance of the right of subscription from anyone, and there is a question about how to take over KRW 20 billion only with the balance certificate of KRW 60 billion; ③ there is no balance certificate issued; ④ Nonindicted 50, who received the money, transferred KRW 10 million to the account in the name of △△△△△△ after five days, and there is no possibility that Defendant 1 could take over the right of subscription in light of the circumstances that the Defendants could not have taken over the right of subscription by deceiving the above amount.

5) In relation to Article 1-4(d) of the judgment, Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 20 million from the victim for the purpose of promoting the re-contract with Nonindicted Co. 28 to make an advertisement agency contract with Nonindicted Co. 51 (Evidence No. 1, No. 247 pages), Defendant 1 did not discuss the contract with Nonindicted Co. 51 and the advertising agency contract with Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 did not conclude the contract with the advertising agency contract, and there was no evidence suggesting that the above amount was used for the purpose of increase. ③ Of the above amount, Defendant 1 used it for the purpose of debt repayment by transferring it to the account under the name of Nonindicted Co. 53, the creditor of Defendant 1, and used the remainder of KRW 10 million for personal expenses (Evidence No. 1, No. 252 pages).

6) As to Paragraph 2 of the holding, the victim stated that: (a) in the investigative agency, Defendant 1 continued to provide money; (b) Defendant 2 was detained; (c) Defendant 2 provided welfare funds of KRW 180 billion to Defendant 2’s passbook; (d) Defendant 2 provided a loan for bail money, etc. if Defendant 2 were bound to pay the money (Evidence No. 1, 46, 2, 7, 15), and (b) at the time, the victim provided a loan as stipulated in Paragraph 1-A of the holding, but the victim did not make an investment in the apartment execution business of Nonindicted 57; and (d) the victim did not use the above welfare funds to raise or secure the above amount of money; and (e) the victim did not have any special reasons to use the money to repay the money to Defendant 2 in the absence of the above welfare funds to Defendant 1’s own account in light of the fact that the victim did not have to do so.

On the other hand, in this court, the victim stated that the defendant 1 had been aware of the fact that "the head of the Tong in the name of the defendant 2" was 20 billion won, and that the defendant 2 could only use the funds if he was the defendant 2, who was bound by the defendant 2. When lending the deposit money, the defendant 2 may use the funds by her own statement to the effect that "the welfare fund (7-8 pages of the examination of the witness who was the applicant for compensation) is 20 billion won," but this appears to have been caused by the time and time of the above damage, the time and interval of the legal statement, and the reduction of memory due to the passage of time, etc. However, in light of the fact that the defendant 1 was aware of the fact that he was 180 billion won from the non-indicted 49 side in this court and stated that he could have made the statement to the victim (the court statement during the 9th trial date), the credibility of the victim's statement in this court can not be rejected solely on the ground that the victim's statement changed.

B. Determination on Defendant 2’s conspiracy or participation

In full view of the circumstances as seen above and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted in this court, Defendant 2 had the intent of Defendant 1 to realize the crime by jointly processing the crime by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, and it can be acknowledged that Defendant 1 had committed the crime under Article 1-A, B, C, of the ruling with Defendant 1 or at least impliedly and through the conspiracy with Defendant 1 or at least impliedly. Thus, the above argument by the Defendants and the defense counsel is rejected.

1) On September 12, 2006, Defendant 2 was appointed as the auditor of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 28 established by Defendant 1, and was appointed as the president after Defendant 1 was detained by the first president of the appellate court, the first president of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 31. However, there was no project that was actually established and implemented a business plan in the above company and incorporated foundation (Evidence 1: 262 pages, 2: 25 pages), Defendant 2 was the chief of the △△△△△△△, which was established by Defendant 1, and was living together in the above (hereinafter omitted) at Defendant 1’s residence (Evidence 47, 245 pages, and Defendant 2’s statement on the trial date on September 12, 2006). In light of the fact that Defendant 1 used the funds, etc. of △△△△△△△, etc. with Defendant 1 or the chief of the office of the office of the ○○ branch planning in the form of Defendant 1’s business or the chief of the office of the office of the ○ branch planning.

2) As seen above, the ○○○○○ site at the time was not possible for sale due to the ownership dispute between Nonindicted Party 30 and Nonindicted Party 29’s non-indicted 29’s non-indicted 29’s non-indicted 2, and each of the sub-committees constituted a separate sales committee, and the Defendants could not be individually delegated. Defendant 2 was fully aware of such circumstances in light of the previous status, experience, such as serving as the director of the Ministry of Education in charge of the educational administration of Nonindicted Party 30’s non-indicted 30’s Order and the head of the planning office in charge of general affairs of budget and settlement of accounts, and the relationship with Defendant 1.

3) In relation to paragraph 1-A (A) of the decision, the victim heard the statement that the defendants were the persons who manage the funds of the closing group of the non-indicted 30 Buddhist Order, and met the defendants at the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yoo-dong New Corro department store, Seocho-gu, Seoul. At the time, the defendant 2 was asked to raise the "whether or not there is any difficulty" to Defendant 1 and his subordinate statement to the effect that "(Evidence 44, the evidence record No. 4, the applicant for compensation)," and the defendant 1 made a statement at the prosecutor's office that the defendant 2 made the statement to the above purport and partially conform to the victim's statement (Evidence 1-254, the evidence record No. 1-254).

Defendant 1 introduced Defendant 2 to the head of the planning office of the ○○○○ Magaz. (Evidence 44 pages, 2 pages 4 pages), and Defendant 2 at the time was the chief director of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation established by Defendant 1, the auditor of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 28, and the chief secretary of the ○○ Magaz. ② Defendant 2 was involved in the above ○○ Magaz. around the end of July 2007, stated that he was unaware of the funds of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 5, and was unaware of the funds related to the above ○○ Magaz. (Defendant 2’s statement during the nine trial date). Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the above 00 million won in the name of Defendant 1 and the fact that he was involved in the above 500 billion won in the above ○ Magaz. (Defendant 28).)

4) In relation to the 1-b) of the decision, the victim was aware by the investigative agency that he was aware of the end of the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the Pyeongtaek-dong Housing, and Defendant 2 stated that "it is true that there is a good thing in Pyeongtaek-dong. It is possible to lend the loan." (Evidence No. 1, 65 pages, 69 pages), ② Defendant 2 made a loan to the non-indicted 57, the victim's omission in the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan, but it was not clear that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the defendant 2's participation in the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan on the loan.

5) In relation to Article 1-3(c) of the judgment, the victim compensation applicant made a statement to the effect that Defendant 2 made it to the effect that Defendant 2 would have a considerable amount of money in the presence of the Defendants in the investigative agency (Evidence No. 64 pages of evidence record), Defendant 2 made a consistent statement (30 pages of the witness examination protocol, which is the application for compensation), stating that Defendant 2 did not specifically explain it in this court, but did not have any specific explanation in relation thereto. ② Defendant 2 did not have any intention to confirm the existence of the right of subscription, and Defendant 2 did not have any intention to accept KRW 20 billion only with the balance certificate of KRW 60 billion. ③ Nonindicted 50 who was transferred the above money, transferred at least KRW 10 million to the account in the name of △△△△△△ after five days, and in light of the purpose of using the money as seen above, Defendant 1 and the relationship between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2, Defendant 200 million won, Defendant 2, Defendant 2000 billion won.

6) If the victim stated in this court that Defendant 1 could not use the funds without Defendant 2’s approval, Defendant 2 stated that “When entering the money, would be able to enter the bank, where much is needed” (the 36 pages of the examination record, which is the application for compensation); Defendant 2, when Defendant 1 deposited money in the foreign exchange bank under the pretext that Defendant 1 deposits money in the passbook of Nonindicted 57, 57, 52, and 1, he was placed in the foreign exchange bank (the 9 pages of the examination record of Nonindicted 52; Nonindicted 28, even though there was no profit-making business actually in progress, Defendant 2 was also in charge of management by creating the passbook and the passbook under the name of Defendant 1; Defendant 1 was aware of Defendant 1’s management expenses, credit card payments, etc.; Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 urged Defendant 1 to use the funds, etc. with Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 to compensate or urge Defendant 1 to pay his debts, etc. in addition to Defendant 1’s statement.

Defendant 2 did not have any history of criminal punishment, and the Defendants returned KRW 25 million to the victim, thereby recovering part of the damage.

However, the defendants conspired to commit the crime against the victim in a planned and repeated manner over a considerable period of time, and the amount acquired by deception is more than 600 million won in total. Defendant 1, other than the above crime, acquired additional 250 million won under the name of the defendant 2's bail deposit, advertisement agency renewal contract, etc., as well as the above crime, and the defendants deceiving the victim by using such career as a religious person, which is very significant in the nature of the crime in light of the criminal law, etc. The victim and his family members are not divided into the crime of this case, even though they suffered a big economic and mental pain until now, the defendants want to be punished against the defendants, the victims want to be strong punishment, and the defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence on June 1, 2007 and was under suspension of execution on the part of the crime of this case, and in consideration of the fact that the defendant 1 committed the crime of this case, there is a heavy demand for punishment, taking into account the fact that there was participation in the crime of this case in the crime of this case and its profits.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On December 22, 2009, the Defendants conspired with the Defendants, and around December 22, 2009, Defendant 1 entered into a contract on the behalf of Nonindicted Company 51 on behalf of Nonindicted Company 28 and entered into a re-contract with the victim applicant for compensation. However, in order to enter into a contract, it is necessary to increase the amount of KRW 20 million to be paid to the officials in charge. If the contract is lent KRW 20 million, the Defendants would make a false statement to the effect that “The Defendants would make a contract to continue to enter into the contract and receive the advertisement fees in advance, and Defendant 2 received the advertisement fees from the next side, and Defendant 2 received it as well as the company.”

However, there was no room for the Defendants to enter into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 51, and there was no intention or ability to pay the already received money to the victims because they consumed Defendant 1’s personal repayment of debt, or expected to use the money as operating expenses of Nonindicted Co. 28 and so on.

Nevertheless, on December 22, 2009, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim and let the victim remit the amount of KRW 10 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of Nonindicted 53, designated by the Defendant on December 22, 2009, and received KRW 10 million on December 23, 2009.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to deception the victim, and obtained a total of KRW 20 million, thereby deceiving the victim.

2. Determination

A. In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with more than two crimes, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining more than two persons in a certain crime. Even if there was no process of conspiracy, if a combination of intent is formed in order or impliedly, among several persons, then the conspiracy is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, even if a person is not directly involved in the act of conspiracy, he/she is held liable as a co-principal for the other's act.

B. It is doubtful that Defendant 2 conspireds with Defendant 1 to commit the above crime in light of the fact that the Defendants conspired to commit the crime under Article 1-A, B, C, and there was no data on the previous advertising agency contract with Nonindicted Co. 28 and there was no data on the sales agency contract with Defendant 2.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted in this court, it is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant 2 engaged in the above crime in collusion with Defendant 1, even if examining the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, only with the statement at the investigative agency and court of the victim's applicant for compensation, by itself. It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 2 engaged in the above crime in collusion with Defendant 1 to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

1) At the time of lending KRW 20 million to the investigative agency and this court for the advertising agency for Nonindicted Co. 51 in order to renew the contract, Defendant 2 stated that “this work is a firm and has been used with advertising expenses from Nonindicted Co. 51 even before it was certain,” and that Defendant 2 wired KRW 10 million to the account of Nonindicted Co. 53 using telebanks (Evidence 1, 47, 65, 69, 11 of the evidence record), and Defendant 1 also stated that Defendant 2 was at the investigative agency and the said remarks were made (Evidence 1, 65, 69, 252, 255 of the evidence record). However, even if Defendant 2 did not know that there was no possibility of paying the above advertising fees by proxy, it appears to the purport that Defendant 2 did not intend to receive the above payment by proxy even if there was no possibility that it would be difficult to conclude that Defendant 1 could not receive the payment by proxy under the previous contractual relationship.

2) There is no circumstance to deem that Defendant 1 and the victim discussed or conspireded to acquire the above money in advance with Defendant 2 before receiving the above money from the victim.

3) In addition, the victim remitted the above KRW 10 million out of KRW 20 million to the account in the name of Nonindicted 53, Defendant 1’s creditor, and there is no evidence to deem that Defendant 2 was aware of such circumstances or was involved in the remittance to the above account, and there is no circumstance to deem that the victim was directly delivered to Defendant 1 and involved in the remaining KRW 10 million.

4) Defendant 1 used the above KRW 20 million received from the victim for personal debt repayment, etc., and there is no circumstance to deem that Defendant 2 used part of the above money in relation to Defendant 2 or △△△△△△, or remitted it to the account related to Defendant 2, it is difficult to view that Defendant 2 participated in the use of the above money.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in the case of this case, the facts charged about the part that the defendants deceiving the victim by deceiving the money as stated in Article 1-d. of the judgment of the court below should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime. However, with respect to the defendant 1, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) due to the crime in Article 1 of the judgment of the court below in relation to the crime in relation to the crime in relation to the crime in this case, the defendant 2 is not guilty in the judgment of the court below.

Judges Song Jin-tae (Presiding Judge)

1) Under Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010), the upper limit of imprisonment is 15 years.