(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.2.21. 선고 2018고합1044 판결

On October 26, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspension of the execution of four months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, which became final and conclusive on October 22, 2018.1)

【Criminal Facts】

On September 2017, the Defendant served as the director of the Educational Institute of Incorporated Association C (hereinafter referred to as the "C") established for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge about local autonomy, economy, society, etc. in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B, and around November 2017, the Defendant was appointed as the representative director of the Company D (hereinafter referred to as the "D") established for the purpose of developing, manufacturing, and selling cosmetics using stem cells.

1. Fraud to victims E;

On January 16, 2017, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul National University’s office, made a false statement to the effect that “B shall obtain a master’s degree at the G University, and I University graduate graduate school (hereinafter “K-dong forest”) is necessary to make an investment in the real estate development project as the land of the L president known within the inside of the Republic of Korea. If the Defendant borrowed down payment of KRW 25 million, the Defendant would repay the down payment of KRW 30 million within a few months including the interest of KRW 5 million, if he/she borrowed down payment of KRW 25 million.”

However, the defendant's experience introduced was all false, and 2) the defendant's wife was thought to have lent money borrowed from the victim to the public auction rather than to use it in relation to the development of Kdong forest, and even if the defendant's wife borrowed money from the victim due to lack of any other financial resources, there was no intention or ability to repay it within a few months.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 25 million from the Nbank account (Account Number: 0) in the name of M Bank operated by the Defendant on the same day from the victim.

2. Fraud of victim P;

On October 2017, the Defendant: (a) around the 2017.10, the Defendant: (b) was a professor from the Haj K University; (c) was an exchange professor in China; and (d) was exported to the Chinese S Group T Twelves with the Chairperson of the Chinese Swelves Group Twelves, the employees of which are 32 million persons; and (c) previously exported the cosmetic equipment to China. To this end, the Defendant could export the cosmetic equipment to China through the Chairperson of the Swelves Twelves Group Twelves; (b) the Defendant should establish and promote a company to export it to China; (c) the office rent of KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000.

However, the defendant's experience introduced was all false, and there was no ability to export beauty equipment to China through the Chinese S Group because it was neither a form nor a friendly relationship with the Chairperson of the S Group in China, and there was no other way to export beauty equipment to China.

Around October 18, 2017, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 30 million from the victim to the same account in the name of U(hereinafter referred to as U(U(hereinafter referred to as “U”) of U(hereinafter referred to as “U”), KRW 50 million from November 8, 2017; KRW 50 million from the same account around November 10, 2017; and KRW 20 million from the same account around December 12, 2017.

3. Fraud to victim X;

On October 2017, the Defendant, at the restaurant of the National Assembly Center of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul National Assembly that was the victim X, who was the c5th student of the C5th student at the restaurant in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul National Assembly, made a false statement to the effect that “B is the professor of the University from H University, and the representative director of U who manufactured and sells the stem cell-related cosmetics. In Korea, the Defendant already invested KRW 1.5 billion in the company specializing in stem cell research (hereinafter “Y”), thereby using the Y's stem cell patent technology, and that U will be listed within 2 to 3 years in Japan, with the intention to receive an investment of KRW 2 billion in Japan. As a result, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “I will guarantee the principal and share if the investment is short of money as at present by investing a large amount in Y, etc.”

However, in fact, the Defendant agreed to invest KRW 200 million in YY around July 28, 2017, but failed to comply with it, and was unable to use the Y's stem cell-related patent, and was unable to normally proceed with the stem cell-related business. In Japan, the Defendant was to receive an investment of KRW 2 billion in Japan, but did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and interest of the investment to the victim even if the Defendant received the investment from the victim.

On October 28, 2017, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 50 million from the victim to the V account (Account Number:W) in U around October 28, 2017.

4. Fraud against the victim Qua;

In October 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 2017, to Q Q Q, the victim Q, the highest completion of C5th CZ hotel at the coffee shop at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Z hotel, Seoul, is the professor of the RH University; (b) has engaged in exchange faculty in China; and (c) has exported the products, such as dental drugs and Maspact in an amount of KRW 32 million to China even before the cooperation between the president of the Chinese S Group T, which is 32 million staff members. At present, U is operating the stem cell business and real estate consulting business; (b) is able to use the stem cell patent technology of KRW 1.8 billion to a stem cell company; and (c) is able to use the Kdong Y 4.8 billion worth of forests and fields at the expense of the trade office, which is a large-sum customer, to use.

However, the Defendant’s career introduced was false, and it did not have the ability to export beauty equipment to China through the Chinese S Group, and there was no other way to export beauty equipment to China. In addition, even though the Defendant agreed to invest KRW 200 million in YA around July 28, 2017, it was impossible to use YY’s stem cell-related patent due to the Defendant’s failure to implement the normally stem cell-related business, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and interest of the investment even if having received the investment money from the victim.

Around November 26, 2017, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 40 million from the NB account (Account Number: AC) of AB (hereinafter referred to as “AB”) around November 26, 2017, and KRW 60 million from the same account around November 27, 2017.

5. Fraud against AD;

(a) Fraud related to the K-dong forest;

The defendant came to know that the victim AD (hereinafter referred to as "victim AD"), a developer of virtual currency AE, invested a large number of funds in Korea, and tried to build a house to reside in Korea, and sentenced the victim to sell Kdong forest land, the construction of which is restricted as development restriction zones.

On December 2, 2017, the Defendant sold the land to the victim who was not well aware of the land regulation of Korea in the Gangnam-gu Seoul AF hotel 20th floor in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with the intention that “it has 400,000 square meters of land in the Hanam-si, Seoul, and sells the land by dividing it into the land. The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that K-dong forest is accessible in Seoul, and is well accessible in AG, and it is also good that there is a prospect, and it is possible to construct electric housing.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not sell this real estate, but did not sell this real estate. In July 2017, the Defendant prepared a sales contract with L, which is the owner of Kdong Forest, and the purchase price of KRW 14 billion, but did not pay a down payment, but did not have the right to sell the said forest in full. In addition, the said forest was not allowed to construct the forest as a development-restricted zone.

On January 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) entered into a contract with the victim to exchange KRW 3306m (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) of AH on an ordinary basis with the victim; (b) received KRW 50 million from the AI bank account (Account Number: AJ) in the name of the Defendant’s operation on the same day; (c) received KRW 50 million in total the market transaction value of KRW 50 million (AK, AL, AM, N, and A05), and received approximately KRW 220,000,000 won in the market value under the name of D’s operation; and (d) received approximately KRW 360,000,000 in the forest of this case from the victim around January 15, 2018, and received approximately KRW 20,000,000 won in the market value of approximately KRW 360,000,000 in the forest of this case; and (d) received approximately 3.8,08,00,0,0,00,00.

(b) fraud related to the sale of D shares;

On January 20, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim AD in Gangnam-gu Seoul AP building AP building that “D that has a representative director is a company that provides real estate consulting and stem cell business; the company already sold 30 Kdong forest land (the total of 100 square meters per unit; 3,000 square meters; 33.7 billion won is expected to be sold as the manufacture and sale of stem cell-related cosmetics; and the sales of the stem cell-related cosmetics are expected to be at least KRW 90 billion in net income in 2018.”

However, since D did not sell K-dong forest land to others than the victim, there was no real estate related sales. On July 28, 2017, D agreed to invest KRW 200 million in Y, a company specializing in stem cell research, but it did not have the right to use Y's stem cell-related patent, and therefore it could not normally proceed with stem cell-related business.

On January 29, 2018, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100 million from the victim, via the AS Association account (Account Number: AT) in the name of D employee directed by the Defendant.

6. Occupational embezzlement;

On November 3, 2017, the Defendant established a victim D (hereafter referred to as "victim D company" in this paragraph) for the purpose of the development, manufacture, and sale of cosmetics using stem cells, and had it take office as the representative director, and was willing to make personal consumption of the corporate operating funds kept in his/her business.

On March 13, 2018, at the victim company office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul AU and fourth floor, the Defendant transferred KRW 1.5 million of operating funds of the victim company kept in the AI bank account (Account Number: AJ) in the victim company's name to AV, who is his/her father, and used them for personal purposes, such as living expenses.

In addition, the Defendant, from the above date to April 4, 2018, embezzled the sum of KRW 21,50,000,000, operating funds kept on behalf of the victim company for four occasions, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

【Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness P, X, Q, AD, AW, L, X, and AR;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against AY;

1. Partial statement of each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. AZ factual confirmation;

1. Each statement of the BA and B B;

1. BD’s statement in the name of the account holder immediately after the account is held in the name of "A-(5) of "A-BD" and "BD's statement in the name of the account holder" in the name of "BD" and "BE" and "BE's statement in the investigation report (in the name of the account holder immediately after the account is held in the name of "ACB" and "BF" and the telephone call), the statement in the investigation report (in the name of the account holder immediately after the account is held in the name of "BG" and "BG" and the report of investigation (in the name of the account holder immediately after the account is filed in the name of "BG and QC), BG statement in the name of the account holder (BI) and BI statement in the name of "BH (BI) bank account" and "BH (BBI) statement in the name of the account holder immediately after the filing of the complaint in the name of "ABC" and "BNB (BB) statement in the name of the account holder" and "BB) statement in the account.

1) The name of the suspect, C event list, document of deposit and withdrawal transaction in the name of AB, all of the matters to be registered in the name of the Association C, certificate of all the matters to be registered in U.S., photo, list of shareholders, (ju) deposit and withdrawal transaction details, BP transaction details, lease contract and inquiry of the name of P.C., copy of the suspect's dialogue, CE transaction details, deposit and withdrawal statement, document of payment, written confirmation, payment document, Gyeonggi-do Habk-si's own land sale project, Wten-si, business registration certificate, sales plan, investment proposal, each contract, YB's current status, U.S.C. registration certificate, QU.C., BU. and BU.D., each of the documents to be registered in the name of the Bank C. 4, Q2018 (BU.S. bank's bank's entry and withdrawal, QU.C., QU.C. and MU.C. documents, each of the Bank's entry and sale certificates, BU.

[Business Embezzlements of Criminal 6]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness Q and R;

1. A detailed statement of entry into and departure from AI bank CG (State)D;

[Attachment of Sales Complex]

1. A copy of the case summary table, written decisions, three copies of the search of the case attached to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da3089, 5346, written judgments, criminal records, etc., investigation reports (date of final and conclusive judgments), three copies of the written decisions, and one copy of the search of the case;

Application of Statutes

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) of the Criminal Act (including the fraud related to Kdong forest land against the victim AD), Article 347(1) of each Criminal Act (including each fraud, each fraud, and each victim), Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with labor, including the fact of occupational embezzlement, all of which); Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

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

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is the largest penalty, shall be the penalty for concurrent crimes prescribed by the Act on the Punishment, etc.

Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion

1. Each fraud and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

A. Summary of the assertion 7)

1) As to the facts constituting the crime of Paragraph 2 (Crime P) of the judgment, since AP building AP building was mainly leased under the name of AEco of the victim Q Q for multi-stage business, there is no crime of fraud against the victim P, because the victim Q and P’s statement that received money as the office rent for the export of beauty equipment was difficult to believe.

2) As to the criminal facts of paragraph (3) of the crime in the holding, it was true that the Defendant was unable to fully use the stem cell-related patent because it did not pay the full investment amount agreed upon to Y. However, this is because it did not pay KRW 2,00,000,000,000 paid by the victim X, immediately transferred to Q Q’s account, and Q used KRW 45,000,000,000, out of which was immediately transferred to Q Q’s account, for the purchase of virtual currency. Since the Defendant was fully repaid the amount of KRW 50,000 prior to the agreed repayment date, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim X.

3) As to the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, Paragraph 4 (Crime of Victims Q) of Article 4 of the crime in the judgment, AY remitted KRW 60 million to the account under the name of AB administered by the victim Q at the request of the victim Q, and the Defendant promised to repay AY after borrowing money, but there was no demand for AY only to do or to borrow money. The victim Q Q used only a part of the money received from AY for the office interior expenses, and the remainder was used for the purchase of virtual currency, and therefore, it was not the Defendant deceiving Q Q Q by deceiving the victim.

4) As to the crime No. 5-A (Fraud related to the Kdong Forest for the victim AD), the defendant did not call that the victim AD would own the forest of this case. However, the defendant merely stated that the victim AD could use the forest of this case as the land owned by the defendant, but the interpreter AW and Q sent the victim AD the land of this case as the owner of the forest of this case or that the defendant could use the house. The defendant and Q could directly use the farmland within the green belt. The defendant and Q could directly use the farmland within the green belt, and suggest Q Qu is the land within Q Q Q, so there was no place to deceiving the victim AD that the defendant could live in the house. In addition, the defendant was authorized to sell the forest of this case after exchange the land from L, the actual owner of the forest of this case, and the victim AD changed the forest of this case into the land on which the land of this case could be used as the site for the golf course, and thus, the land of this case, the ownership transfer price for the land of which the defendant and Q.

5) As to the facts constituting the crime No. 5-b. (the fraud related to the sale of D's shares to AD), D's statement is difficult to believe that the stem cell business was not in progress until the time when the defendant and Q sold shares to AD to the victim, and Q was well aware of it, and it was not a situation where the victim A's stem cell business could not be exaggerationd with D's stem cell business. Since the contents of D's business plan shown to AD were also minated and simple, and the victim AD's business plan was intended to take over D's shares for the long-term stay in the Republic of Korea by the victim AD, so it was difficult to believe that the victim A's statement that she trusted and invested the defendant's business plan. Since the amount of money sold A's virtual currency equivalent to KRW 50 million and KRW 50 million received in return for the sale of shares from AD was deposited to Q Q's passbook's head account and transferred to Q Q, it cannot be viewed that Q transferred to A's head account.

B. Determination

Although it is difficult to grasp the purport of the defendant's assertion properly, the defendant has the ability or intent to conduct the following various projects by referring to the statement in the investigative agency, the examination of the witness by the defendant's attorney in this court, the defendant's statement, etc., and the victim's money was transferred to the account of the victim Qu and R, etc., and the victim's money was arbitrarily used for virtual currency transactions or personal purposes. Thus, the victim's money was affected by the transfer of money to the account of the victim Qu and AR, so the defendant did not have the intention to commit fraud at the time of receiving money from the victims. On the other hand, each crime of this case occurred at a similar

1) False academic background and career notice to the victims of the defendant

Although the Defendant appears to have passive attitude of recognizing his or her academic background or career in this court, the Defendant appears to have been aware that he or she had been aware of and trusted to the victims at a domestic or foreign university or college, such as professors from He or she had been working for at least 18 years in RJ, professors in China, and professors in universities located in China, as if he or she was a socially well-known person in a position, and that he or she had been aware of his or her false academic background and career. ② The actual Defendant appears to have shown that he or she was attending various domestic or foreign university professors, doctor’s degree, and president of the Association (87 through 93). ③ When the Defendant was working as C Educational Director, he or she distributed an education schedule introduced by professors from various domestic or foreign universities, Jeju-do CH, etc. (Evidence 10 pages of evidence records), and the Defendant appears to have been aware of his or her academic background or career experience experience and personal history and personal history (Evidence 14 through 86).

2) Comprehensively considering the following circumstances related to stem cell business, the Defendant appears to have no intention or ability to engage in stem cell business from October 2017 to January 2018, which received money from the victims of the instant case.

(1) On July 13, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with Y and CI (hereinafter “CI”) on July 28, 2017, where the Defendant had a patent related to stem cell (hereinafter “OX 9”) and had a similar U, 10, and entered into the following contract with Y and CI (hereinafter “CI”) (Evidence 167 pages of evidence).

The contractU representative director A(B) will enter into a contract with Y and CI(A) as follows.3. B pays the amount of 00 million won to YA, and B will transfer to Y the research process and completed research results and patents to Y up to Y to Y to the extent that they meet the legal requirements, and B will transfer all the equipment such as the creation, storage, inspection, etc. of the stem cell line owned by Y to Y. This equipment is seized.

As such, B shall be transferred through a public auction. 40% of the CI shares shall be transferred to 40%, and the number of directors shall be equal to the number of directors shall be appointed after consultation with B. B shall, with the cooperation of B, transfer 10% of the shares of B to A and strengthen the order of business cooperation. A and B may transfer their shares to third parties under the agreement between B and B. (a) The payment method of the investment amount shall be 50 million won on August 10, 2017, 200,000 won to 30,000,000 won and 20,000,000 won to 30,000,000 won to 30,000,000 won, and the 30,000,000,000 won to 30,000,000 won, and the 30,000,000,00,000 won to 30,000,0,00

② The Defendant was unable to pay the investment amount to the agreed date of investment as above. Ultimately, even if the Defendant did not have the right to use the Y’s patent technology until September 3, 2017, the Defendant explained to the Victim X, Q, and the Victim AD around January 2017 that the Defendant would have made a sales by using the Y’s patent technology, which was first established on July 28, 2017, when the Defendant intended to use the Y’s patent technology, the Defendant newly incorporated a corporation operating the stem cell business and recommended the victims to make an investment as an executive officer, and provided the victims, Q, and Q, etc. with the intent of using the Y’s patent technology as an executive officer.

③ The Defendant alleged that the U.S. export Y was unnecessary for the reason that the Defendant did not pay the full amount of the investment Y. However, according to the above contract, it appears that the Defendant’s investment Y was necessary in promoting the U.S. export Y, and rather, the U.S. export Y appears to have caused the Defendant’s failure to pay the investment YS export Y.

④ The victim Q, X, P, etc., in conformity with the investigative agency and this court, stated that “the Defendant invested KRW 1.5 billion to the victims” or KRW 1.8 billion. The Defendant made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant was able to pay a large amount of profit if he/she used patent technology by accepting Y.” However, in the investigative agency and this court, AX operating Y made an investment contract on the ground that “the Defendant did not have invested a large amount of money,” and that the Defendant attempted to pay Y any part of the investment money, but did not pay the investment money any longer after paying Y. However, the Defendant was later aware of the fact that Y’s Internet homepage was made by stealing the current status of Y company that it sent to the Defendant, thereby making the website by misappropriation it as it was, and that “The Defendant was promoting as if he/she had been in possession of Y’s patent technology for 18 years.” However, this court and this court stated that “the Defendant did not obtain any investment funds from the Defendant.”

⑤ The Defendant asserts that, since BB residing in Japan had agreed to receive an investment of KRW 2 billion in the stem cell project, Y could have been able to pay Y by sufficiently preparing investment funds. The Defendant stated that, on August 21, 2017, U.S. established by the Defendant concluded a contract to receive an investment of KRW 2 billion from BB on August 21, 2017 (Evidence No. 1811), but on August 21, 2017, the Defendant did not fully pay the investment funds until October 31, 2017, which was the final date of payment of the investment deposit, after the payment of KRW 50,000,000,000, which was 14). The Defendant did not appear to have received the said investment funds from the Defendant, which was 18,000,000,000 won after the conclusion of the investment contract (Evidence No. 1809).

3) In full view of the following circumstances, even if the Defendant did not have an ability or intent to engage in the business of exporting CO beauty equipment from the beginning, it may be recognized that the Defendant established AB for the business of exporting CO beauty equipment of the victim Q and P along with the victim Q and received money in the name of AB office rent or human expenses from the said victims.

① When the Defendant established AB at an investigative agency for the export of cosmetic Q and cosmetic, or leased AB from this court to AB for multi-level program, rather than cosmetic equipment export, or claimed that the account under the name of AB was only used by the victim Q Q and Q and did not participate in it. However, under the same agreement between the victim Q and P, there was a fact that the Defendant was able to export cosmetic equipment to S Group and Cheongdo while the Defendant was acting as the chairperson of the S Group and Cheongdo, and that the Defendant stated that the Defendant used the money under the name of AB to rent AP building under the name of the victim’s name, and that the Defendant used the money under the name of AB to rent AP building under the name of the victim’s own account, and that the Defendant stated that the Defendant used the money under the name of the victim’s name to rent AP building under the name of AP and Cheongdong Forest.

② As seen in the Defendant’s text messages as shown in the following text messages, the Defendant, unlike the Defendant’s side page, acted as if the Defendant could assist the Victim P in exporting the Victim P to China’s S Group or Cheongdo business partners several times from September 2017 around the day when the Victim P was sent, by introducing the Victim Q.

■ 2017. 9. 6.○ 피해자 P → 피고인 : 원장님 바쁘셔도 중국 쪽 파트너들한테 CO 소개 신경 써주세요. 일 한번나게 힘써주세요. 감사합니다.○ 피고인 → 피해자 P: 0ㅋ○ 피해자 P → 피고인 : 오퍼시트는 중국파트너한테 보내셨지요?○ 피고인 → 피해자 P : 보냈지요.17) ■ 2017. 9. 8.○ 피고인 → 피해자 P : 봤습니다. U IR 자료 보냈으니 검토해 보세요.○ 피해자 P → 피고인 : 청도에 있는 CO 1만대 구입할 수 있냐고 문의있었다고요. 꼭 주문하게해주세요. 가능합니다. ■ 2017. 9. 11.○ 피해자 P → 피고인 : 원장님 중국 CP허가난 자료 보냈습니다. 주문 오면 바로 비행기로 보내면됩니다. 샘플보낸다. 하세요. 받아볼 주소 알려주시면 2개 정도 보낼게요. ■ 2017. 9. 12.○ 피해자 P -> 피고인 : 원장님 오늘도 좋은 소식 기다리고 있겠습니다. 텐진에 샘플보낸다 하세요. ■ 2017. 9. 15.○ 피해자 P → 피고인 : 원장님 명함 주소로 보내면 되지요? 편지는 안 넣어도.○피고인 → 피해자 P : 편지 넣어야 해요. T, 회장 2개, CO,. 고급비서 1개. 월요일~화요일 보내면좋겠어요. ■ 2017. 9. 21.○ 피해자 P → 피고인 : S에 샘플 언제 보낼까요?○ 피고인 → 피해자 P : 월요일요. ■ 2017. 9. 26.○ 피고인 → 피해자 P : (U 통장사본 사진) 1.5억 원 보내요. 그리고 K동 CR골프장부지 CS 8,500평 담보하고 10억 원 투자 유치해요. U 주식도 주고,18)

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that he was friendly with the chairperson of the S Group T and endeavored to export the cosmetic of the victim P. However, the investigative agency has not been able to submit any data to the S Group regarding the export of cosmetics. Rather, in the investigation agency and this court, the victim Q, P did not open the AB office and carry out the cosmetic export business at all, and the victim Q Q was employed by the Chinese capable of directly contact with the S Group, but the Defendant did not cooperate with the S Group on the contact with the 2A, and the 2A also stated to the effect that “The Defendant, who is a substantial representative between the AB and D, has a close relation with the S Group T and the 32 million executive officers of the S Group, has not been able to contact with the S Group.” On the other hand, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the 20th executive officer of the 20th executive officer of the 2nd executive officer of the 2nd executive officer of the 2nd executive officer of the 2nd executive officer of the China Group.”

④ The Defendant also stated in the investigative agency that “A was unable to be informed of the S Group’s connection,” and “I have no personal relationship with the Chairperson T of the S Group” (Evidence Record 1557, 1558 pages).

4) Regarding K-dong forest sale projects

A) Progress the progress of the K-dong forest sale project with the Defendant CT

around January 11, 2017, the Defendant, along with CT, B Q agricultural partnership 19) and the Defendant Company.

BR20) In order to develop and sell all forest and field areas, such as CJ, owned by the company as sports facilities, such as golf course, the company met with L, CU (Representative Director), and BH (Representative Director) practically operated by CT, divided approximately 20,000 square meters out of K-dong forest into at least 120 square meters on two occasions, and sold KRW 50,700,000,000 per square year to L. The amount of KRW 200,000 won per square year is paid to CU and BH corporation for sale (Evidence 232,21).

L on this issue, L made a statement to the effect that “At the time, the defendant is the president of the DA Association, and members are able to create and sell the CR golf course,” and that “the defendant and CT decided to deposit KRW 20 million from January 13, 2017, but it was known that the contract was not entered and the contract was not entered.”

Around April 13, 2017, the Defendant: (a) again made L L with CT at the same time; (b) made a contract with CU and BH on January 11, 2017; (c) made a consultation and right to sell (sale) forest land to CU and BH Co., Ltd.; and (d) sold (sale) forest land at a rate of at least 35-50 million square meters per square year at a rate of at least 300 square meters for the first (70,00 square meters) land; (b) made a statement to the effect that the contract was valid until BU and BH Co., Ltd. 250,000 won per square year; and (c) made a statement to the effect that the contract was valid until BU and BH Co. 250,500,000 won per square year; and (d) made a written confirmation to the effect that the contract was valid until CU and BH Co. 250,500,5000.

On January 10, 2018, the Defendant decided to sell the instant forest land, which is part of the Kdong forest, to the victim AD on January 10, 2018, and received KRW 50 million from the victim AD to the name account in the name of D, and received payment of KRW 50 million to AE Coin amounting to KRW 50 million.

Since January 15, 2018, the Defendant, at the AP AP head office, made the victim AD sign an exchange agreement with the following contents (Ex real estate exchange agreement 22), (Evidence No. 139), DB on the same day (Evidence No. 139), paid 22 million AEcoin to the "DB account" on the following day, and around January 16, 2018, paid 38 million AEcoin to the "DC account" around the following day:

The current state of real estate to be traded at a size 3,306 square meters at the Hanam-si, Gyeonggi-do, is a forest, natural green belt, green belt, water supply protection zoneB) 60,00,00 Co. 2. AD pays D Coin to D in the following manner: DID 38,00,000 Co., Ltd. shall be paid to DB ID AD AD AD AEC 22,00,000 Co., Ltd. (DB 22,00,000,00 Co., Ltd.).

○ On January 16, 2018, the Defendant and CT entered into a contract with L to exchange the instant forest with 22 million AE co, as follows (Evidence No. 251 pages).

Section B and Section B (D) of the Exchange Agreement Co., Ltd. shall be performed as follows in exchanging real estate and AE Co., Ltd. : (A) The current state of real estate to be traded with AH AArea 3,306§³ at the Hanam-si, Gyeonggi-do. The present state of forest land shall be paid to Section B as follows: (a) Co., Ltd. shall be paid to Section B: DB IMO 22,000,000,00 Co., Ltd. 2; (c) at the same time, the maximum amount of collateral security (75,00,000,000,000 won (debtor / Co., Ltd.: debtor L/D) and the owner of the real estate shall be paid the amount of 75,00,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as the “Co., Ltd. 25, 200,000,000) which is a joint and several surety:

On the other hand, L, in this Court, proposed that "T 20,000,000 won was 20,000 won at the time of entering into the contract on April 13, 2018, which was 200,000 won or more at the time of entering into the contract, and it was 10,000 won or more at the time of entering into the contract, and 220,000 won or more at the time of entering into the contract, and 20,200,000 won or more at the time of entering into the contract, and 20,000 won was 20,000 won or more, and 200,000 won was 20,000 won or more, and 200,000 won was 10,000 won or more, and 200,000 won was 10,000 won or more."

B) Whether the Defendant was capable of selling the entire Kdong forest land in lots

The following circumstances, namely, in the victim Q, and AD stated in the investigative agency and this court that "the defendant made a statement that "the defendant made it to make a down payment on the whole of the Kdong forest, and made it to him/her". As seen earlier, the defendant did not have the right to sell or dispose of all the Kdong forest as to the whole of the Kdong forest after the agreement on sale of the Kdong forest entered into with L around April 2017, and the victim AD stated that "the defendant had already sold part of the Kdong forest to others" in this court, but the defendant did not actually sold the Kdong forest, but the defendant stated that " there was no other agreement on the Kdong forest other than CS and B among the instant forest and the Kdong forest," in this court, the defendant did not have the right to promote the entire Kdong forest sale business at the time of receiving the money from the victims of the instant case."

C) Whether the defendant acquired the price for the exchange of the forest of this case from the victim AD (related to Article 5-1 (A) of the criminal facts in the market)

In full view of the following circumstances, the defendant can be fully recognized that he/she acquired the price for exchange of the forest of this case by deceiving the victim AD.

(1) The Defendant alleged that there was no fact that the instant forest land was owned by the victim AD or that it was able to stop a house. However, during the contract consultation process, AW, which is interpreted by the victim AD, consistently stated in the investigative agency and this court that “the Defendant was the owner of the instant forest land and recommended the purchase to the victim AD while he was able to stop a house,” and Q Q also stated in the court that “the Defendant was able to request AW to interpret the instant forest as the Defendant’s land” and there was no reason to purchase the land for the victim AD to purchase.

② In addition, the Defendant also knew the victim AD that 22,00,000 won was paid to L, a forest owner, among the AE coins paid according to the decision of the Korea Exchange and Exchange, and the instant Ex. indicated the current status of the forest land in this case in the decision of the Korea Exchange and Exchange, and the victim AD knew that the owner of the instant forest is the owner of the instant forest and the instant forest cannot use the forest land in this case.

However, both victims AD and AW state to the effect that “At the time of conclusion of the exchange agreement, the Defendant did not show the phrase of the exchange agreement to AW, etc. and had the victim AD sign it in Korean, and at the time, the victim AD was in very trust, and the content of the contract had already been flicked and signed without any doubt.”

그리고 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고인과 피해자 AD 사이에 Exchange agreement가 체결된 다음 날인 2018. 1. 16.에야 비로소 피고인이 실제 처분권이 있는 L와 사이에 이 사건 임야와 AE 코인 2,200만 개를 교환하는 약정을 체결한 점, ㉡ 게다가 피고인은 L와의 교환약정에서 골프장 부지로 사용할 계획이 있는 K동 임야 중 CS, BW이 분양될 경우 이 사건 임야의 같은 면적으로 교환해 주기로 하는 약정까지 하였음에도, 피해자 AD에게는 이러한 사정도 설명하지 않은 채 이 사건 임야의 소유권을 이전해주기로 한 점, Ⓒ 피해자 AD는 Exchange agreement를 작성하기 5일 전이미 피고인에게 이 사건 임야의 매매대금 명목으로 23) 현금 5,000만 원 및 5,000만 원 상당의 AE 코인 바우처를 지급하여 계약서 작성 전부터 구체적 교환 조건을 정한 것으로 보이는데, Exchange agreement에는 피고인이 교환 목적물과 그 대가만 영문으로 기재되어 있을 뿐, 이 사건 임야의 현황이 그린벨트, 상수도보호구역에 해당한다는 것과 당사자들이 임야 현황 관련 서류를 모두 확인하였고 통역에 의해 설명을 들었다는 부분이 한글로만 기재된 Exchange agreement를 작성하여 피해자 AD로 하여금 서명하도록 한 점, ⓐ Exchange agreement에 이 사건 임야 교환계약의 당사자로 D만 기재되었을 뿐 실제 소유자는 드러나 있지 않은 점, 이 피고인이 피해자 AD와 D 지분 매수 당시 작성한 2018. 1.29. 약정서(Written agreement)와 지분 인수 권유를 위해 피해자 AD에게 보여준 2018년 매출계획서는 AW을 통해 영문으로 된 번역본을 별도로 작성하였는데, 유독 위 Exchange agreement만 번역을 거치지 않은 점, ① 피고인은 CT이 이 사건 임야 교환에 관한 L의 대리인 역할을 하였다고 주장하는데, CT과 피해자 AD가 피고인 사무실에서 마주칠 기회가 여러 차례 있었음에도 피해자 AD에게 CT을 L의 대리인으로 소개한 적이 없었고, 이 사건 임야가 피고인 소유가 아님이 밝혀지고 나서야 CT을 L의 형제라고 허위로 소개한 점,24) ② 위 Exchange agreement에 "약정의 변경이 불가하다"는 기재가 있음에도 피고인이 피해자 AD가 피고인으로부터 기망당했다고 주장하자 토지를 교환해 주겠다고 하면서 뒤에서 보는 확약서까지 작성해 준 점, ⑥ 피고인이 L에게 2,200만 개의 AE 코인을 보낸 계정이 'DE'이고, 3,800만 개의 AE 코인을 보낸 계정은 'DF'인 점을 들어 피해자 AD가 피고인이 아닌 실제 소유자에게 2,200만 개의 AE 코인이 지급되었다는 것을 알았다는 근거로 들고 있으나, 이는 가상화폐 거래를 위해 거래소에 가입할 당시 기재하는 성명이고 오히려 피해자 AD로서는 Exchange agreement에 기재된 각 계정의 아이디인 'DB', 'DC'만을 보고 AE 코인을 지급하였을 것인 점, ⑦ AE 코인이 지급될 실제 소유자의 계정 아이디를 D와 관련 있는 것처럼 보일 수밖에 없는 'DB'로 생성한 점, ㉩ 피해자 AD가 Exchange agreement에 따라 지급한 AE 코인 중 이 사건 임야의 실제 소유자에게 지급할 AE 코인이 2,200만 개에 불과하고 그보다 훨씬 많은 코인 3,800만 개는 피고인이 갖는다는 사실을 알면서도 계약을 체결하였다고 보기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인의 위 주장은 믿기 어렵고, 피해자 AD와 AW의 진술에 더 수긍이 간다.

③ In light of the contents of the Defendant’s statement at the investigative agency (Evidence No. 1760 pages) or the exchange agreement concluded with L, it is recognized that the Defendant was aware that the actual value of the forest of this case was merely KRW 200,000 per square day, and that the Defendant was paid an exchange price equivalent to KRW 700,000,000 calculated from the victim AD to the extent of KRW 700,000 per square day. If the Defendant knew that the forest of this case was developed with the victim AD that the forest of this case was no longer a development restriction area,

④ The Defendant only argued that the victim AD could be able to “agricultural breas which can be installed in the forest of this case”, but the Defendant argued that AD might be able to d and delivered it to AD. However, it cannot be deemed that the victim AD purchased the forest of this case with the size of 3,306 meters much more than the market price in order to set up the chill, and it is difficult to view that the victim AD purchased the forest of this case with the size of 3,306 meters much more than the market price. The Defendant appears to have been able to fully know the purpose of the victim AD to purchase the forest of this case. The Defendant was able to have known that the victim AD could have been able to use the forest of this case only several times at the investigative agency, and the victim AD made a statement to the effect that the Defendant could have made a chillus to this court, and the victim AD made it difficult to believe that all the Defendant had made a statement in the forest of this case.”

⑤ Around February 12, 2018, the Defendant drafted a written undertaking to transfer the ownership of part of the CSS forest that can be used as the site of the instant forest to AD. Accordingly, the victim AD and AW stated in this court that “after it was revealed that the Defendant was not the owner of the instant forest, the Defendant would exchange the instant forest with another forest that will be used as the site of the instant forest to be used as the site of the instant golf course.” Q Q also stated to the effect that “AD knew AD about the Defendant’s fraud around February 2, 2018 following the conclusion of the contract for sale of D equity shares,” and that “AD knew AD about the Defendant’s fraud on or around February 2018 after the conclusion of the contract for sale of D equity.” The victim appears to have prepared the first written undertaking to transfer part of the instant forest land to AD without notifying AD of the fact that the Defendant was not the owner of the instant forest, and thus, to control it.

④ According to L’s legal statement, the Defendant and CT appears to have introduced the Defendant as the president of the DA Association at the time of proposing that the Defendant would develop and sell the K-dong forest as sports facilities by approaching L around January 2017 (Evidence No. 88 pages). (Evidence No. 88 pages) the Defendant did not present any materials to deem that the Defendant has such position, and there was no circumstance that the Defendant and CT did not endeavor to obtain approval for the development of the K-dong forest, and as seen earlier, the agreement between the Defendant and L on the development of the K-dong forest was no longer paid the agreed amount of money between the Defendant and L. In light of the fact that the agreement on the development of the K-dong forest was not made on the part of the Defendant, it appears that the Defendant did not have any ability

5) Related to the sale of D's shares (the crime No. 5-b)

In addition to the deception on the defendant's stem cell business and the Kdong Forest Sale Business, the following circumstances can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant deceivingd the victim AD with respect to the D business and acquired the share purchase price.

① The Defendant, for one year of 2018, prepared a “plan for sales in 2018 (Evidence No. 143 through 146 pages), stating that D would incur approximately KRW 61.4 billion profit through K-dong Forest Sale Business, and that sales in KRW 33.7 billion through the stem cell business would have occurred through AW and delivered it to AD through A. However, at the time, D was in a state of no sales, and as seen earlier, it was impossible to commence the business due to the lack of authority or right to sell the K-dong Forest Land or stem cell business.

② In addition, around January 19, 2018, the Defendant sent a written investment proposal to AD with respect to the forest of this case to the victim AD for exchange amounting to KRW 700 million (Evidence No. 147 pages). The content is the same as the written agreement entered into between the actual Defendant and the victim AD (Evidence No. 141 pages) and the same as the written agreement entered into between the actual Defendant and the victim AD, but the Defendant actively recommended the victim AD to make an investment even though the substance of the business is unclear as above.

③ The Defendant asserted that the victim AD did not deceiving the victim AD to purchase the shares of D on the ground that the victim AD had a long-term stay in the Republic of Korea or that the content of the sales plan in 2018 was improper. However, even if there were some other motives to the victim AD, the Defendant borrowed money from Q and X, etc. by explaining D’s stem cell project or K-dong forest sale project on several occasions, and sent the victim AD with the aforementioned investment proposal. In light of the fact that the content of D’s sales plan in 2018 is considerably specific, and that the victim AD entered into a contract with the victim AD to purchase the shares by paying investment funds to D, and paid KRW 100 million, which is a part of the actual price, the victim AD’s investment recommendation is deemed to have paid the investment funds.

6) As to the assertion that the victim Q Q has received money and used money arbitrarily

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that a large portion of the money received from the victims was remitted to the victims Q2 and Q1R account, and that it was used for the virtual currency trading or personal use of Q2, and that damage to the victims occurred regardless of the Defendant’s intent. However, the victim Q2 and Q1 stated in the investigative agency and this court that “the Defendant used his own account because it was a bad credit holder, and most of the money deposited into his own account was remitted to or used for purchase of virtual currency according to the Defendant’s order,” and that the Defendant instructed the victims Q2 and Q1R to transfer money to another person, or that it was difficult to view the victim’s account that the Defendant purchased Q2 and Q10 million won from the victim’s account under the victim’s name and Q10 million won was transferred to the victim’s account (Evidence 241, 291, 316 pages of evidence, and that the Defendant purchased Q10 million won from the victim’s account under the victim’s name of Q2 and Q2, the Defendant’s money was transferred to the victim’s account.

In addition, although the victims Q Q used part of the money received from the victims for personal purposes such as children's school expenses, it is reasonable to view that the victim Q Q was able to use part of the money received from the victims for personal purposes, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant and the victim Q Q used the part of the money received from the victims to be paid to D and AB in this court; and (b) the victim Q Q Q Q used the portion of the money received from the victims as wages in this court; and (c) the victim Q Q Q was transferred from the victims to the victim's account or AR account in the name of Q and R as seen earlier; and (d) the victim Q Q transferred money received from the Defendant's account in the name of Q and AR

Ultimately, even if the victims' money was remitted to the victims Q Q, or there was a fact that the victims Q Q has used some of the money individually, it cannot be said that there was an obstacle to recognizing the criminal defendant's criminal act of defraudation because the defendant was not related to or was not related to the victims' deception and received money for his own business.

7) As to the assertion that the Defendant did not deceiving the victim Q Q

The following circumstances are as follows: ① AY’s account in the name of AB was actually managed by the Defendant at the time of transfer of funds from AY to AY; ② The victim Q demanded that the Defendant continue to invest in or lend money from P, and solicited the Defendant to invest in X and AY several times, but X and Y refused to invest and borrow money from the Defendant; ③ AY also stated that “AY borrowed money from AY to the victim Q,” ③ the investigative agency stated that “AY has lent money to the victim Q,” ④ when comprehensively considering the above circumstances, the victim Q was believed to have served as a role of soliciting various investors in the Defendant’s belief of the Defendant’s false educational background and career, and in view of the fact that the Defendant was unaware of the Defendant’s horse on D and AB’s business in the form of borrowing money from AY and did not mislead the Defendant into the Defendant’s account under the name of AP building AB office cost.

8) Sub-determination

In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant established U, D, and AB under the name of stem cell business, beauty art equipment export business, and Kdong forest business, and explain the above company’s business in which the substance is unclear from the investors introduced through the victim Q, etc. after obtaining the victim’s trust by using false academic background and experience and the status of the director of the C Educational Center, and then obtaining the investment money from the investors introduced through the victim Q, etc., and received the investment money by taking office or taking office as an officer, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant acquired the money by deceiving the victims.

2. The following circumstances are as follows (Article 6) 30 of the Occupational Embezzlement (the crime committed in the market). ① the Defendant received the deposit that he arbitrarily sub-paid AP building Q from DH, which is a foundation; ② the Defendant transferred part of the above amount deposited into D’s account to AV’s account or used it as a lawyer’s fee to file a complaint against Q, etc. as shown in the attached crime list; ③ the Defendant’s transfer from D’s account to AV’s account from D’s name was alleged to be AV’s pay (Evidence Records 1754, 1755), but the Defendant asserted that it was not an officer or employee of D, and did not properly explain whether the place of use was related to D’s business; rather, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the Defendant used it as an individual (Evidence Records 156, 1755, 1756).

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for three to forty-five years; and

2. Not applying the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not apply as there is a crime of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That the reference of the sentencing criteria is as follows:

(a) Basic crime: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud 31);

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud [Type 3] A more than 50 million won, less than five billion won

【Recommendation Area】

[Scope of Recommendation] Three to Six years of imprisonment

(b) Second crime: Occupational embezzlement; and

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust (Type 1)

【Recommendation Area】

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 4 months to 1 year and 4 months

(c) Scope of recommendations based on the standards for handling multiple offenses: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years to six years;

3. Determination of sentence: Six years of imprisonment; and

○ Unfavorable Conditions

Although the Defendant had been punished more than 10 times due to fraud, including the crime of deceiving money from many victims under the pretext of business investment funds or loan funds for business, he/she was deceiving five victims to obtain trust from the victims of this case and to provide a new equity interest in the company established on the grounds of a variety of projects where the substance is unclear. Nevertheless, the Defendant was trying to avoid attendance at an investigative agency from time to time, refuse to conduct a large-scale investigation with the victims, and the Defendant tried to dilution the case and transfer liability to the victims on the grounds of other circumstances beyond the nature of the case while making statements outside of the nature of the case. It is inevitable to impose severe punishment on the grounds that the victims QW, AW, or used violence. It is difficult to view that the actual recovery of the victims' damage is the result of efforts to recover the damage caused by the victims or the victims who received part of virtual currency as the result of the crime.32) The Defendant did not use the funds for personal purposes without any specific reason.

○ favorable circumstances

In light of the fact that the value of the AE co paid by the victim AD in return for the forest exchange of this case has not been significantly decreased since the conclusion of the contract, as well as the fact that the said coco has been listed in the DI Exchange, the substantial amount of damage seems to have been reduced compared to the amount stated in the crime. The equity between the case where the judgment was rendered with the final and conclusive crime should be taken into account. Considering the above circumstances, the defendant’s age, character, environment, family relationship, health status, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and other various circumstances shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the records and arguments of this case, should be considered.

Judges

The presiding judge; and

Awards and Decorations for Judges

Judges Lee Jong-deok

Note tin

1) The above judgment was rendered and finalized on August 2008, 2008, 2 years of the suspended sentence of 8 months for a crime of fraud, and around July 2014, 1 year of suspended sentence of 4 months for a crime of fraud was separately sentenced. On August 2008, the above judgment cannot be deemed to be in a concurrent crime relationship under the latter part of Article 38 of the Criminal Act since it was impossible for this case to be judged together with the first time due to the final and conclusive judgment prior to the above judgment and it cannot be deemed that there was a concurrent crime relationship under the latter part of the Article

2) On the date of February 15, 2019, the amendment of indictment was permitted to add the phrase “a false career of introducing the accused” to “a false career.”

3) As seen infra, as seen earlier, the 3,306m of AH forests and fields the victim intended to purchase was authorized to sell around January 16, 2018 from the owner L. As such, partial revision was made to the effect that the Defendant did not have the right to sell the entire KH forests and fields in order to clarify the purport of the charges.

4) Although this part of the facts charged is stated in a sales contract, it was concluded between the defendant and the victim AD in the form of an exchange contract, and thus revised accordingly.

5) AE cocomer (VO) is a merchandise coupon that allows the purchase of AE electronic currency by inputting the numbers recorded in the Babro.

6) At the time, transaction was made at US$ 0.01 per 1 AEco, and the exchange rate per US$ 1,064-1,065 was approximately KRW 1,065 (Evidence No. 487 pages).

7) The Defendant led to confession as to the fraud against the victim E under criminal facts of paragraph (1) of the judgment.

8) The Defendant did not state any particular position on his false academic background and career, and recognized that “the Defendant neglected the academic background and career” in the last statement.

9) Since CJ or around March 2017, the representative director is operating the AX substantially.

10) AX is a company established to carry out business of manufacturing and selling cosmetics using Y's stem cell patents as a financial problem of the representative director and the accused of internal directors, the CK, and the auditor BI 11).

12) As seen thereafter, the Defendant had already concluded a contract to receive investment funds from BB on August 2017, under which U’s share was transferred, and subsequently used the Si’s Internet homepage, the introduction of the company, and the data on the current status.

13) Meanwhile, in the above contract, investors BB induced an investment in a manner similar to the victims of this case by transferring 10% of the shares and allowing them to use part of the office.

14) According to an investment contract, BB paid to U the down payment of KRW 50 million on August 21, 2017, KRW 150 million on August 31, 2017, KRW 30 million on September 15, 2017, KRW 300 million on September 30, 2017, KRW 50 million on September 30, 2017, and KRW 1 billion on October 31, 2017.

15) Representative Director and the Defendant of In-house Directors, Q, AR (Resignation on November 27, 2017)

16) Representative Director and in-house director Q, in-house director P, AV (Removal of Defendant’s father and descendant on March 21, 2018), and auditor Defendant (Removal of March 21, 2018)

17) In relation to the above text, the Defendant responded to a consistent answer by the investigative agency, such as “the person in China was aware of the fact, but the person was sent, not memory,” “the real estate business operator was sent to the S groups or Cheongdo. At that time, Cheongdo stated that it was well sold by the real estate business operator,” “The fact that the real estate business operator had been ordered to do so, and the order was the same.” “The fact that there was no contact with the S groups, but there was no contact from the S groups,” and “The Defendant attempted to send a match with the victim P (Evidence No. 1577 through 1579 of the evidence record).”

18) The Defendant appears to have explained the investment in the Kdong forest sale business and the stem cell business, even to the victim P, and proposed that he will give U shares if the investment is made. However, the victim P did not have interest in the other businesses of the Defendant except the beauty art equipment export business.

19) The representative director CV, directors CW, CX, and auditors L

20) Representative Director and In-house Directors CY, and In-house Directors CI

21) The initial Defendant and CT purchased land from L, and subsequently granted the right to sell land to CU, a corporation with CU, a company with CU sold 50-700,000 won per square day over two occasions, and entered into a contract with BH to pay 200,000 won per square day (Evidence List 231 Contract), and further, it is unclear how the contract was entered into on January 11, 2017.

22) Because it is difficult to recognize that land was purchased in money with virtual currency, a contract was concluded in the form of exchange between land and virtual currency.

23) The Defendant alleged at the investigative agency that the Defendant continued to pay a cash amounting to KRW 50 million and KRW 50 million for D operation support expenses, not for the purchase price of the instant forest, but for the instant forest. However, at the fourth suspect examination, the Defendant acknowledged that the instant forest was the price for the sale of the instant forest during the instant suspect examination (Evidence No. 1760 pages of evidence).

24) AW stated in this court that “after it was confirmed that the forest of this case was not owned by the Defendant, the Defendant was friendly with CT, including the forest of this case.” The Defendant also stated in the investigative agency that “L is the owner of the forest of this case and CT and L are the owner of the forest of this case, and the Defendant also stated that “L is the owner of the forest of this case and is the owner of the forest of this case,”

25) The content of the “farmer” at an investigative agency is rather referred to as the “project for the sale of land in JJ in Gyeonggi-do, Hanam-do, which was submitted by the victim E in the criminal facts stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment in the judgment, when the defendant files a fraudulent complaint against the defendant.” The content also includes false information that “The government has a policy to increase a insufficient house by cancelling the green belt, thereby releasing the regulation of private property rights due to green belt” (Evidence No. 118 pages of evidence record).

26) See the exchange agreement between the Defendant and L on January 16, 2018 (Evidence List 251 pages).

27) After the victim AD entered into an agreement on the exchange of the instant forest land, the Defendant first demanded the exchange of the CS forest land that can be used as the site for the golf course and completed the commitment on February 12, 2018, but it is difficult to believe in light of the aforementioned circumstances.

28) The Defendant stated in an investigative agency that “U’s account is managed by himself” (Evidence Record 1582 pages);

29) The Defendant stated from the victim P that he repaid the borrowed amount of KRW 10 million to DG out of the money received in the name of the Defendant (Evidence No. 1583, 1746). Moreover, the Defendant paid a partial amount of KRW 25 million out of the proceeds of equity in the AR account received from the victim AD to the AR account. Otherwise, the remitted amount to BG, BJ, BH Co., Ltd. was a performance of the Defendant’s personal obligation (legal statement and evidence record No. 1613, 1614, 1768 pages).

30) Although the Defendant denied the fact of occupational embezzlement, the Defendant did not make any particular assertion on the reason therefor.

31)In the case of concurrent crimes between general fraud, the type shall be determined on the basis of an amount calculated by adding the amount of profit.

32) AE copis paid to AY who lent money to AY with the victim P and the victim Q, even if the transaction was difficult at the time of payment, and the value was much less than the amount obtained by deceit, and the present value was reduced. Although the victim X demanded the Defendant to return the money obtained by deceit several times, the Defendant showed a strong attitude toward the Defendant to repay the amount that is half of the amount obtained by deception from the victim AD, but the Defendant was to pay the amount that is 25 million won, which is the half of the amount obtained by deception, and the remaining 25 million won was repaid by the victim Q.

33) However, the victim E stated that it was paid KRW 11.8 million at an investigative agency, and the Defendant asserted that it was paid KRW 15 million to the victim E, but the Defendant did not present the data that it was paid in excess of KRW 11.8 million.