Defendant (Defendant 1 of the Supreme Court and the appellate court judgment)

Yucheon fever

Attorney Nam-woo (Korean National Assembly)

Applicant for Compensation (Non-Indicted 4 of the Supreme Court Decision)

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

On August 8, 2005, the defendant is not guilty of fraud.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

On September 3, 2002, the Defendant received the request from Nonindicted 15, a senior official under the Japanese colonial rule from Nonindicted 119, who was the descendants of Nonindicted Party 119, for the purpose of personal use not related to the instant lawsuit by receiving the security from the victims or receiving money from the victims for the purpose of litigation expenses, etc., in order to realize the ownership transfer registration due to the invalidation of the cause for the land of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”), approximately KRW 110,00 (hereinafter “instant land”).

[2010 Highest 1556]

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim Nonindicted Co. 14

The defendant, around November 2003, at the office of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu (hereinafter omitted) around 1995, on or around August 1995, and around November 197, against the above non-indicted 120 educational foundation, etc., filed a lawsuit claiming partial return of the land (Seoul District Court Decision 96Da8906, 77025) against the State on behalf of the above non-indicted 15, etc., and even if he received money from the victim non-indicted 14 corporation (hereinafter "non-indicted 14 corporation"), he did not have the ability to transfer part of the land of this case corresponding to the money paid within 150 days to the non-indicted 14 corporation, and even if he received money from the non-indicted 14 corporation, he did not have the ability to withdraw part of the land of this case at the expense of the non-indicted 14 corporation's final settlement or other related litigation expenses, and he did not have the ability to withdraw it from the non-indicted 16 corporation's final settlement.

[2010 Highest 1506]

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes to an applicant for compensation;

The defendant at the office of the defendant in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), on June 2005, and around August 1995 and around November 1997, against the above non-indicted 120 school juristic person, etc., in subrogation of the above non-indicted 15, etc., filed a lawsuit claiming the return of part of the land of this case (Seoul District Court 96Gahap8906, 77025) against the state. On February 24, 2005, the special act on the reversion of the property of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors to the State was promulgated on December 29, 2005.

B. The Defendant also knew that the Plaintiff could not win the instant lawsuit, and even if the costs of lawsuit were not required, the Plaintiff did not intend to use the real estate owned by the victim as the costs of the instant lawsuit even if 60 million won was loaned as the collateral, and there was no special property such as Nonindicted 1’s failure to repay the amount of KRW 500 million from Nonindicted 1, 200,000,000 from 88 gymnasium site development projects at that time, and there was no ability to pay the said principal and interest on the instant lawsuit. However, the Defendant’s civil lawsuit instituted to recover the principal and interest on the instant land against the State by Nonindicted 119, 15,000,000 won for KRW 70,000,000,000 to KRW 80,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won for KRW 80,000,000,000.

[2010 Highest 1556]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The statement made by Nonindicted 16 in the fourth trial record

1. Some of the suspect's interrogation records against the defendant (including the part concerning the suspect's statement);

1. Each prosecutor’s statement made by Nonindicted 16 and 15

1. A copy of the company registry, a copy of a copy of the real estate sales contract, a copy of a copy of the company's title, a copy of a receipt, a joint passbook, a request for withdrawal of down payment, a certificate of receipt, a copy of the passbook, a request for withdrawal of down payment, a copy of the passbook, a request for support, a letter of decision on the seizure and collection order, a letter of performance, a request for withdrawal of provisional attachment and cancellation of execution of claim, a request for cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the invalidity of cause(1 and 2), a letter of delegation of lawsuit, a letter of delegation of attorney fees (201.7.7.), a letter of delegation of authority for donation (26. 2003. 9.) and a certificate of seal impression (203. 9.).

[2010 Highest 1506]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 15

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 17, the applicant for compensation, and Nonindicted 18 in the third trial record

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused against each prosecutor (excluding the part concerning the statement of applicant for compensation among the second suspect interrogation protocol);

1. The Prosecutor’s interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 17 (including the part concerning the testimony of a substitute person)

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the defendant (including the part concerning the statement of the person in question);

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 17 (including the statement made by a substitute person if he/she is replaced)

1. The police statement of the applicant for compensation;

1. A criminal investigation report (a statement on the progress of a private case, a civil judgment, a statement explaining the purport and cause of the claim, and a ground for calculating the value of the subject matter);

1. Withdrawal of a lawsuit by a right holder, guarantee of a right by heir, waiver of inherited property, each transfer contract of ownership transfer claim (non-indicted 122 and non-indicted 122), power of attorney (non-indicted 122), general statement of cases by instance, statement of performance of promise, written judgment (2002Gahap54672), written judgment (206Na20858), written judgment (206Na2088), modification of the purport and cause for supplementation, basis for calculation of the subject matter of lawsuit, special bill on restitution of the property of pro-Japanese and anti-National Collaborators, written judgment (2007Gahap7111, etc.), written judgment (207Gahap711, etc.), transaction statement of a company bank, written

1. Judgment on the argument on the crime No. 1

A. Summary of the assertion

Although there is a fact that the defendant received money as stated in Paragraph (1) of the same Article from Nonindicted Company 14, this is a sales contract that was sold to Nonindicted Company 14 in part of the land to be received as a successful remuneration in the case of winning the lawsuit in this case. Since Nonindicted Company 14 voluntarily purchased part of the land from the defendant by assessing the possibility of winning the lawsuit in this case, there was no fact that the defendant committed a deception

B. Facts of recognition

1) In early 2002, Nonindicted 15, the grandchildren of Nonindicted 119, delegated the instant lawsuit to the Defendant in early 2002, and paid 25% of the winning price to the Defendant as a successful fee in favor of the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant bears all the costs of lawsuit. When winning the lawsuit, Nonindicted 15 agreed to delegate the disposal and use plan of the instant land to the Defendant. Around June 2003, the power of attorney was also drawn up to delegate the Defendant to dispose of part of the instant land and to prepare litigation costs and related expenses.

2) Around November 2003, Nonindicted Co. 14 came to know that the Defendant was delegated with the authority to dispose of the instant land through Nonindicted Co. 123 and Nonindicted Co. 124, a real estate agent Nonindicted Co. 14, the Defendant’s seat, and Nonindicted Co. 14, a senior managing director of Nonindicted Co. 14, sought the possibility of winning the instant lawsuit by visiting the Defendant’s office and discussed the development of the instant land when winning the lawsuit.

3) On December 5, 2003, Nonindicted Co. 14 entered into a sales contract with the Defendant who representing the Plaintiff’s side of the instant lawsuit, including Nonindicted Co. 15, on the premise that the Defendant would receive contingent fees, on the premise that he would have won the instant lawsuit, that he would purchase KRW 15,00 of the site available for the construction of apartment at KRW 27 billion under the urban planning and district unit planning (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

4) Under the instant sales contract, Nonindicted Company 14 pays down payment of KRW 2.7 billion and intermediate payment of KRW 300 million at the time of the contract (Article 2(2)). Of KRW 3 billion paid at the time of the contract, KRW 2 billion shall be deposited in the bank under the joint name of Nonindicted Company 14 and Defendant, and the Defendant shall withdraw the ownership of the instant land under his/her own and his/her heir’s name after receiving the ownership transfer (Article 2(6)). In cases where the litigation cost in the lawsuit exceeds KRW 1 billion, the Defendant may withdraw and use the said deposit with Nonindicted Company 14 (Article 2(7)), with the consent of Nonindicted Company 14, and the Defendant shall use the down payment and intermediate payment paid by Nonindicted Company 14 only for the costs related to the lawsuit until the ownership of the said land is transferred in the name of the Defendant and his/her heir (Article 2(9)), and the Defendant shall obtain within 150 days from the date of conclusion of the contract with respect to the said land, and return of the intermediate payment (Article 6(14).

5) On the same day, Nonindicted Co. 14 paid KRW 1 billion to the Defendant as the sales contract deposit, and deposited KRW 2 billion in the joint account with Nonindicted Co. 14 and the Defendant as the remaining down payment and part intermediate payment.

6) On December 10, 2003, the Defendant requested Nonindicted Company 14 to withdraw the down payment amount of KRW 1.5 billion out of the down payment deposited pursuant to the instant sales contract by stating the grounds for withdrawal as “litigation costs and surrounding liquidation costs,” and upon Nonindicted Company 14’s request for the evidentiary materials on the expenditure of the funds, the Defendant issued a written request for the withdrawal of the down payment amount of KRW 1.5 billion to the court of the first instance, a written proposal for settlement and conciliation submitted to the court of the instant lawsuit, a certificate proving that he received the said proposal to the court, and a letter of intent to contribute to the Korea Military Issues Research Institute. Accordingly, Nonindicted Company 14 had the Defendant withdraw and use KRW 2 billion out of the deposited KRW 2 billion at the Defendant’s request, and the Defendant withdrawn the above KRW 1 billion on December 16, 2003.

7) On December 20, 2003, the Defendant: (a) requested the Nonindicted Company 14 to withdraw joint deposit by December 26, 2003, a written request for financial assistance with the purport of requesting the Defendant to provide support of KRW 2 billion, including the omitted portion in the previous request amount, as “litigation costs and surrounding reorganization expenses”; (b) however, Nonindicted Company 14 rejected it on the ground that the Defendant did not properly explain the result of consultation with the Military Issues Research Institute, etc. and the details of the use of the already withdrawn funds.

8) In several subsequent instances, Nonindicted Co. 14 requested the Defendant to present a detailed schedule for future implementation by pursuing that the transfer of ownership was not completed on the date agreed upon under the instant sales contract, and the Defendant’s use of KRW 2 billion paid to the Defendant ought to be limited to the litigation, but requested the Defendant to present a specific place of use by pursuing that it was not used for repayment of personal debt, although the Defendant did not disclose the place of use.

9) On May 13, 2005, the Defendant drafted a letter of commitment performance to the effect that the provisional seizure requested by its creditors will be cancelled not later than June 8, 2005 with respect to the remaining KRW 1 billion out of the money deposited in the joint account with Nonindicted Company 14.

10) On November 28, 2005, Nonindicted Co. 14 recovered the remainder of KRW 770 million, excluding KRW 230,000,000,000, which was seized by Defendant’s personal debt, out of KRW 1 billion remaining in the joint account.

11) On November 23, 2005, and February 4, 2009, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims and appeals, including Non-Indicted 15, respectively. The Defendant paid approximately KRW 235 million in the first instance court of the instant lawsuit and approximately KRW 270 million in the second instance.

(b) Relevant statements;

공소외 14 회사의 전무이사로서 토지 매수 등 업무를 맡고 있는 공소외 16은 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 일관하여, ① 2003. 11.경 피고인의 사무실을 방문하자 피고인이 자신에게 이 사건 소송을 화해 또는 판결로 승소할 것을 장담하면서, 150일 이내에 이 사건 토지 중 일부인 약 1만 5,000평에 대하여 소유권을 이전해 줄 테니 그 매매계약금 명목으로 30억 원을 달라고 하였고, ② 당시 피고인은 그 매매계약금을 오로지 소송비용으로만 사용하기로 약속하였고, 그래서 계약서 문안에도 이를 명시하고 소송비용으로 인정되는 부분에 한하여 공동 예치금을 인출할 수 있도록 한 것이며, ③ 피고인이 화해·조정 제안 법원 접수증명원 등을 제시하면서 군사문제연구원과 협의 조정 및 주변 정리 비용을 인출해 달라고 하여, 2003. 12. 24.까지 군사문제연구원과의 협의를 끝내는 조건으로 10억 원을 인출하여 사용하도록 허락한 것이고, 당시 피고인이 군사문제연구원 위원들 및 나머지 주위에 관련된 사람들에게 인사할 비용으로 15억 원이 필요하다고 말하였고, ④ 2003. 12. 26.경에 피고인이 또 자금을 요구해서 협의 결과를 요구하자 피고인이 국방부 장관 경질 때문에 군사문제연구원과의 협의가 끝났고 ♤♤♤♤♤를 설립하여 그 위원회에 기부하는 조건으로 소송을 진행하겠다는 취지로 말하였고, 인지대 영수증 등 지출된 자금에 대한 사용처를 제시해 달라고 수회 요청해도 피고인이 제시하지 못하자, 더 이상 피고인을 신뢰하지 못하고 추가 자금 집행을 거부하면서 계약해지를 요청하였다고 진술한다.

C. Determination

살피건대, 위 인정사실, 판시 각 증거 및 이 사건 기록의 기타 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① ㉠ 당시는 친일반민족행위자 재산의 국가귀속에 관한 특별법이 발의되기 전이기는 하나 친일파의 후손들이 친일행위를 한 선조가 취득한 재산을 되찾고자 하는 이 사건 소송은 국민들의 정의 관념상 적지 않은 어려움이 예상될 뿐만 아니라, 이미 1세기에 가까운 시간이 흐른 상황에서 그 소유권 귀속 관계에 대한 입증에도 상당한 어려움이 예상되었을 것으로 보이고, 더욱이 당시 이 사건 토지 중 일부에 대하여 공소외 15의 청구권을 대위하여 청구한 소송에서 이미 패소 판결이 확정되어 있는 상황이었으므로, 이 사건 소송의 승소를 확신하기는 어려운 상황이었고, ㉡ 피고인은 2003년경부터 2005년경까지 사이에 개인적으로 추진하던 ♤♤♤♤♤사업과 공소외 55 재단법인 활동에 합계 90억 원에 이르는 자금을 사용하였으며, ㉢ 피고인은 2004년경부터 2008년경에 이르기까지 다른 토지의 아파트 개발사업 및 소송비용 등 명목으로 여러 사람들로부터 수십억 원에 이르는 금원을 교부받고도 이를 변제하지 못하여 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기) 등으로 기소되어 유죄 판결을 받은 사정 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피고인으로서는 적어도 미필적으로나마 공소외 14 회사와 이 사건 매매계약을 체결하고 그 소송비용 명목으로 돈을 교부받더라도 이 사건 매매계약에 따른 150일 이내로 정해진 소유권이전 의무를 이행하지 못하고, 나아가 소유권이전 의무 불이행 시 이미 지급받은 소송비용도 반환할 능력이 없다는 것을 인식하였을 것으로 보이는 점, ② 이 사건 매매계약상 계약시 지급되는 30억 원은 이 사건 토지의 소유권이 국가로부터 피고인 등에게 이전되기 전까지는 소송 관련 비용으로만 사용하기로 명시되어 있고, 이에 따라 그 중 20억 원을 피고인과 공소외 14 회사의 공동 계좌에 예치하여 소송비용으로 사용할 필요성이 있을 때 피고인이 그 사유와 금액을 제시하여 공소외 14 회사의 동의를 받은 후에야 인출하기로 약정한 것을 보면, 피고인과 공소외 14 회사는 이 사건 소송의 결과가 나오기 전에 미리 지급되는 매매계약금 및 중도금을 이 사건 소송의 소송비용으로만 사용하기로 명시적으로 합의한 것으로 보이는 점(이에 대하여 피고인은 계약서를 공증한 뒤에 보니 제2조 제9항에 계약금 사용조건 제한조항이 있는 것을 발견하고 이의를 제기하니 공소외 124, 16이 피고인이 일하는데 지장이 없도록 협조하겠다고 하여 더 이상 이의를 제기하지 아니하였다고 주장하나, 법률전문가인 피고인이 위와 같이 중요한 의미를 가지는 조항에 대하여 제대로 검토하지 못하였다거나 공소외 16의 막연한 구두 약속만을 믿고 그 조항을 방치하였다는 것은 쉽게 믿기 어렵다), ③ 피고인 스스로도 위 공동 예치금의 인출을 요구할 때 이를 이 사건 소송비용으로 사용할 것처럼 인출요청서를 작성하였고, 화해로 이 사건 소송을 조기에 끝낼 수 있다는 취지로 법원에 제출한 화해·조정 제안서를 공소외 14 회사에 제시하기도 한 점, ④ 당시 피고인이 공소외 14 회사에 공동 예치금의 인출을 요구하면서 국가와 군사문제연구원을 포함한 화해·조정안, 기부의향서 등을 제시한 것을 보면, 피고인이 군사문제연구원 등과의 협의비용 등에 자금이 필요하다고 말하였다는 공소외 16의 진술이 신빙성이 있고, 나머지 이 사건 매매계약 체결 경위 등에 관한 공소외 16의 진술이 다른 객관적 정황들에 부합하여 그 신빙성이 있는 점, ⑤ 따라서 이 사건 매매계약의 계약 조건 등에 비추어 공소외 14 회사로서는 피고인이 이 사건 소송이 진행되고 있는 중에 소송비용 명목으로 선지급받은 금원을 이와 무관한 피고인 개인적인 용도에 사용할 것이라는 사정을 알았다면 피고인에게 그 돈을 교부하지 않았을 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 피고인은 스스로도 인정하고 있듯이 공소외 14 회사로부터 받은 돈 중 대부분을 이 사건 소송과는 아무런 관련이 없는 ♤♤♤♤♤ 관련 해외 사업비로 사용한 점(이에 대하여 피고인은 이 사건 매매계약상 소송비용에 ♤♤♤♤♤ 관련 사업비도 포함되는 것이라는 취지로 주장하나, ♤♤♤♤♤사업은 당시 피고인이 몽골 정부 등과 개인적으로 추진하고 있던 사업으로서 가사 공소외 15와 사이에 향후 이 사건 소송에서 승소할 경우 이 사건 토지의 개발이익 중 일부를 그 사업을 위하여 사용하기로 약정하였다고 하더라도, 이는 승소 후의 토지 사용 문제에 불과하고 이 사건 소송 과정에서 지출되어야 할 비용과는 전혀 무관하다) 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 볼 때, 피고인은 사실은 이 사건 소송의 승소가능성이 불투명한 상황에서 공소외 14 회사와 이 사건 매매계약을 체결하고 그 소송비용에 사용하기로 합의한 계약금 등을 지급받더라도 이를 이 사건 소송비용으로 사용할 의사도 없고, 나아가 이 사건 소송이 패소하는 경우 위와 같이 지급받은 계약금 등을 반환할 의사와 능력도 없음에도, 군사문제연구원과의 협의비용 등 소송 관련 비용으로 사용할 것처럼 기망하여 계약금 등 명목으로 20억 원을 교부받아 편취한 것으로 봄이 상당하므로, 피고인 및 변호인의 이 부분 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

2. Judgment on the argument on the crime No. 2

A. Summary of the assertion

There was no fact that the defendant did not mean that he would have borrowed money from a stamp, etc., and when the victim himself evaluated the possibility of winning the lawsuit in this case and won, 3,000 of the land in this case shall be taken over, and 600 million won shall be loaned from the defendant's name and paid it to the defendant as the purchase price or the investment money. Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim.

B. Facts of recognition

1) The victim became aware of Nonindicted 17’s agent Nonindicted 122, the deceased Nonindicted 119’s descendants, through Nonindicted 18, who performs land brokerage business, and became aware of the fact that Nonindicted 15, etc. filed the instant lawsuit against the State through Nonindicted 17 around 2005.

2) Nonindicted 122 participated in the instant lawsuit. From February 25, 2005 to June 30, 2005, between Nonindicted 17 and Nonindicted 122 who represented Nonindicted 122 on a total of four occasions during the instant lawsuit, Nonindicted 122 entered into a contract for the transfer of ownership transfer claim with the content that he purchases a total of 4,200 square meters among the inheritance shares of Nonindicted 122, which can be recognized as to the instant land, and paid a total of 44,400 million won.

3) The Defendant stated that Nonindicted 17, who was represented by Nonindicted 122 on behalf of Nonindicted 122, would be at a disadvantage in the lawsuit in the event of a dispute between siblingss, and that if the above application for intervention is withdrawn, Nonindicted 122 would be guaranteed the share of 4/25 out of the land of this case. Nonindicted 122 withdrawn the above application for intervention by the said independent party on May 31, 2005, and the Defendant drafted a document that guarantees Nonindicted 122’s inheritance share of 4/25 on the compensation that he would have received in winning the instant lawsuit.

4) Of the instant land, Nonindicted 17 sold to the victim, etc. the share to be inherited by Nonindicted 122 when winning the lawsuit, and paid a total of KRW 420 million to the Defendant as the litigation cost of the instant lawsuit.

5) Around March 2005, the victim first introduced the Defendant, who is the agent of the instant lawsuit, through Nonindicted 17 in the process of purchasing Nonindicted 122 shares in the instant land.

6) On June 29, 2005, the Defendant drafted a written confirmation of the transfer of land rights with the purport that the Defendant promised to transfer the amount of KRW 300,00 among the land rights that the Defendant would be entitled to contingent fees to the victim in the instant lawsuit. On the following day, the victim created a collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 788,00,000,000 and the building on the site and the ground owned by the victim as set forth in paragraph (2) of the judgment. The Defendant was given a loan of KRW 60,000,000 from the said bank.

7) After that, the Defendant failed to repay the principal and interest of the above loan, the victim paid 45 million won interest of the above loan on October 25, 2005. On March 16, 2007, the Defendant paid the principal and interest of the above loan by subrogation.

8) In the process, on April 14, 2007, the Defendant promised the victim to pay the amount of KRW 100 million in total as to KRW 620 million in the savings bank loans of KRW 121,00,000,000 from April 30, 2007 to May 10, 207, and to pay the remainder until May 31, 2007, the Defendant paid the victim the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 with interest paid in excess of the amount of KRW 620,000,000,000,000 with the victim’s gas station as security. ② The basis for raising the funds was to pay the amount of KRW 100,000,000 from the development funds after the designation of the developer. ③ With respect to the share commitments of KRW 300,000 among the land of this case, the Defendant prepared a letter of commitment to guarantee each interest in accordance with the Military unit and Development Assistance Act.

9) On July 27, 2007, the Defendant issued one promissory note with a face value of KRW 6 billion, a face value of KRW 300,000 on the land that the Defendant decided to transfer to the victim, which is the amount calculated at a face value of KRW 2,00,000 per square, and separately issued one promissory note with a face value of KRW 72,00,000 per square.

(c) Relevant statements;

1) On June 2005, the victim consistently heard the horses of Nonindicted 17 from the investigative agency to this court, and visited the Defendant’s office with Nonindicted 17 and 18, which require the Defendant to bear litigation costs. At the time, the Defendant stated that, in the winning of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant would have lent the Defendant’s office with money that KRW 600 million should be recognized as necessary, and that, as indicated in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Defendant, the Defendant said that the Defendant did not have any money, and that there was no money outside the gas station, and that there was no money outside the gas station, as indicated in paragraph 2 of the judgment, the Defendant created a collateral security at the same time.

2) Nonindicted 17 also stated to the effect that it was consistent with the investigative agency to the effect that it was similar to the victim’s statement, and that there was no investment story at the time, and that it was evident that the Defendant lent KRW 600 million for the instant lawsuit.

3) Nonindicted 18 also consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to this court with the same purport as the victim’s statement, and at the time when the Defendant became aware of KRW 600 million as the victim’s statement, Nonindicted 18 stated that the lawsuit does not proceed.

D. Determination

살피건대, 위 인정사실, 판시 각 증거 및 이 사건 기록의 기타 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피해자를 포함한 관련자들의 진술이 서로 부합하고 구체적이며 대체적인 취지가 일관될 뿐만 아니라, 다른 객관적 사정들과도 일치하여 그 신빙성이 있는 것으로 보이는 점, ② 피고인은 피해자의 주유소 담보 제공은 피해자가 6억 원을 이 사건 토지 중 3,000평의 매수대금 내지 투자금으로 지급한 것인데, 자신이 이미 공소외 121 저축은행의 대출심사를 통과한 상황에서 자신의 명의로 대출을 받은 것일 뿐이므로 그 이자도 피해자가 부담하였다는 취지로 주장하나, ㉠ 피고인 주장과 같이 승소시 성공보수로 받게 되는 이 사건 토지의 일부에 대한 매매계약이라면, 매매계약서와 같은 법률행위에 대한 처분문서를 작성하지 아니하고, 매매계약상 대금을 지급하여야 할 피해자 자신이 근저당권의 채무자가 되지 아니하고 피고인이 채무자로 설정된 것을 이해하기 어렵고, ㉡ 피고인 스스로 작성한 약속이행각서에도 피해자가 피고인이 지급하여야 할 이자를 대납하였다는 사실을 명시하면서, 피해자가 대위변제한 대출 원리금을 피고인이 갚아야 할 돈으로 명시하고 있으며, ㉢ 약속이행각서상 이 사건 토지 확보 후 피해자에게 3,000평 지분 양도와 별도로 위 대출 원리금에 대한 변제도 하는 취지로 기재되어 있는 사정 등을 보면, 피해자의 피고인에 대한 주유소 담보 제공은 자신이 6억 원을 투자하는 과정에서 피고인의 대출 명의만을 빌린 것으로 보이지는 아니하고, 담보 제공의 방법으로 피고인에게 자금을 융통시켜 주고 피고인은 추후 이를 갚기로 하며, 피고인은 그 담보 제공의 대가 내지는 대출금 변제에 대한 담보 목적으로 이 사건 토지 중 3,000평에 대한 권리양도를 약속한 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 그런데 앞서 판시 제1항에 관한 주장에 대한 판단에서 살펴본 바와 같이, 이 사건 소송은 이 사건 토지 중 일부에 대한 패소 판결이 확정되어 있는 상황에서 원고들이 승소하기까지 많은 어려움이 예상되고, 2005. 2.경 친일반민족행위자 재산의 국가귀속에 관한 특별법이 발의되었으므로 피고인으로서는 이 사건 소송의 승소를 확신하기는 더욱 어려운 상황이었으며, 피고인은 2004년경부터 2008년경에 이르기까지 여러 사람들로부터 수십억 원에 이르는 금원을 교부받고도 이를 변제하지 못한 채 개인적인 ♤♤♤♤♤사업 등에 거액의 자금을 사용하고 있었던 사정 등을 보면, 피고인으로서는 적어도 미필적으로나마 피해자에게 이 사건 토지 중 3,000평에 대한 권리 양도를 약속하고 피해자 소유의 주유소를 담보로 제공받더라도 약속한 토지 권리 양도의무를 이행하지 못하고, 나아가 그 대출금도 자기 스스로 변제할 능력이 없다는 것을 인식하였을 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 피해자, 공소외 17, 18은 일치하여 피고인이 인지대 등 이 사건 소송비용이 필요하다고 말하면서 피해자에게 주유소 담보 제공을 요구하였다고 진술하는바, ㉠ 피해자는 당시 이미 수억 원 상당의 공소외 122 토지 지분을 매수하여 이 사건 소송의 승소에 깊은 이해관계가 있었고, ㉡ 그러한 상황에서 이 사건 소송의 대리인인 피고인을 소개받게 되었으며, ㉢ 승소시 이 사건 토지 중 3,000평의 권리를 양도하겠다는 약속 이외에 확실한 채권 회수 조치 없이 특별한 친분도 없는 피고인에게 수억 원 상당의 주유소를 담보로 제공한 객관적 사정 등에 비추어, 위 피해자 등의 진술과 같이 피해자는 이 사건 소송의 인지대 등 소송비용을 조달해줄 목적으로 주유소를 담보로 제공한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 피해자로서는 피고인이 자신의 주유소를 담보로 맡기고 대출받은 돈을 이 사건 소송과 무관한 개인적인 용도에 사용할 것이라는 사정을 알았다면 수억 원에 이르는 자신의 주유소를 담보로 제공하지는 아니하였을 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 피고인은 수사기관에서는 위 대출금 6억 원을 이 사건 소송의 인지대 등 소송비용으로 사용하였다고 진술하다가, 이 법정에서는 일부 인지대 및 수고비로 사용하고 나머지는 2005. 10.경 공소외 55 재단법인 설립 및 투자금으로 사용하였다고 진술하여, 이 사건 소송과 무관한 용도에 대부분을 사용한 것으로 보이는 점(이에 대하여 피고인은 공소외 15와 추진하고 있던 공익사업에 사용된 것이라는 취지로 주장하나, 이 사건 소송 과정에서 지출되어야 할 비용과는 전혀 무관하다), ⑦ 피고인이 이 사건 소송의 소송비용 명목으로 피해자, 공소외 14 회사, 공소외 17로부터 받은 금원이 합계 30억 원 이상에 이르는데, 이 사건 소송의 인지대는 1, 2심을 모두 합하여도 약 5억 원 정도에 불과할 뿐만 아니라 통념상 소송 관련 자료비 또는 수고비 등에 수십억 원이 소요되리라고는 도저히 보이지 않는 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 볼 때, 피고인은 사실은 이 사건 소송의 승소가능성이 희박한 상황에서 피해자에게 이 사건 토지 중 3,000평에 대한 권리를 양도하기로 하고 이 사건 소송의 소송비용 조달 목적으로 피해자 소유의 주유소를 담보로 제공받더라도, 그 담보로 대출받은 금원을 이 사건 소송비용으로 사용할 의사도 없고 나아가 위 대출금을 변제하거나 약속한 토지를 양도할 의사와 능력도 없음에도, 인지대 등 소송비용으로 사용할 것처럼 기망하여 피해자로부터 그 소유의 주유소 대지 및 건물을 담보로 제공받아 편취한 것으로 봄이 상당하므로, 피고인 및 변호인의 이 부분 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

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 and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act [The maximum imprisonment shall be 15 years of imprisonment prescribed in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the Criminal Act)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered as favorable to the reasons for sentencing)

1. Dismissal of an application for compensation order;

Articles 32(1) and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the scope of the defendant's liability for damages is not clear)

It is inevitable to punish the defendant in light of the following: (a) the sum of the fraud amount of each fraud crime exceeds approximately KRW 2.7 billion; (b) most of the damage was not recovered; and (c) the defendant acquired large amounts of money in the name of litigation-related expenses by means of the realization of the representation of the lawsuit in the lawsuit in this case; and (b) the defendant was a legal person who has been employed as a long judge for a long time; (c) the victims have no choice but to believe such deception; (d) the fact that most of the fraud amount is used for personal purposes unrelated to the lawsuit in this case; and (e) the most of the fraud amount is used for the purpose of the victim, which is not related to the lawsuit in this case; and (e)

However, the representative director of the non-indicted 14 currently does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the aged in 1942, etc. shall be determined by taking into account the various sentencing conditions shown in the trial process of this case, such as the fact that the representative director of the non-indicted 14

1. Summary of the facts charged (the part on August 8, 2005),

On August 8, 2005, the Defendant received money from the Defendant’s office in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), but the fact did not have the intent or ability to use the said money as the street funds of the adjudication division in charge of the instant lawsuit even if the Defendant received money from the applicant for compensation, and did not have the ability to repay the said money to the victim as stated in the crime No. 2 of the facts stated in the judgment, the Defendant stated that the applicant for compensation “is subject to a lawsuit, and the case must be changed to KRW 100,000,000,000 to the adjudication division.”

2. Summary of the defendant's lawsuit;

Although there is a fact that Nonindicted 17 received money from Nonindicted 17, this is merely the fact that Nonindicted 17 was the representative of Nonindicted 122, one of the successors to the land of this case, and thus, he did not deceiving the victim as a litigation cost.

3. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the witness among the third trial records, Nonindicted 17, the applicant for compensation, and Nonindicted 18’s statement, and other evidence of the records of this case, i.e., ① the applicant for compensation only transferred the statement that the Defendant requires money for the full bench’s use of the money from August 7, 2005, and Nonindicted 18 also delivered it to the applicant for compensation after hearing such statement from Nonindicted 17. Thus, the applicant for compensation or Nonindicted 18 was unable to directly hear the statement from the Defendant or the statement that the Defendant would use money for any purpose; ② Nonindicted 17 did not explicitly indicate that money was needed by the Defendant at the time of the application for compensation from Nonindicted 17, the Defendant did not deliver money for the compensation to him at his own expense, but the Defendant did not appear to have received money for the compensation of the Defendant’s non-indicted 1 at the time of the application for compensation, taking into account whether it was necessary to deliver money for the Defendant’s own use of money to him at his own expense.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against the defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325.

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

Judges Han Chang-hun (Presiding Judge)