Defendant

Maximum Jae-in, best police officer, Kim-con (prosecution), Park Jong-jin, Kim Ma-sik (Trial)

Attorney Lee Gyeong-woo

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years and by a fine of forty million won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period converted by the amount of KRW 400,000 for one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

" 2018 Highest 870"

In around 202, the Defendant: (a) opened an office in the Gyeonggi Industrial Complex and a water source; (b) hired Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 4, etc. as an employee to run a bond business using a bill discount method against an unspecified number of business operators; (c) was faced with financial difficulties to the extent that the clients would not properly pay discount money; and (d) a person who entered the Republic of Korea on August 31, 2002, when the payment date of the bill or check, which was requested by the Defendant to discount to the mutual savings bank that was traded, arrives partially or comes in order, and escaped from the Republic of Korea on March 26, 2018.

1. Violation of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, fabrication of securities, or uttering of forged securities;

(a) Unpaid checks due to suspension of transactions after issuance of checks;

On April 21, 2001, the Defendant entered into a contract for the establishment of a political party with the above bank at the business office of the National Bank in Seoul ( Address 3 omitted).

피고인은 2002. 7. 27.경 안산시에 있는 피고인이 운영하는 어음수표 할인 사채업 사무실에서, 지급지 ‘국민은행 ◇◇◇◇◇지점’, 액면금 ‘14,750,000원’, 발행일 ‘2002. 10. 27.’로 기재된 당좌수표 1장(수표번호 2 생략)을 발행하여 성명불상자에게 유통한 뒤, 같은 해 10. 28.경 최종소지인인 공소외 5가 농협은행 ☆☆☆☆☆ 지점을 통해 지급제시를 하였으나 같은 해 9. 17. 거래정지로 인하여 지급되지 아니하게 하였다.

As a result, the Defendant did not receive the payment on the date of presentation due to the suspension of transaction after issuing the check.

(b) Forgery of checks, fabrication of securities, and uttering of forged securities;

On April 2002, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the bond discount business for bills and checks with the trade name “○○○○○,” located in Suwon-si ( Address 1 omitted); and (b) at the office of the Defendant’s instruction, Nonindicted 4, who had worked there, received a request from Nonindicted 6 for a discount of other checks, and received a notice from Nonindicted 6 at the Defendant’s order, and kept two copies of the check number (number 3 omitted; (c) in blank (number 4 omitted) in blank (number 3 omitted); and (d) at the face value column of the above (number 3 omitted); and (e) at the same time, without the authority to exercise the right to enter the check number in the face value column of the above (number 4 omitted); and (e) at the face value column of the above (number 4 omitted), the Defendant issued the check to Nonindicted 4 at his own discretion as if the check was issued to him; and (e) as if the check number was issued at his own discretion, the following check number was issued to him.

In addition, from around that time to August 27, 2002, the Defendant: (a) forged five copies of the check issued for the check of security purpose together with the check discount request, and forged the part of the endorsement of the check issued in the same No. 6 table; and (b) exercised each of them.

In this respect, the Defendant forged a check without authority, forged the endorsement part of the check for the purpose of exercising the right, and exercised the forged check or the endorsement part.

2. Forgery of securities, or fabrication of securities; and

피고인은 2002. 7. 10. 15:00경 안산시 경부고속도로 인터체인지 부근 휴게소에서, 직원 공소외 4가 공소외 7로부터 다른 약속어음의 할인 의뢰와 함께 견질용으로 함께 교부받은 공소외 7의 부친 공소외 8 명의 약속어음 1장[◎◎◎◎◎◎◎, (수표번호 5 생략)]을 공소외 4로부터 전달받아 보관하던 중, 그 무렵 불상지에서 행사할 목적으로 권한 없이 위 어음의 액면금액란에 ‘28,400,000원’, 지급기일란에 ‘2002. 9. 24.’이라고 임의로 기재하는 방법으로 위 어음 1장을 위조한 다음, 이를 마치 정상적으로 작성된 어음인 것처럼 행세하면서 성명불상자에게 교부하여 행사하였다.

3. Fraud;

(a) Fraud by defraudation of a bill or a number of shares;

피고인은 2002. 6. 20.경 시흥시 (주소 4 생략)에 있는 피해자 공소외 9가 운영하는 ◁◁◁◁◁ 대리점에서, 피해자로부터 할인을 의뢰받은 당좌수표에 대하여 일정한 수수료를 제외한 금액을 할인금으로 지급해 줄 것처럼 거짓말을 하였다. 그러나 사실 피고인은 당시 영위하던 어음수표 할인 사채업이 적자를 면치 못하고 있었고 특별히 가진 재산이 없어 피해자에게 약정한 대로 할인금을 지급해 줄 의사나 능력이 없었다.

피고인은 이에 속은 피해자로부터 같은 날 외환은행 ▷▷지점 발행의 액면금 20,000,000원 상당의 어음 1장(수표번호 6 생략)을 교부받고, 같은 해 6. 30.경 위와 같은 방법으로 같은 은행 발행의 21,000,000원 상당의 당좌수표 1장(수표번호 7 생략)을 교부받아 합계 41,000,000원 상당의 어음 및 당좌수표를 편취한 것을 비롯하여, 그 무렵부터 2002. 8.경까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표(2) 순번 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10번 기재와 같이 위와 같은 방법으로 피해자들을 기망하여 액면금 합계 419,021,300원(순번 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10번) 상당의 수표 12장 및 어음 7장과 백지어음 1장(순번 9번)을 교부받아 편취하였다.

B. Fraud by defraudation of discount money against Nonindicted Company 10

On June 18, 2002, the Defendant voluntarily stated the amount of 25,00,000 won in the column of the face value and the number of units in the blank of issuance date, as shown in the separate sheet (2) No. 11 from Nonindicted Company 10 located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, as shown in the separate sheet (2) No. 4 of crimes No. 11, and acquired the discounted amount of 73,441,096 won in total as stated in the separate sheet No. 6,796, including the receipt of KRW 23,841,096 on November 6, 2002 to the employees of Nonindicted Company 10, as stated in the separate sheet (2) No. 6,71,096.

C. Fraud by deceiving the borrowed money to the victim Nonindicted 2

On May 20, 2002, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim non-indicted 2 by telephone, stating, “The fund is prevented because it does not have to stop a bill. If the Defendant does not prevent a bill, he would be able to repay the money in return for a default.” However, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the money properly even if he did not receive the money from the victim because the bill discount business operated at the time was not proper for the deficit and there was no property specially owned.”

Around May 20 of the same year, the Defendant received 22,00,000,000 won from the victim to the foreign exchange bank account under the name of the Defendant, as well as from around that time to June 29 of the same year by deceiving the victim as above three times in total, as described in the attached crime sight table (3) Nos. 2, 4, and 6.

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

(d) Fraudation of the discounted bills or checks by counterpart mutual savings banks;

1) Part of the victim non-indicted 12 Company

피고인은 2002. 3. 22.경 서울 (주소 5 생략)에 있는 피해자 공소외 12 회사 영업소에서, 부하직원을 통해 피해자의 어음수표 할인 업무 담당 성명불상 직원에게 ‘♤♤♤♤ 대표 공소외 13’이라고 배서한 액면금 14,000,000원 상당의 공소외 14 주식회사 발행의 약속어음 1장(수표번호 8 생략)을 제시하면서 할인을 의뢰하였다. 그러나 사실 피고인은 당시 영위하던 어음수표 할인 사채업이 적자를 면치 못하고 있었고 특별히 가진 재산이 없어 피해자로부터 위와 같이 할인을 받더라도 그 지급기일에 피해자로 하여금 위 어음 액면금 상당액을 정상적으로 회수하게 해 줄 의사나 능력이 없었다.

The Defendant, as well as the receipt of KRW 13,530,351 in the name of the discount money for the said bill from the victim on the face of the victim. From around that time to June 17, 2002, the Defendant deceivings the victim on a total of 22 occasions, such as the list of crimes (4) in attached Form 202, and obtained KRW 324,502,249, in total, by deceiving the victim by the said method.

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

2) 피해자 공소외 15 회사(현 ♡♡저축은행) 부분

피고인은 2002. 3. 13.경 경기 안양시 (주소 6 생략)에 있는 피해자 공소외 15 회사 영업소에서, 부하직원을 통해 피해자의 어음수표 할인 업무 담당 성명불상 직원에게 ‘♤♤♤♤ 대표 공소외 13’이라고 배서한 액면금 12,000,000원 상당의 공소외 16 주식회사 발행의 약속어음 1장(수표번호 9 생략)을 제시하면서 할인을 의뢰하였다. 그러나 사실 피고인은 당시 영위하던 어음수표 할인 사채업이 적자를 면치 못하고 있었고 특별히 가진 재산이 없어 피해자로부터 위와 같이 할인을 받더라도 그 지급기일에 피해자로 하여금 위 어음 액면금 상당액을 정상적으로 회수하게 해 줄 의사나 능력이 없었다.

The Defendant, as well as the receipt of KRW 11,254,357 from the victim’s seat of the bill at discount. From around that time to July 3, 2002, the Defendant deceptioned the victim by the said method 23 times in total, and acquired KRW 353,192,671 in total.

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

" 2018 Highest 2288"

Around April 23, 2002, the Defendant: (a) at the office of a bill and check discount business office with the trade name “○○○○○,” located in Suwon-si ( Address 1 omitted); (b) through Nonindicted 4’s employees, the Defendant forged the above check number by arbitrarily stating in the column of face value of the above party unit number without any difference with Nonindicted 6 in advance; and (c) through Nonindicted 6’s employees Nonindicted 4, when both the face value and the due date for payment are recorded in one check (number 10 omitted) in blank, the Defendant kept the check at a discount on condition that Nonindicted 6 should enter the face value and the due date in advance; (d) around that time, the Defendant used the check number in the column of face value of the above party unit number without any difference with Nonindicted 6 in advance; and (e) issued the name of Nonindicted 6 as if he used the normally prepared check number from the time when he exercised his authority from the time when he exercised the check number.

" 2018 Highest 2521"

1. Violation of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, and uttering of forged securities;

On April 30, 2002, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the bond discount business for bills and checks in the name of “○○○○○” located at Suwon-si ( Address 1 omitted); (b) at the office of the Defendant’s office of the bond discount for bills and checks, the employees Nonindicted 4, who worked there, requested the discount for other checks from Nonindicted 17 at the Defendant’s order, and was delivered to Nonindicted 4, and kept in custody one sheet (number 11 omitted) of the issued face value and the due date for payment in blank (number 11 omitted) on the face value of the above (number 11 omitted) (number 11 omitted); and (c) at the face value column of the check number without authority for the purpose of exercising the right at that time, the Defendant forged one set of the check number in the manner of arbitrarily stating “27,350,000,” and at the due date on September 6, 2002, and exercised it as if it was a normally prepared check.

In addition, from around that time to May 29, 2002, the Defendant: (a) forged three copies of the check issued for Nonindicted 17’s request for the discount of checks and check for the purpose of security, as described in the attached Table (7) on three occasions; and (b) issued them to the person in default of name.

2. Forgery of securities, or fabrication of securities; and

On April 30, 2002, the Defendant: (a) kept in custody of a blank promissory note 1 (the number 12 omitted) delivered by Nonindicted 4 from Nonindicted 4 on the face value and the due date of payment (the number 9.1 million won) in the face value column of the said bill without authority more than the limit of discount (the number 9.1 million won) for the purpose of exercising the right at the site; (b) in the face value column of the said bill, the Defendant forged the said bill by arbitrarily stating “24,00,000,000,” and “as of July 29, 2002” on the face value column of the bill; and (c) as if the bill was normally prepared, the Defendant used the bill as if it was a bill and exercised its name to a tax payer.

" 2018 Highest 870"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 2

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 2

1. The protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 4 by the police officer

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 23, and Nonindicted 24

1. Copies of the statements of Nonindicted Company 10

1. 공소외 25, 공소외 26(▲▲▲▲대표이사), 공소외 27(■■■■), 공소외 28(◆◆◆◆)의 각 진술서

1. Each written confirmation issued by Nonindicted 29 and Nonindicted 30

1. 각 고소장(공소외 9, 공소외 19, 공소외 26, 공소외 21, 공소외 31, 공소외 32, 공소외 2, 공소외 12 회사, 공소외 6, 공소외 15 주식회사), 당좌수표(사본), 각 고발장(국민은행, 수협중앙회), 각 당좌수표사본, 고소장 사본, 약속어음사본, 어음내역, 당좌수표 1매 사본, 약속어음 사본 3매, 통장거래내역서, 여신거래약정서 사본, 약속어음사본(22매), 당좌수표사본(2매), ♤♤♤♤ 공소외 13의부도어음명세표, 약속어음사본

" 2018 Highest 2288"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 33, and Nonindicted 6

1. A copy of each accusation and check;

" 2018 Highest 2521"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant (including Nonparty 4 and Nonindicted 1 replaced by the defendant)

1. The protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 4 by the police officer

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 17 and Nonindicted 33

1. A copy of a promissory note (number 13 omitted), a copy of a check number (number 14 omitted), a copy of a check number (number 14 omitted), and a copy of a check number;

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

Articles 2(2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Act (amended by Act No. 10185, Mar. 24, 2010); Article 2(2) and (1) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 10185, Mar. 24, 2010); Article 5 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 1010, Mar. 24, 201); Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 214(1) of the same Act; Article 214(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 217, and Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10185, Mar. 24, 2010); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 6 of the Control of Illegal Check Act, Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one to fifteen years, and fine for 4,300,263,000 won (=430,026,300 won) x ten times);

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Fraud;

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud> Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won)

[Special Sentencings] Mitigations: Self-denunciations

Aggravations: Where the Criminal Code is extremely poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation: Imprisonment for two years to seven years;

* descriptive criteria: 1-stage increase in type as a result of adding up the same competition;

(b) Violation of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act;

[Determination of Type] Forgery, Alteration, etc. of Securities Form 2 (Counterfeiting of Check)

[Special Sentencings] Mitigations: Self-denunciations

Aggravations: Where large quantities of securities, etc. are forged for a long time or repeatedly;

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation: One to four years of imprisonment;

(c) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years from August to April 10;

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of five years and a fine of four hundred million won.

Each of the crimes of this case is a case in which a large number of the defendants have forged bills and checks, and the amount of fraud is inferior and the amount of fraud is a large amount. There is no circumstance to deem that the victims have not agreed with each of the crimes of this case and have endeavored to recover from damage. There is no reason to deem that the Defendant did not voluntarily refuse to attend an investigation agency after the crime of this case and attempted to flee to the United States for 15 years.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant recognizes each of the crimes of this case, the self-denunciation, the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, the fact that the defendant's health status is not good, etc.

In addition, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relations, motive and circumstances after the crime, and various sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments of this case.

1. Part concerning the check, forgery, and forgery of forged securities mentioned in No. 6 of the attached list of crimes

A. Summary of the facts charged

On August 27, 2002, the Defendant: (a) entered the date and time set forth in Section 1-B of Section 1 of “2018 Highest 870” in paragraph (b) of Article 1-2; and (b) entered the check in the column of endorser of Chapter 1 [The Bank △△△△ Branch (No. 1 omitted); (b) arbitrarily stated the check in the column of endorser of Section 1 [the Bank △△△△ Branch (No. 2 omitted); and (c) presented it to Nonindicted Company 15’s employees.

B. Determination

The purpose of Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act is to punish “a person who forges or alters a check” and Article 1 of the Illegal Check Control Act is to regulate and punish “issuance” such as an illegal check. In addition, Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act is to punish each forgery of securities, and Article 214(2) of the Criminal Act provides for forgery of the entry of the rights and obligations of securities, and Article 214(2) of the Criminal Act provides for the distinction between forgery of the issuance of securities, which are fundamental securities act, and forgery of the entry of the endorsement, acceptance, guarantee, rights and obligations of securities issued, which are incidental securities act. In light of this, the term “Forgery” of a check as provided in Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act refers only to the act of issuing a check by gathering another person’s name, and it does not include any act of forging or forging the endorsement of a check (However, it is deemed that the entry of the rights and obligations of securities is forged and used without modification of a bill of indictment, and thus, it is found guilty by applying Articles 214(17).

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it does not constitute a crime. However, as long as it is found not guilty of the crime of forging securities and the crime of uttering of the same crime without the modification of indictment within the scope of the same facts charged, it

2. Frauds described in Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the annexed list of crimes against the victim non-indicted 2

A. Summary of the facts charged

On April 2002, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim non-indicted 2 by telephone, stating that “the fund is prevented because it does not have to prevent bills. If a bill is not prevented, the Defendant would be in default and would be repaid as it would be free from borrowing funds.” However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the money properly even if he did not receive the money from the victim because the bill discount business operated at the time was not able to avoid the deficit and there was no property specially owned.”

Around April 20 of the same year, the Defendant received 3,325,000 won from the victim to the foreign exchange bank account under the name of the Defendant and received money from the victim. From around that time to August 19 of the same year, the Defendant, as described in [Attachment 3] Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 7, by deceiving the victim four times in total, and received money totaling KRW 98,625,00 from the victim to the remittance.

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

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court and the evidence duly adopted and examined, Non-Indicted 2 made a statement to the effect that the police deceiving the Defendant to lend money and transferred money KRW 145,625,00 (including the above KRW 98,625,00) on seven occasions, the prosecutor made a statement at the prosecution that the above KRW 145,625,00 among the above KRW 145,625,000 and KRW 22 million around May 20, 2002, around June 24, 2002, and KRW 15,00,000 and KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant, etc., including the above KRW 47,700 from June 29, 2018, it is difficult to view that the Defendant borrowed money to the Defendant and transferred money to the Defendant at a discount of 40,700,000 won, including the above portion of the bill, which the Defendant gave money to the Defendant.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of a crime of fraud against Nonindicted 2 in the judgment that constitutes a single comprehensive crime

Judges Song Jae-ok

Note 1) Attached Table 1 No. 3

Note 2) Nos. 4 and 5 of the annexed List of Offenses (1)