Defendant 1 and six others

Stambling vessel, transmission vessel, and trial.

Attorney Go Jae-hee et al. and five others

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for Defendant 3, by imprisonment for six months, by Defendant 5 and Defendant 6, by imprisonment for eight months, and by fine for three thousand won, respectively.

When Defendant 7 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years with respect to Defendant 1, for two years with respect to Defendant 3, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6, for one year with respect to Defendant 4, and for one year with respect to Defendant 4.

To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine against Defendant 7.

Defendant 2 is not guilty.

1. Defendant 1

From January 2008 to January 11, 2013, the Defendant works as the deputy head of the △△△△△△△△△ Team, affiliated with the victim Nonindicted 13 Corporation (hereinafter “victim Corporation”), and from January 12, 2013, as the head of the said △△△△△△△ Team team leader, while working as the head of the said △△△△△△△△ Team team leader, and was in charge of the affairs related to the subsidies for farming scale-making projects

A farming scale building project implemented by a victim corporation is a project that provides loans to those (persons eligible for support), etc. (persons eligible for special farming who purchase farmland owned by farmers, etc. who are not farmers or intend to change their occupation or retire from the above construction project and intend to expand the scale of farming, within the limit of 30,000 won per 3.3 square meters per farmland, 35,000 won per dry field (the amount exceeding each of the above amounts shall be borne by the person eligible for support) per annum and 2% per annum from 15 to 30 years on the condition of installment repayment.

According to the work guidelines of the above farming scale-based project, the farmland subject to purchase support must be the rice field or dry field in the agriculture promotion area. However, if it is inevitable for the scale and group of farming, among the farmland outside the agriculture promotion area, the farmland subject to purchase support: ① dry field rearrangement project for arable land or dry field-based rearrangement project is completed; ② dry field not arable land rearrangement project is connected to the farmland of a person subject to support; ③ dry field which is not completed with dry field-based rearrangement project; ③ dry field whose gradient is 15% or less of the gradient is adjacent to dry field that is cultivated by a person subject to support (including those registered in the farmland ledger). (2) dry field or dry field development is likely to develop into electric field; (3) dry field is a farmer who is 55 years or less years old as of January 1 of the project implementation year; and the scale of business management of dry field should be at least 2.0 square meters or dry field-based development project for 13 years or more; and (1) dry field development project for 13 years or more.

또한 영농규모화사업 중 농지매매 지원금 관련 업무담당자는 농지매매지원 신청이 있는 경우 현지조사를 함에 있어, (1) 매수농지 조사와 관련하여, ① 실제 지목 및 재배작물의 종류, 지적도와 대비하여 경계 등 농지보존 상태, 농업진흥지역(농업진흥지역 밖의 경우 연접) 여부, 경지정리 또는 수리안전답 여부, 교통여건(통작거리, 연접 또는 집단화 거리, 대형농기계 출입의 편리성), 기 거래농지 여부, 각종 개별법에 의한 개발계획구역 및 예정지내의 농지 여부를 조사하여야 하고, ② 농지가격 조사와 관련하여, 공시지가, 현지가격, 인근지역 실제거래가격(최고가격, 최저가격)을 규정된 서식에 의해 조사하여야 하며, ③ 매입가격은 현지조사를 통해 이장, 인근주민 등으로부터 실제 거래가격을 확인하고, 매입가격은 공시지가와 인근지역의 실제 거래가격 및 현지조사 가격 등을 기초로 결정하여야 하고, (2) 매도농지 조사와 관련하여서는, ① 지원대상자의 요건 조사《영농경력, 영농승계자, 타직업종사, 농지소유자와의 관계[당해 농지의 당초 소유자와 부부, 형제자매(2009. 12. 31.까지는 형제자매지간이더라도 세대를 달리하는 경우에는 지원대상자에 포함) 또는 직계존비속인 자는 지원대상자에서 제외], 경영규모 축소, 농업경영체 등록 여부 등 조사, 영농복귀 지원자인 경우 영농복귀 여부, 위장전입 여부 등》, ② 영농관계 조사(영농전문성), ③ 농지집단화 정도 및 통작거리를 조사하여야 한다.

Nevertheless, at the office of the victim △△ branch located in Gangseo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 9 omitted) around January 30, 2008, the Defendant received an application from Nonindicted 1 for a subsidy for a farming size improvement project on the 1,712 square meters of the paddy-gu located in the Gangwon Special Metropolitan City ( Address 10 omitted) owned by Nonindicted 11, and confirmed that the said farmland is farmland outside the agricultural promotion zone through related documents and on-site investigations, and did not meet the connected conditions because the said farmland is the farmland outside the agricultural promotion zone, and the amount of the farmland owned by the said Nonindicted 1 and the said non-indicted 1 are far away from 40 to 500 meters, and therefore, the Defendant did not inform the said non-indicted 1 of the farmland trade support support. However, in violation of the business duty, the Defendant prepared a field investigation report stating that the said farmland is connected to the farmland owned by the said non-indicted 1.

Accordingly, the Defendant had the Victim Corporation purchase the said farmland by allowing the said Nonindicted Party 11 to pay the said Nonindicted Party 11 the sum of KRW 13,989,600, and KRW 15,544,000, around February 18, 2008, the remainder of KRW 13,989,600, as farmland purchase subsidies, on or around February 22, 2008, and to purchase the said farmland. The said Nonindicted Party 1 had the said Nonindicted Party 1 purchase the said farmland under the condition that annual interest rate of KRW 25,54,00,00 from the Victim Corporation was paid in installments for 20 years.

As a result, the Defendant violated his duties, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 15,544,00 from the above non-indicted 1 and causing property damage equivalent to the same money to the victim corporation. From around that time to February 12, 2013, the Defendant violated the guidelines for support for farming size project with respect to the total 30 parcels of farmland, such as the annexed crime list, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits from the above non-indicted 1 and other persons eligible for support, and thereby causing property damage equivalent to the same money to the victim corporation.

2. Joint principal offenders by Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5

Defendant 3 was a person working for a licensed real estate agent office in the trade name of the “real estate in the place of residence” operated by Defendant 4 from around 2007, and Defendant 4 was a licensed real estate agent, and Defendant 5 was a person who cultivated rice farming houses in the Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-do ( Address 11 omitted).

Defendant 5 used the farmland size project, such as the statement in Paragraph 1, implemented by the Victim Corporation for the purpose of financing funds, tried to receive the farmland purchase subsidy from the Victim Corporation, and asked Defendant 3 to find out appropriate farmland that can receive the farmland purchase support.

Accordingly, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 received a proposal from Defendant 5 that the said Nonindicted 3 would be able to receive a refund of the remainder of the actual sales amount from the said Nonindicted 3 and receive the payment of the purchase amount in installments from the victims of the farmland, including 3,798m2, 719m2, 724m2, 749m2, 749m2, 759m2, 750m2, 750m2, 750m2, 750m2, 750m2, and 7,903m2, which is the same year.

After that, on April 30, 2008, the Defendants entered into a real estate sales contract with Defendant 5 to purchase the said farmland in KRW 190,000 between Nonindicted 3 and the said Nonindicted 3. In other words, he paid the remainder of KRW 19,00,000 to the said Nonindicted 3 as the down payment, and upon the said Nonindicted 3 applied for farmland sales to the victim’s Corporation, Defendant 5 applied for farmland purchase to the victim’s Corporation, and paid the payment from the victim’s Corporation. The victim calculated KRW 35,00 per 3.3 square meters, a maximum subsidy, and sold and purchased the said farmland in KRW 266,00,000, a total amount of KRW 35,000,000, as if the purchase price was sold and purchased from the victim’s Corporation, Nonindicted 3 received a farmland sales subsidy and returned the said KRW 76,00,000 from the said Corporation and the said contract to receive the said KRW 300,000.

In addition, Defendant 5 was aware of the fact that Defendant 5 was unable to receive support for purchase and sale of farmland through the above ○○ branch office on April 16, 2008, with the knowledge that it was not registered as a resident in the jurisdiction of the victim’s ○○ branch office, and that Defendant 3 was unable to receive support for purchase and sale of farmland from the victim’s Corporation because Defendant 5 did not cultivate a dry field, and Defendant 3 attempted to register the leased farmland in the farmland ledger of Defendant 5, under the premise that Defendant 5 was cultivated by leasing dry field 19,147 square meters, which was owned by Nonindicted 5, by Nonindicted 5 upon request from Nonindicted 5.

그럼에도 피고인들은 2008. 5. 26.경 강원 홍천군 (주소 5 생략)에 있는 위 ○○지사 사무실에서, 위 지사 소속 농지매매지원 담당자인 피고인 2에게 매매희망가격 266,000,000원으로 위 농지에 대한 농지매매 지원신청을 하여, 피해자 공사로 하여금 2008. 5. 29.경부터 2008. 7. 21.경까지 사이에 위 공소외 3의 공소외 8 은행에 대한 채무 주1) 132,390,000원 을 대위변제하게 하고, 나머지 매매대금 주2) 133,610,000원 을 위 공소외 3 명의의 ▷▷ 계좌로 지급하게 하고, 피고인 5는 피해자 공사로부터 위 매매대금 266,000,000원을 연이자 2%에 20년간 분할상환하는 조건으로 농지매매지원을 받은 다음 2008. 7. 21.경 위 공소외 3으로부터 위 차액 76,000,000원을 반환받았다.

As above, the Defendants conspired in collusion with others to receive KRW 266,00,000 from the farmland purchase fund to receive the same money in an unlawful manner.

3. Joint criminal conduct by Defendants 3 and 6

Defendant 3 is a person who is engaged in agriculture as described in paragraph 2 and has worked in the licensed real estate agent office, and Defendant 6 is a person who is engaged in agriculture in the Gangwon-gun ( Address 13 omitted).

Defendant 6 used the farmland-scaleization project, such as the statement in paragraph (1), implemented by the Victim Corporation for the purpose of financing funds, tried to receive the farmland-sale subsidy from the Victim Corporation, and asked the above Defendant 3 to find out appropriate farmland that can receive the farmland purchase support.

Accordingly, around December 2008, Defendant 3 introduced to Defendant 6 a dry field of 14,698 square meters, which is Nonindicted 5’s ownership, from the end of the year, Defendant 3 received a proposal from Defendant 6 that he would be able to receive and use the remainder of the subsidy to be returned from the said Nonindicted 5, in cases where the said Nonindicted 5 received an application for the purchase and sale of farmland, which was less than the actual purchase price, from Defendant 6, and then received an application from Defendant 5 for support for the purchase and sale of farmland, which was less than the actual purchase price.

After January 209, the Defendants entered into a real estate sales contract with the above non-indicted 5’s house located in Seocheon-gun ( Address 14 omitted), and entered into a real estate sales contract with the above non-indicted 5 to purchase the said dry field in KRW 95,00,000 among the above non-indicted 5, and when the above non-indicted 5 applied for farmland sale to the victim’s corporation, Defendant 6 applied for farmland purchase to the victim’s corporation, and received farmland sale support from the victim’s corporation. The victim calculated the sales amount of KRW 35,00,000 per 15,000 won, a total of KRW 35,000,000, as if the purchase amount was sold and purchased for the above dry field, and the above non-indicted 5 agreed to receive KRW 60,000,000 from the victim’s corporation to refund the actual purchase amount of KRW 60,000 from the above non-indicted 5.

In addition, since the dry field was located outside the Agricultural Promotion Zone, Defendant 6 could cultivate a dry field adjacent to the dry field and receive a farmland transaction support. Defendant 3 requested the above non-indicted 5 to transfer the ownership of the dry field of 212 square meters, which is the non-indicted 5 ownership, to Defendant 6. The above non-indicted 5 requested that Defendant 6 transfer the ownership of the dry field of 212 square meters, which is the non-indicted 5 owned, to the non-indicted 5, and the above non-indicted 5 completed the registration of ownership transfer of the dry field of Gangwon-gun ( Address 15 omitted) around January 22, 2009. Thus, Defendant 6 was not entitled to receive a farmland transaction support from the victim for the dry field.

그럼에도 피고인들은 2009. 1. 19.경 강원 철원군 (주소 9 생략)에 있는 피해자 공사 △△지사 사무실에서, 위 지사 소속 농지매매지원 담당자인 피고인 1에게 매매희망가격 155,000,000원으로 위 농지에 대한 농지매매 지원신청을 하여, 피해자 공사로 하여금 위 공소외 5에게 위 농지에 대한 매매대금 명목으로 2009. 1. 21.경 계약금 15,500,000원, 2009. 3. 9.경 잔금 139,500,000원 등 합계 155,000,000원을 위 공소외 5 명의의 ▷▷ 계좌로 지급하게 하고, 피고인 6은 피해자 공사로부터 위 매매대금 155,000,000원을 연이자 2%에 30년간 분할상환하는 조건으로 농지매매지원을 받은 다음 2009. 3. 10.경 위 공소외 5로부터 60,000,000원을 피고인 6 명의의 ▷▷ 계좌로 송금받았다.

As such, the Defendants conspired to obtain the same amount of money at the same time with the support of KRW 155,00,000 by illegal means.

4. Defendant 7

From March 2003 to January 2012, the Defendant was working as a brokerage assistant from “real estate” located in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyangyang-gu, Seoyangyang-gu, 2003, and the Defendant is prohibited from receiving money and other valuables under any pretext, such as cases, donation, etc., in excess of 9/1,00 of the transaction amount.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at a certified judicial scrivener office where it is difficult to know the trade name in Gangwon-do in June 201, the sales price of Non-Indicted 15 and Non-Indicted 16, the purchase price of which is KRW 159,70,000, and KRW 565 square meters in 165 square meters in 165,70,000 in 165,000 in 165,70,000 in total, and KRW 1,491,30,000 in 165,70,000 in 165,70,000 in 1,49,000 in 1,491,30 in 200, in excess of legal fees, was paid from the above non-Indicted 15 and the purchaser.

【Facts 1, 3, and 4 at the Market】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1, 3, 6, and 7

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 23, and Nonindicted 15

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 27

1. △△△△ 도입배경 및 주요사업 확인 보고, 공소외 13 공사 농지매매사업 개요 보고, 농지매매사업, 공소외 13 공사 ▒▒본부 △△지사 조직도 및 직제규정 첨부보고, 조직도, 직제규정, 통장사본, 무통장입금확인서 사본, 피고인 6의 농지원부 사본 첨부, 피고인 6 전업농육대상자 선정의 규정위반 확인 보고, 일반농가 전업농선정 및 자금지원 결정 사본, 밭전업농사업계획서 사본, 영농규모화사업 지원신청자 평가항목 및 평가방법 사본, 평가항목별 평가결과표 사본, △△△△사업 업무지침 사본, 농지매매사업 업무지침규정위반 매매계약 정리자료(최종), 공소외 24 명의 ▷▷계좌 거래내역, 부동산매매계약서사본(962-1 잡종지), 계좌거래내역(공소외 15), 제적등본(공소외 23), ▷▷통장(공소외 15) 사본, 자립예탁금거래명세표(피고인 7), 입출금거래내역 확인서(피고인 4), 거래내역(피고인 4) 사본,

A copy of each contract for purchase of farmland, a copy of each contract for purchase of farmland, a copy of each application for sale of farmland, a copy of each application for purchase of farmland, a copy of each application for purchase of farmland, a copy of each on-site investigation, a copy of each farmland ledger

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 3, 4, and 5

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 3

1. ◁◁리 749번지 토지 정보, 749번지 개별공시지가, 750번지 토지 정보, 750번지 개별공시지가, 인근토지(731, 719, 718, 716) 토지 정보, 약식명령문 사본, 저축예금거래명세표(공소외 3), 확인서사본, 전업농사업계획서사본, 주민등록표(등본) 사본, 농지원부 사본, 면세유류관리대장 사본, 각 농지매도신청서 사본, 각 매도신청농지 현지조사서사본, 각 매매계약서 사본, 각 등기부 등본 사본, 각 토지대장 사본, 각 지적도 등본, 각 토지이용계획확인서 사본, 각 농지매입신청서 사본, 각 매입신청농가 현지조사서사본, 각 농지매매계약서 사본, 자립예탁금 거래명세표 사본

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1: Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational breach of trust)

(b) Defendant 3: Articles 347 (1) and 30 (Frauds) of the Criminal Act, Articles 51 (1) and 18 (2) of the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact that funds have been received by illegal means);

(c) Defendant 4: Articles 347(1) and 30 (Fraud) of the Criminal Act, Articles 51(1), 18(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the receipt of funds by illegal means)

(d) Defendant 5: Articles 347 (1) and 30 (Frauds) of the Criminal Act, Articles 51 (1), 18 (2), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of receiving funds by illegal means)

(e) Defendant 6: Articles 347(1) and 30 (Fraud) of the Criminal Act, Articles 51(1) and 18(2) of the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the receipt of funds by illegal means);

F. Defendant 7: Article 49(1) of the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013)

1. Commercial competition;

(a) Defendant 3: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (trades of fraud under paragraph (2) and of violation of the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, fraud under paragraph (3) of the holding, between the violations of the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act, and punishment provided for each of the heavier punishments)

B. Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments prescribed in more severe frauds)

1. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6: Determination of imprisonment with prison labor

B. Defendant 7: Selection of fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the heavier penalty than the penalty stipulated in the crime of occupational breach of trust on June 30, 2010)

B. Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the penalty heavier than that prescribed in the crime of fraud as of July 21, 2008)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 7: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6: each of the provisions of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following favorable circumstances required for sentencing)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 7: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

Most of the principal and interest of support loans are repaid on the fixed date, and sufficient collateral has been provided, so it is possible to recover claims and no damage has occurred to the victim corporation, so the defendant does not constitute a crime of occupational breach of trust.

2. Determination

In the case of a crime of breach of trust, “when a person inflicts property damage” includes not only a real damage but also a case where a risk of actual damage to property has been caused, and once the risk of damage has been caused, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust even if the damage has been recovered later (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do338, Dec. 8, 2000; 2002Do4229, Jul. 22, 2004; 2010Do5972, Sept. 9, 2010).

Examining the above legal principles in light of the above legal principles, as stated in Paragraph (1) of the defendant's decision, as long as the non-indicted 1 et al. paid the subsidy with knowledge that he did not meet the requirements for receiving the subsidy in accordance with the above farming size project, it is reasonable to deem that the victim caused the risk of actual damage to property. Thus, the defendant 1 and

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant 1: Imprisonment for not less than one month but not more than 15 years;

(b) Defendant 3: Imprisonment for not less than one month but not more than 15 years;

(c) Defendants 4, 5, and 6: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than ten years;

(d) Defendant 7: Fines of not less than 50,000 won but not more than 10 million won;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria (Defendant 3).

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement 500 million won or more or less than 5 billion won

【Special Convicted Person】 If the risk of the occurrence of damages is not substantially realized (requirements for mitigation)

[Scope of Recommendation] One year to Three years [3 years of imprisonment, as a result of the combination of mitigation areas, the increase in the first step of imprisonment (minimum 1/3 of imprisonment)]

【General Sentencing】 Voluntary reflective factors (Mitigations), and no record of criminal punishment (Mitigations)

3. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant 1

The defendant, as the vice head of the △△△△△△△ Team branch of the △△△△ branch of the 13 Public Corporation, made a total of KRW 1.1 billion subsidy to be granted even though he is not eligible for support because he violated the work guidelines while in charge of the support work for the farming scale-making project implemented by the said public corporation. In light of the fact that he committed several times over a large amount of damage

However, in the case of Defendant 1, in consideration of the primary offender, the public interest aspect that the Defendant intended to activate the purchase and sale of farmland, the most of the purchased farmland with the subsidy is actually used for the purpose of farming, most of the subsidies are repaid within the set deadline, and other various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing specified in the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment and records, the punishment shall be determined as ordered within the scope of the sentencing guidelines.

B. Defendants 3, 4, 5, and 6

Although Defendant 3 and Defendant 4, who are engaged in the real estate brokerage business, had a duty to act as a fair broker for the purchase and sale of farmland, they conspired with Defendant 5 and Defendant 6, a farmer, and were provided with subsidies by deception and fraudulent means. The Defendants’ nature of crime is not provided against the law, and in particular, in light of the number of times and amount of damages, etc., there is a greater possibility of criticism.

However, there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than a suspended sentence, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 do not have any history of criminal punishment. Defendant 6 is the first offender and the Defendants did not have any same criminal record, in the case of Defendants 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6, the crime was committed once, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment and records are considered.

C. Defendant 7

Although the Defendant is not able to receive more than the statutory fees as a licensed real estate agent, and the nature of the offense is less than ten times of the statutory fees, the Defendant’s confessions and reflects the fact that the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of criminal records or suspended execution, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment and records shall be determined as ordered, taking into consideration the following factors:

1. Defendant 1

A. Summary of the facts charged [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)]

Defendant 1, in violation of the statement and duties set forth in paragraph (1) of the judgment, obtained property benefits equivalent to KRW 15,544,00 from the above non-indicted 1 and inflicted property damage on the victim corporation equivalent to the same money. From around that time to February 12, 2013, Defendant 1 violated the guidelines for support for farming size project with respect to 30 parcels of farmland as stated in the attached crime list, and thereby, Defendant 1 and other 10 persons eligible for support, including the above non-indicted 1, obtained property benefits equivalent to KRW 1,165,474,00 in total, and suffered property damage equivalent to the same money from the victim corporation.

B. Determination

Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes provides that a person who commits a specific property crime shall be subject to aggravated punishment when the value of the property or profit from property acquired or made another person acquired through a criminal act (hereinafter referred to as "amount of profit") is five hundred million won or more. Here, "amount of profit" refers to the sum of the amount of profit where a simple crime is established or a single comprehensive crime is established, and it does not mean the sum of the amount of profit where the amount of profit can be punished as concurrent crimes. Meanwhile, in order to constitute a single crime by combining several occupational breach of trust, the damage legal interest is the same as the form of a single crime, and the multiple breach of trust can be deemed as a series of acts based on a single criminal intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do1512, Oct. 12, 1993; 85Do1275, Aug. 13, 1985).

Examining the facts charged in light of the above legal principles, all of the crimes listed in the annexed list of crimes committed by the defendant are subject to victim construction. However, in light of various circumstances, such as the opposite party to support, farmland eligible for support, violation and degree of internal work guidelines, and date and time of crime, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant's appearance of each crime is identical or based on a single criminal intent only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that each crime is not a single crime, but a concurrent crime. However, the amount of profit from each of the above crimes is less than 50 million won, respectively.

Therefore, the defendant's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) shall be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of criminal facts. However, as long as the defendant's act is found guilty in each occupational

2. Defendant 2

A. Summary of the facts charged (the point of occupational breach of trust)

Defendant 2, from January 2007 to December 31, 2009, worked as team members at the △△△△△△△ branch’s affiliated ○○○○○ branch of the Victim Corporation from the victim’s ○○○○ branch, and is in charge of the affairs related to subsidies for farming scale-making projects, such as those described in paragraph (1) of the facts charged

Defendant 2, on May 208, 2008, after hearing the horses from Defendant 5 to purchase and sell farmland according to the farmland purchase and sale support pursuant to the victim’s farming size project, Defendant 2 would be able to support the sale and purchase of the said farmland through Nonindicted 28, which is the kind of farmland that is not cultivated in the above farmland, with the intention of purchasing five dry field 25,214 square meters, including the land of Gangseo-gu, Seowon-gun ( Address 1 omitted), land of the same Ri 719, land of the same Ri 724, land of the same Ri 759, land of the same Ri 750, etc. However, Defendant 5 tried to enter the said farmland in the farmland ledger, which is the kind of farmland that is not cultivated in the above Defendant 5, and to enter the said farmland in the farmland ledger, which is the farmland of Hanwon-gun, which is the farmland of the above Defendant 5, with the intention of purchasing and selling the said farmland, and to enter the said farmland into the farmland ledger 184, the farmland of Gangwon.

On May 26, 2008, Defendant 2 received the above Defendant 5, a person eligible for support, from the above Defendant 5, an application for the designation of a dry field farming farming business operator, and applied for the subsidy for the farming scale improvement project for the above farmland. Defendant 2 first supported the purchase price for the above land 749 and 750 of the above farmland in the upper half of 2008, and the sales price for the remaining land 718 and the land 719 and the land 724 were allocated with the farmland sales subsidy for the second half of 2008.

However, in order for the above defendant 5 to receive a farmland purchase support, it must be registered with the above ○○ branch office. To be selected as a dry field farming farming business under the farmland purchase support guidelines, it is possible to be a farmer who specializes in dry field farming. The farmland purchase price is also determined based on the officially announced land price and the actual transaction price and on the field survey price in the neighboring area after checking the actual transaction price of dry field farming and neighboring residents through field surveys. However, in violation of such occupational duties, among the documents submitted by the above defendant 5, it is stated that the above defendant 5 transferred the above defendant 5's copy of the certified land of the above defendant 5 from April 16, 2008, and the above defendant 5's address in the tax-free petroleum management ledger was stated as the Gangwon-gu (resident 6 omitted) No. 888, Mar. 12, 2008 to the extent that the above defendant's right to purchase tax-free petroleum was not transferred to May 9, 2008, respectively.

또한 위 피고인 5의 농지원부에 위 피고인 5가 2000. 1. 3.경부터 농지원부 발급일인 2008. 4. 30.까지 위 공소외 5 소유인 위 밭을, 2006. 2. 20.경부터 2008. 4. 30.경까지 공소외 6 소유인 강원 철원군 (주소 7 생략) 외 2필지의 논을, 2008. 1. 1.경부터 2008. 4. 30.경까지 공소외 7 소유인 강원 철원군 (주소 8 생략) 논을 각각 임차하여 경작하고 있는 것으로 기재되어 있어, 위 피고인 5를 밭전업농으로 선정할 수 없다는 사실을 확인하였으며, 농지매매가격도 현지조사서에 위 공소외 3과 피고인 5가 신청한 매매희망가격 266,000,000원(위 749 토지와 750 토지 매매희망가격 147,100,000원, 위 718 토지와 719 토지 및 724 토지 매매희망가격 118,900,000원)대로 기재한 다음 위 ◁◁리 이장 공소외 29에게 위 농지 및 주변농지에 대한 시세를 확인하지 아니한 채 형식적으로 위 공소외 29의 서명을 받았다.

Nevertheless, on May 29, 2008, the Defendant paid 14,710,000 won for the above 749 land and 750 farmland for the above 750 farmland as the payment of the farmland purchase subsidy, and around May 30, 2008, the Defendant had the victim paid 132,390,000 won for the above 718 land and 719 land and 724 land on July 21, 2008, and had the victim purchase 26,00,000 won for the above 718 land and 719 land and 724 land on behalf of the non-indicted 3 for the remaining payment, and purchased 11,890,000 won for the above 26,000,000 won for the above 26,000 won for the interest rate of 20% for the above 200,000 won for the above 200.

As a result, the Defendant violated his duties, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 266,00,000 from the above Defendant 5, and suffered property damage equivalent to the same money from the victim Corporation.

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) Around 2007, the Defendant was ordered as the victim’s ○○ branch of the Victim Corporation, and became in charge of farming size-building projects in both-gu Incheon-gun regions.

2) Around that time, the Defendant presented his opinion that the purchase of five lots of dry field 25,214 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant land”) according to the instant project by questioning Nonindicted 28 about the issue of purchase of land in Gyeyang-gu, Seowon-gun ( Address 1 omitted), Hanwon-gun (hereinafter “No. 719”), land in the same Ri, 724 land in the same Ri, 749 land in the same Ri, and 750 land in the same Ri, etc.

3) Defendant 5, with the help of Defendant 4 and his employee Defendant 3, sought to purchase the instant land by receiving funding from the Victim’s Corporation for the instant project. Nonindicted 28, a relative Nonindicted 28, her relatives, took the above talks.

4) On April 16, 2008, Defendant 5 filed a move-in report with Chuncheon City ( Address 3 omitted) and on May 11 of the same year, Defendant 5 filed an application for purchase of farmland for each land of 749,750 out of the instant land, along with a resident registration certificate, the farmland ledger, and the occupational farming business plan, on May 26 of the same year. Then, Defendant 5 filed an application for purchase of farmland for each land of 749,750 out of the instant land with the resident registration certificate, the farmland ledger, and the occupational farming business plan. On the same day, Defendant 5 filed an on-site investigation with the Defendant on July 14, 2008. Defendant 5 submitted to the Defendant an application for purchase of farmland for each land of 718,719,724 out of the instant land along with a resident registration certificate, the farmland ledger, and the occupational farming business plan, and the Defendant did so on June 16 of the same month.

5) According to Section 2(4) of Chapter III of the Guidelines for the Business Scale Rationalization Project of the Victim Corporation in 2008 (hereinafter “instant Business Guidelines”), a person who intends to obtain support for farmland outside a Si/Gun/Gu area identical or adjacent to a main farmer’s farmland is excluded from a person to be cultivated by industry (hereinafter “person to be cultivated”), and the “main farmer’s land” here is in principle a Si/Gun/Gu where he/she resides. However, even in cases of a Si/Gun/Gu with the largest scale of rice field or dry field management as of the date of application for business, it is recognized as a main farmer’s farmland (in this case, limited to the Do identical or adjacent to his/her domicile).

6) According to Section 1(5) of Chapter III of the instant Work Guidelines, among farmers under the age of 55 as of January 1 of the project implementation year, those with a scale of 1.0 years or more and with three years of experience in dry field cultivation as of January 1 of the project implementation year, farmers who will be full-time engaged in dry field farming as their main crop.

7) 춘천시 ♤♤읍장이 발급한 피고인 5에 대한 농지원부에 따르면, 피고인 5는 2000. 1. 3.경부터 농지원부 발급일인 2008. 4. 30.까지 공소외 5 소유인 강원 화천군 (주소 4 생략) 밭을, 2006. 2. 20.경부터 2008. 4. 30.경까지 공소외 6 소유인 강원 철원군 (주소 7 생략) 외 2필지의 논을, 2008. 1. 1.경부터 2008. 4. 30.경까지 공소외 7 소유인 강원 철원군 (주소 8 생략) 논을 각각 임차하여 경작하고 있는 것으로 기재되어 있고, 위 토지 중 공소외 5 소유의 밭이 19,147㎡로 가장 면적이 크다.

8) In the police investigation, Nonindicted 3 stated, “The contract shall be KRW 266 million and the amount for which Nonindicted 3 shall receive KRW 190 million is paid to that person, so there was no need to do so, and there was no question about the transaction amount between Nonindicted 13 and its employees, and thus, Nonindicted 13 shall gather the fact that the actual purchase price and the reported purchase price are different.”

9) 피고인 5는 검찰 조사에서 당시 피해자 공사 담당자에 대하여 ‘이름은 잘 모르겠고, 성은 백씨로 알고 있고 약간 퉁퉁합니다’라고 진술하였고, 당시 담당자가 허위로 주소를 이전하고 허위로 임차농지를 농지원부에 등재한 사실을 알고 있었냐는 질문에 ‘그런 것을 어떻게 압니까, 그것을 알면 담당자가 해 주겠습니까’라고 대답하였다.

10) The instant land was assessed as KRW 291,893,000 in a voluntary auction procedure, which was received on December 20, 2012, around 2012 by this Court, at KRW 291,893,000.

C. Determination

The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a false criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be judged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do1385, Aug. 13, 1991; 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002).

The following facts revealed by the above facts. ① At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not have any kind of relationship with the persons related to the instant case, including Defendant 5, Defendant 4, Defendant 3, and Nonindicted 3, who were ordered by the ○○○○○ branch of the Victim Corporation at the time of the instant case, and did not have any kind of relationship with the victims at the time of the instant case. Unlike the fact, Defendant 5 appears to have no motive or reason to gain pecuniary benefits from the loans from the said project. ② Defendant 5 was false, but Defendant 5 did not have any motive or reason to obtain pecuniary benefits from the said project, but all the requirements for the selection of professional farmers, such as the document age, farming experience, and scale of business, attached to the farmland ledger, such as the place of resident registration, and the farmland ledger, or the purchase conditions of the instant land. ③ The Defendant examined the said documents, which are public documents, and received the signature of this Chapter in the on-site investigation report, ④ there was no provision restricting the period of residence at the victim corporation’s address.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts of crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325

[Attachment]

Judges Jeong Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)

1) According to the copy of the computerized data attached to the written statement by the police against Nonindicted 3, the “132,40,000 won” of the instant written indictment appears to be a clerical error in the “132,390,000 won”.

2) According to the copy of the computerized data attached to the written statement by the police against Nonindicted 3, the “133,60,000 won” of the instant written indictment appears to be a clerical error in the “13,610,000 won”.

3) Since Defendant 3, Nonindicted 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 are commercial concurrent crimes, the sentencing guidelines do not apply to Defendant 7, and the sentencing guidelines do not apply to fines (the sentencing guidelines for the name of the relevant crime have not yet been formulated).