Defendant

Kim Jong-Gyeong (Court of Second Instance) and Lee Jin (Court of Second Instance)

Attorney Lee Young-young (National Election)

Applicant 1 et al.

A. As to the crimes of Section 1-A of the judgment of the accused, the crimes of Section 1-b and Articles 1-2 through 6 of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months, and imprisonment for not more than one year and six months.

The defendant pays 10,556,000 won to 2 (the applicant for compensation by the appellate court and the Supreme Court decision) who is the applicant for compensation.

The above order may be provisionally executed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

【Criminal Power】

On July 1, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for the crime of occupational embezzlement in the Busan District Court Branch, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on August 12, 2007 at the Incheon District Court on August 31, 2007. On August 31, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for fraud in the Incheon District Court, and was released from the Incheon Detention House on November 6, 2007 due to the Defendant’s final appeal, which was in the process of the final appeal on November 6, 2007, and was released from the Incheon Detention House on November 15, 207. The final judgment of the said appellate court became final and conclusive

【Criminal Facts】

1. "2012 Highest 4129";

A. Fraud against the victim Nonindicted 3

On October 16, 2006, the Defendant made a false statement that “50% of the amount of 53 million won in the face of the delivery of the NASDM760 to the victim non-indicted 3, who operates the NAF sales store in postal service, shall be paid immediately after the receipt of the product, and the remainder shall be paid after 10 days.”

However, the Defendant, at the time, did not reach the amount equivalent to KRW 100,000,00 which was not paid to other business partners, and was thought to set off some amount of the amount of the amount of the loan to Nonindicted 6, a creditor of the Defendant, with the Defendant’s obligation to Nonindicted 6. Therefore, there was no intention or ability to pay the amount even if the Defendant was supplied with the amount of the loan from the victim. On October 23, 2006, the Defendant was supplied 100 amount of the total market price of KRW 53 million from the victim.

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

(b) Fraud against the victim 1;

On September 15, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim 1 who is an applicant for compensation, stating that “The alteration has been subject to dumping goods, to lend money to him/her, and then sell and repay money within three days after he/she purchased the alteration.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have to pay 100 million won to another customer at the time, and even if having sold the altered and received the sales proceeds, there was no intent or ability to pay 4.7 million won to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account (Account Number omitted) under the name of the Defendant on the same day. The Defendant was transferred 4.7 million won to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account (Account Number omitted) on the same day.

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

2. "2012 Highest 4570".

On February 25, 2011, at the office of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant said that “When the Defendant supplied the price equivalent to KRW 10,556,000 at the market price of 812 Hete gift gift sets, the Defendant said that “if the Defendant supplied the price equivalent to KRW 10,556,000,000, the Defendant would pay the remainder KRW 5,56,000 until March 2, 2011.”

However, the facts are that the Defendant had a debt amounting to KRW 100 million for another customer at the time, and the operation of the above office was proper and used in full for the opening of the office with the payment of the price, and even if the Defendant received goods from the victim, he did not have any intent or ability to pay the price for the goods.

After all, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained the total amount of KRW 10,556,000 from the victim, which is a sum of 812 market prices.

3. "2012 Highest 3748";

At around 11:00 on April 8, 201, the Defendant stated that “○○○○○” office as above, the victim Nonindicted 7 said that “The Defendant would supply 700 propool rental products on the day or on the day of a week after the delivery.” However, on or around February 2011, the Defendant extended the store in the above Seocho-dong and opened the store in the above Seocho-dong, and the Defendant did not have an ability to pay the amount even if the Defendant received the goods from the victim, there is no ability to pay the amount.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, obtained the 700 goods of "Yololole" which are 30,000 won per business year from the victim and acquired the goods equivalent to KRW 21,00,000 from the 70 goods.

4. "2013 Highest 92".

A. Fraud against the victim non-indicted 4

Around July 14, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim Nonindicted 4 (the ○○○○○○) office stating that “In order to expand its business, funds need to be made in order to expand its business, and if investments are made to B, the profits from the distribution of investment funds will be made.” However, even if the Defendant received the investment funds from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to reduce the investment profits.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 300,000 from the victim, i.e., the money for investment, and received KRW 2.7 million from the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number omitted) in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

B. Fraud against the victim Nonindicted 5

The Defendant, by means of the foregoing paragraph (a) around July 22, 2011, made a false statement to the victim Nonindicted 5 (the age of 43), and received from the victim a remittance of KRW 600,000,000 from the victim to the said Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant for investment money, KRW 4 million on the same day, KRW 3 million on August 3, 200, and KRW 200,000 on August 11 of the same year.

5. "2012 Highest 3614";

On August 2011, the Defendant reported Nonindicted 8’s writing to sell a gift gift set on the Internet car page, contacted Nonindicted 8, and explained Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 1 of the victim Nonindicted 1 at the ○○○○ Store operated by the Defendant on the first floor in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted).

On August 8, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim at the above ○○○○○○ World Ware through Nonindicted 8, stating, “The Defendant was to receive a gift gift set and deliver it to the Han Manman and Democratic Party. However, the Defendant was to receive the subsequent settlement, which first, until September 9, 2011, if the goods were supplied, it would cause the payment in cash.”

However, the Defendant had already been paid to other business partners KRW 100,00,000, and there was no intention or ability to pay the price even if he was supplied by the victim, since he was planned to supply or sell the goods to the non-indicted 9 corporation, not the Hanna Company and the Democratic Party. The Defendant was supplied 19 times in total from around August 30, 201 to September 7, 201, with the amount of KRW 6,400,000, total market price of KRW 5,200,000, as shown in the attached list of crimes (1) from around that time to around September 7, 201.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received property equivalent to KRW 141,073,00.

6. "2012 Highest 4066".

On October 201, 201, the Defendant, through Nonindicted 10, a director of the victim Nonindicted Company 2, at the above ○○○○○○○ Office, concluded that “The Defendant would pay 50% of the day of delivery in cash and 50% of the remainder on every day of delivery in cash” to Nonindicted 11, the representative director of Nonindicted 2, a director of the victim Nonindicted Company 2.

However, the fact that the defendant had already not been paid to other business partners has reached at least KRW 100 million, and since the defendant had been able to use the goods on credit from the victim from the beginning after buying the goods on credit and encashing the goods, he had no intention or ability to pay the goods even if he was supplied with cosmetics from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was supplied with cosmetics equivalent to KRW 4,300,00 at the market price around the 7th of the same month from around that time to December 3 of the same year, and acquired cosmetics equivalent to KRW 57,201,00 at the market price through the same 15 times from that time, as shown in the attached list of crimes (2) in the same manner.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statements of the accused in the protocol of the first, third, and fifth trial;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 5

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 3 and the applicant for compensation, Nonindicted 1, 2, Nonindicted 7, 4, 1, and 11

1. Answer to inquiries into financial information;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, and current status of personal identification and confinement;

1. As to the crime, No. 1-A

Although the Defendant agreed with Nonindicted 6 to not set off the above goods payment obligation against Nonindicted 6’s Defendant with the existing claim against Nonindicted 6, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, as a result, Nonindicted 6 did not pay the goods price by asserting a set-off and did not pay the goods price to the victim, it was impossible to pay the goods to the victim, and that there was no intention to commit fraud.

However, as shown in the above evidence, in light of the following facts: (a) under the status that the Defendant assumes the obligation to return the goods worth KRW 20 million with Nonindicted 6, the Defendant supplied the loan to Nonindicted 6 in lieu of the repayment of the above obligation; and (b) the Defendant agreed from Nonindicted 6 to receive settlement and payment of only the difference between the amount of the loan and the amount of the existing obligation KRW 20 million; (c) the Defendant received the settlement amount of KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 6; and (c) the Defendant did not pay it to the victim even if the Defendant received the settlement amount of KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 6; and (c) the Defendant was recognized by the investigative agency that the Defendant took the responsibility of the amount of KRW 10 million with the victim at the time of receiving the loan from the victim; and therefore, it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted 6 did not pay the goods in violation of the agreement with the Defendant. Therefore, the above Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

2. As to the crime No. 4-B of the holding

Although the victim decided to invest KRW 60 million in the original amount, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, as the Defendant paid KRW 13,200,000, the Defendant was unable to perform the new contract with the age-based importer, and that the contract was reversed, the Defendant was unable to repay the borrowed amount, and that there was no intention to commit fraud.

However, as shown in the above evidence, the defendant asserted that he paid the above KRW 13.2 million to the new importer, but there is no evidence to support this, and there is no evidence to support the importer's personal information and contact point at all, and the defendant's transfer details to the new importer by receiving KRW 13.2 million from the victim do not appear in the defendant's passbook (the defendant is claiming that he paid the cash in his possession to the new importer first, and that he used the cash in settling the price for the goods to other business partners after paying the price for the goods to the other business partners). In light of the above facts, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted since it is difficult to view that the defendant concluded the new importer's contract with the new importer.

3. As to the crime No. 6 of the holding

The defendant argued to the effect that the bill and the per share table received from the victim to the customer can not pay the price of the goods to the victim due to the default of payment, and that the victim did not have the intention to obtain fraud.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed in the above evidence, i.e., (i) the Defendant did not submit any materials supporting the fact that the Defendant supplied cosmetics from the victim to Nonindicted Co. 12 and Nonindicted Co. 13; (ii) was unaware of the location of the above customer and contact point; (iii) Nonindicted Co. 13 was irrelevant to the transaction of construction materials and agricultural and fishery products distribution companies; and (iv) the Defendant was recognized as not capable of paying the price of cosmetics because the Defendant had already been liable to pay the price of cosmetics as alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the Defendant supplied the cosmetics supplied from the victim to the customer as alleged by the Defendant; and (iii) it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant received the cosmetics from the victim without intent or ability to pay the price of the cosmetics. Accordingly, the above assertion by the Defendant is rejected.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 (Cases concerning Crimes of Article 1 in Sales Market)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (A) (the crime of Article 1-1(a) and fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Orders for compensation;

Articles 25(1), 31(1), and 31(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

1. Declaration of provisional execution;

Article 31(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings

【Free Circumstances】

Some of the damages have been recovered (for the victim non-indicted 3, KRW 10 million, KRW 1 million for the victim non-indicted 1,000, KRW 20 million for the victim non-indicted 2 corporation, and KRW 20 million for the victim's non-indicted 3 corporation), and it is against the mistake.

【Unfavorable Circumstances】

The records of punishment for the same crime are several times, and some crimes are committed within the period of repeated crime, the fact that the damage has not been properly recovered, and the amount of fraud.

[Attachment]

Judges Ha Sung-won