Defendant 1 and four others

New Jinzin

Law Firm Dongin, Attorneys Noh Jeong-soo et al.

1. Defendant 1

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the table of crime (2) to 64 set forth in the table of crime (2) of [Attachment] 1-A, (c), and (1-b) of [Attachment] 1-B] of [Attachment] 1-B] of [Attachment] 65] of [Attachment] 1-B] of [Attachment].

2. Defendant 2 (Non-Indicted 4 of the second instance judgment)

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one and half years.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

3. Defendant 3 (Non-Indicted 3 of the second instance judgment)

Defendant 3 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

4. Defendant 4

Defendant 4 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

5. Defendant 5

Defendant 5 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When Defendant 5 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.

Defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on November 22, 2008 by the Incheon District Court on November 14, 2008 for the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) and became final and conclusive on November 22, 2008, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 concurrently operated Nonindicted Company 10 and Nonindicted Company 11. Defendant 3 was employed as an employee of the said Nonindicted Company 10 and Nonindicted Company 11. Defendant 4 is a customs broker in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and Defendant 5 is a customs broker.

1. The co-principal of the defendant 1, 2, and 3;

(a) Acquisition of stolen property;

Defendant 1, who had been aware of before springing around 2007, received a proposal from the U.S. D. D. S. D. S. D. S. C. C. 2 that “I.S. A. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B., Defendant 2, who had been a member of the two vehicles, was in charge of domestic distribution of the imported stolen vehicles by attracting Defendant 3, a member of the two vehicles, to take charge of the import stolen vehicles.

Accordingly, around September 207, Defendant 1 found Nonindicted Co. 5 (U.S. name: omitted) operating Nonindicted Co. 12 in California, California, California, as the introduction of Nonindicted Co. 2, etc. on the part of the above Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., and requested the owner to export stolen vehicles to Nonindicted Co. 10 in Korea, the name of “Nonindicted Co. 6 (English omitted)” as “Nonindicted Co. 6 (Korean omitted).” On the other hand, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 14 operating Nonindicted Co. 13 in Korea and Defendant 4, who is a non-registered customs agent, requested the import and bonded transportation and customs clearance agency.

After that, Non-Indicted 15, a non-Indicted 15, who was living in the U.S., was subject to the intention of Non-Indicted 16 (name omitted: omitted) on August 5, 2008, requested Non-Indicted 16 (Lexs) from Non-Indicted 1 (Lexs Fincencencencencencencencenice) to 2008 Lex 460L car (number 1 omitted: registration number : registration number omitted) to 78,595 U.S. dollars export charges of 1,49 U.S. dollars 60 months on the same date and embezzled from the " non-Indicted 16 U.S. car", the victim of Non-Indicted 1, the victim of Non-Indicted 1, the victim of Non-Indicted 1, the victim of Non-Indicted 1, the victim of Non-Indicted 1, the victim of Non-Indicted 3 (Lexcencencencenc) immediately after being releaseded from the same date.

around that time, the above non-indicted 2 transferred the above sknife ls 460-L car from non-indicted 16, etc., and sold it to Defendant 1. After purchasing it, Defendant 1 requested the above non-indicted 5 to export it under the name of "non-indicted 6". On August 2008, 208, the above non-indicted 5 was packed in a container with one vehicle for other leasing vehicles at the port of the United States LA harassment keeping, and exported it to Busan Port. Defendant 2 and 3, upon arrival of the above stolen vehicle at the port of Busan on September 2, 2008, confirmed that Defendant 4 requested Defendant 4, the above difference to the customs house, imported US$ 56,100, and cleared it.

As a result, Defendant 1, 2, and 3 imported and acquired, in the same way, once from September 28, 2007 to October 25, 2008, a total of 35 times, such as the list of crimes (1) in attached Form 35 times from September 28, 2007, the amount equivalent to the market value of the 78 rental vehicle in the United States embezzled. (Presumption amount: about KRW 9 billion in Korean currency) from September 28, 2007 to October 25, 2008.

(b) Fraud;

Defendant 3, upon the order of Defendant 1 and 2, around September 3, 2008, obtained the order of Defendant 1 and 2, and around September 3, 2008, obtained the above 2008-type Bosch Rexroths LS 460L (number 1 omitted, registration number omitted), by pretending to be a direct import new one to Nonindicted 18 representative director, Nonindicted 17, Inc., which was aware of the fact, as if he was a direct import new one, and by receiving KRW 91,00,000 from October 15, 2007 to January 16, 2009, Defendant 3, as indicated in the attached list of crimes (2), acquired the total of KRW 520,009,68,00 won, etc. over 65 times in total, as indicated in the attached list of crimes (2).

(c) Violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act;

In remitting the vehicle price received as above to the above non-resident non-resident non-resident non-resident non-resident non-resident Nos. 2 and 3, Defendant 1 paid a total of KRW 2.65,209,98,900 on September 6, 2007 to the head of △△ Bank (Account Number omitted) of non-party 20, who is not a party to the above transaction, and paid the amount equivalent to KRW 2,408,00 on deposit with the head of △△△ Bank (Account Number omitted) of non-party 20 on September 6, 2007, and did not report it to the competent authority in the same manner from October 16, 2008.

2. Defendant 4, 5

A. Defendant 4

(1) A stolen transport and storage tank;

On September 2007, the Defendant was commissioned to customs clearance of stolen vehicles imported through Defendant 1, etc. from “Nonindicted Company 12” in the U.S. located in Incheon, etc., and Defendant 1, 2, and 3 acquired a stolen vehicle, such as the above-mentioned No. 1-A, and 1-53, 5-61, and 63-78, even though each vehicle is aware of the fact that it is a stolen goods, aided and abetted the transportation of each vehicle within the U.S. by receiving documents related to the import of the vehicle, as described in attached Table No. 1-53, 55-61, and 63-78.

(2) Violation of the Customs Brokers Act

Around April 2007, the Defendant, a licensed customs broker, leased the name and certificate of qualification of Defendant 5, a licensed customs broker, and registered customs clearance services with the competent authority under the trade name of “Seongsan Licensed Customs Brokers Office”. The Defendant provided customs clearance services by receiving a request from Defendant 1, etc., and received a total of KRW 1,650,000,000,000 from Defendant 1, etc.

B. Defendant 5

The Defendant provided customs clearance services using his name to Defendant 4, as described in paragraph (1)(2) above.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 21

1. Each statement made by Non-Indicted 22 of the witness in the second trial record, Non-Indicted 15 and the fourth trial record

1. Some statements made by the prosecution concerning the defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 in each protocol of suspect examination of the prosecution;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 5 and Nonindicted 14

1. Copy of each police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 15 and 23

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 18, 9, and 5

1. A copy of the statement made by the police against Nonindicted 14

1. Each postal record of Nonindicted 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39;

1. Copy of each partner's transaction performance, copy of each bill of lading, printed copy of e-mail printing, each internal investigation report (the release of imported vehicles, the acquisition of non-indicted 5 interview), the copy of the certificate of import verification and the certificate of import declaration (four minutes), the U.S. red inquiry (six minutes for the detection of a bonded warehouse), Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11's revenue inquiry results, copies of each non-public data (number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 omitted), copies of each non-public data, copies of any non-public data provided (number 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 omitted), copies of the LA police presiding report, the distribution status of stolen vehicles and the details of account transactions, sales of stolen vehicles and copies of tax invoices, etc., Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11's exchange records, non-indicted 6 printed materials, each investigation report (name account tracking and analysis, Defendant 1's departure prohibition, and the list of vehicles owned by each suspect, 40 days delivery price of each vehicle (40 days).

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Investigation report (the judgment of suspension of execution of defendant 1);

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

A. Defendant 1, 2, and 3: Articles 362(1), 30 (a) of each Criminal Act; Articles 347(1) and 30 (a) of each Criminal Act; Article 28(1)2 and 16 subparag. 3 of the former Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 9351, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter the same)

B. Defendant 4: Articles 362(1), 32(1) (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 29(1)1 and 3(1) (a) of the Licensed Customs Brokers Act; Articles 29(2)2 and 12(a) of the Licensed Customs Brokers Act; Articles 29(2)2 and 12(a) of the Licensed Customs Brokers Act; and each choice of imprisonment with labor

C. Defendant 5: Article 29(2)2, Article 12(2)2, and Article 29(2)2 of the Licensed Customs Brokers Act (the name of a licensed customs broker), and the selection of

1. Statutory mitigation (as to the crime of transporting, or aiding and abetting stolens by Defendant 4);

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant 1);

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the first head of the crime committed in the attached table (2) No. 1-a, (c), and (1-b) of the Criminal Act and the second part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the second part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment shall be separately determined for such crimes].

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (defendants 1, 2, 3, 4);

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [as to the defendant 1, Article 1-1 (a) and (c) of the judgment and Article 1-2 (2) of the judgment of the court below]

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 5);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (defendants 2, 3, and 4);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

We examine Defendant 1. Each of the crimes of this case was committed systematically and systematically, and the above Defendant was deemed to play a leading role in the crime of acquiring stolen property, and the sentence imposed on the above Defendant is inevitable: Provided, That with respect to each of the crimes listed in the [Attachment 1-A, (c) and [Attachment 1-B] No. 1-B] No. 1-2 of the judgment, where judgment was rendered together with the first head criminal offense, the degree of the anticipated sentencing, the motive and circumstance of each of the crimes of this case, the frequency and period of each of the crimes of this case, and the scale of damage, etc., the punishment shall be determined by taking into account all of the other conditions of the sentencing

We examine as to Defendant 2 and 3. With respect to each of the crimes of this case organized and planned, the degree of apportionment of the act by the above Defendants is not weak (the above Defendants denied the criminal intent against the acquisition of stolen goods of this case and the crime of fraud, but in light of the motive and circumstances of the crime of this case and the acquisition of stolen goods of this case recognized by the aforementioned evidence, the above Defendants are acknowledged to have had a minimum negligence in relation to each of the above crimes. However, in addition to the punishment of the fine as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving), the degree of apportionment of the act by the above Defendants, Defendant 3 did not have any other criminal power, and the execution of the sentence shall be suspended after taking into account the conditions of the punishment as expressed in the trial process.

We examine Defendant 4. The above Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months for the same kind of crime on April 7, 2006, but again committed the crime of aiding and abetting the stolen of this case. However, the above Defendant did not have any other criminal records except the punishment of a fine due to the crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the execution of the sentence will be suspended after taking into account all the conditions of the sentencing specified in the trial process.

The defendant 5 shall be punished by a fine in consideration of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the trial process, such as health room, the motive and background of the crime in this case, and the age, character and conduct, family relationship, and health conditions of the above defendant.

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

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Sung-sung