beta
Text
1.In accordance with the selective claims added in the trial, the judgment of the first instance court shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 8 (including any number), the results of the personal examination of the co-defendant B of the first instance trial, and the purport of the entire arguments with respect to the co-defendant B of the first instance trial.
B was appointed as a public official on January 17, 1997 and worked with the Defendant’s C until September 9, 2012, and was in charge of the inspection results, the inspection of cadastral records, and the adjustment of cadastral records, etc., and was deemed to have been damaged by a stock investment. As a result, the B, by forging relevant documents, such as “public notice of public property sale”, “a loan contract for State property (or a provisional contract for real estate sale, a loan application for State property loan, and a loan purchase for State property)” by forging the relevant documents with a status of a public official, i.e.,
B. B, from April 201 to June 201, 201, a series of occasions, from around 2011 to around 201, displayed each land of 3,521 square meters in Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, the Defendant, located in the neighboring area of Yacheon-do Office, and displayed each land of 17,851 square meters in Yacheon-do, or verified the existence of military maintenance by indicating the fact of the above land’s basic land, etc., and confirmed the existence of “10 million won in 10 million won in Ya-si, the Defendant’s savings account in the name of using it as the Defendant’s fee receipt management account (hereinafter “instant account”) around 14:47 on August 3, 2011, and on the same day, acquired money from the Plaintiff by deception around 16:169 on the same day.
(hereinafter “instant tort”). C.
B has obtained the total amount of 5.72 billion won from 26 victims, including the plaintiff, for 6 years in a way similar to the tort of this case, and in this regard, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is committed.