Defendant 1 and four others

Park Jong-chul (prosecution, public trial)

Law Firm continental Asia et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of four years, by imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and by fine of ten million won, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive with respect to Defendant 2, Defendant 3 (Nonindicted 3), and Defendant 4.

Defendant 5 (Counter-board Co., Ltd.) ordered the above fine to be paid provisionally to Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. (Nonindicted 1 Co., Ltd.)

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Outboard: Nonparty 3), each of the facts charged shall be acquitted.

The summary of each of the judgment of innocence against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Outboard: Nonparty 3) is publicly notified.

" 2012, 201, 35"

I. Joint criminal conduct of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Nonparty 3)

Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 5 Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) and the representative director of Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) and the actual manager of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”). Defendant 2 is the executive director of Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. (Nonindicted Co. 1) and Defendant 3 (Nonindicted Co. 3) are the executive director of Defendant 2, respectively, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are the senior co., Ltd. (Article 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Nonindicted Co. 3) are the senior co., Ltd.) (Article 1 and Defendant 2 are the senior co., Ltd.) and each item of Defendant 4 is the Defendant “Defendant” or “Defendant 2,” respectively.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), etc. related to the apartment complex at home and abroad;

The Defendants implemented Non-Indicted Party 2 in Heungdong, and, with respect to “△△△△△△△△ apartment (including apartment units and rental apartment units) constructed by Defendant 5 (non-Indicted Party 1), received appraisal by lowering the sale price of the site at a higher level than the actual price, and, based on this, received the sales price higher than the actual price in the case of the apartment units for sale based on the apartment units, received the sales price higher than the actual price, and, in the case of the apartment units for lease, received a guarantee from the Korea Housing Finance Corporation for a higher amount than the actual amount, and intended to receive loans from the bank.

(a) Forgery of private documents;

On March 28, 2008, Defendant 1 purchased the land of Heungdong-dong, “△△△△△△△△△△△ apartment construction site” from Nonindicted Co. 22 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 22”) at KRW 10 billion, although he purchased the land of Heungdong-dong and 77,514.8 square meters (hereinafter “○○○ area land”) from a permanent resident, which is a new construction site of Heungdong-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, for a permanent resident, at KRW 7,000,000,000. However, Defendant 1 drafted a false real estate sales contract with the intent to set the appraised value higher to obtain a loan from the National Housing Fund and purchase the land of the ○○ area at KRW 17,000,000,000.

On August 8, 2008, the Defendants conspiredd to forge the bank remittance receipt, as if they remitted to Nonindicted Company 22 the sales amount of land in the ○○ area to the bank, in order to submit the materials proving the sales amount, etc. of land in the course of applying for a loan to apartment houses to be constructed on the ○○ area’s land at the representative director’s office of the ○○ Building (name 8 omitted), and in the course of applying for a loan to the ○○ area’s land to the bank, the Defendants conspired to forge the bank’s remittance receipt.

피고인 3(대판:소외 3)은 2008. 8. 초순경 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사) 사무실에서, 그 곳에 있는 복사기를 이용하여 2008. 3. 28. ○○지구 토지에 대한 계약금 명목으로 10억 원을 ▤▤은행 ▽▽ 출장소에서 공소외 22 회사로 송금한 영수증을 이용하여 그 기재 내용 중 금액부분에 다른 송금영수증의 숫자를 오려붙인 후 이를 다시 복사하는 방법으로, ① 송금자의 ‘성명’란에 “공소외 2 회사”, ‘거래일시’란에 “14:15:36”, ‘발행일자’란에 “2008. 03. 28.”, ‘받으실분’란에 “공소외 22 회사”, ‘입금계좌번호’란에 “(계좌번호 1 생략)”, '송금금액‘란에 “1,700,000,000원”, ’취급자‘란에 “▤▤은행 ▽▽ 출장소 공소외 23”이라고 각 기재된 ▤▤은행 안동▽▽출장소장 명의의 송금영수증 1장을, ② 송금자의 ‘성명’란에 “공소외 2 회사”, ‘거래일시’란에 “16:18:32”, ‘발행일자’란에 “2008. 05. 26.”, ‘받으실분’란에 “공소외 22 회사”, ‘입금계좌번호’란에 “(계좌번호 1 생략)”, '송금금액‘란에 “3,400,000,000원”, ’취급자‘란에 “▤▤은행 ▽▽ 출장소 공소외 23”이라고 각 기재된 ▤▤은행 안동 ▽▽출장소장 명의의 송금영수증 1장을, ③ 송금자의 ‘성명’란에 “공소외 2 회사”, ‘거래일시’란에 “11:16:33”, ‘발행일자’란에 “2008. 06. 25.”, ‘받으실분’란에 “공소외 22 회사”, ‘입금계좌번호’란에 “(계좌번호 1 생략)”, '송금금액‘란에 “11,900,000,000원”, ’취급자‘란에 “▤▤은행 ▽▽ 출장소 공소외 23”이라고 각 기재된 ▤▤은행 안동 ▽▽출장소장 명의의 송금영수증 1장을 각 작성하였다.

이로써 피고인들은 공모하여 사실 증명에 관한 사문서인 ▤▤은행 안동 ▽▽출장소장 명의의 송금영수증 3장을 각 위조하였다.

(b) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

1) 피고인들은 공모하여, 2008. 8. 초순경 위와 같이 위조한 ‘▤▤은행 안동 ▽▽출장소장’ 명의의 송금영수증 3장을 피고인 3(대판:소외 3)을 통하여 영주시 (주소 9 생략)에 있는 ◇◇은행 ◈◈지점의 대출담당직원 공소외 4에게 마치 진정하게 작성된 송금영수증인 것처럼 제출하여 행사하였다.

2) 피고인들은 공모하여, 2008. 9. 26.경 국민주택기금대출을 받는데 필요한 신용보증과 관련하여 위와 같이 위조한 ‘▤▤은행 안동 ▽▽출장소장’ 명의의 송금영수증 3장을 피고인 3(대판:소외 3)을 통하여 한국주택금융공사 대구경북지사 담당자 공소외 24에게 마치 진정하게 작성된 송금영수증인 것처럼 팩스로 전송하게 하여 행사하였다.

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

In collusion, the Defendants filed an application for a loan from the National Housing Fund with respect to the “△△△△△△△ apartment” to be constructed on the land of ○○ District with the victim’s similar branches (hereinafter “the victim’s affiliated branches”), which are located at the time of permanent residence ( Address 9 omitted) in early August 2008, at the same time as the Defendant purchased the land of ○○○ District with KRW 17 billion, and submitted a false statement as if he purchased the land of ○○○○ District with KRW 17 billion. In addition, the Defendants submitted three copies of the remittance receipt and one copy of the false real estate sales contract with KRW 17 billion and one copy of the false real estate sales contract to Nonindicted 5, who requested an appraisal at the same same points as the same time of the victimized Bank’s temporary residence (hereinafter “the victim’s affiliated branches”), around September 25, 2008, and submitted the above false statement to Nonindicted 5, who requested the appraisal at the same point as the same time of the Korea Housing Finance Corporation’s affiliated branches.

As above, the Defendants deceptioned the same point as the same as the victim bank, and then acquired the total sum of KRW 26,030,000,000 from October 17, 2008 to April 29, 201, from the same point as the same as the same thing as the victim bank, to the account in the name of Nonindicted Company 2 in which the victim bank actually managed by Defendant 1.

2. A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes related to Apartment △△△△ in Ansan-dong.

The Defendants implemented Non-Party 2 in Ansan-si, and, with respect to the apartment of “△△△△△△△” (including apartment and rental apartment) constructed by Defendant 5 (non-Party 1) (including apartment and rental apartment), received an appraisal by lowering the sale price of the site at a higher level than the actual price, and, based on this, in the case of apartment units for sale based on the apartment units, received a higher price than the actual price, received a higher price, and in the case of rental apartment, received a guarantee from the Korea Housing Finance Corporation for a higher amount than the actual price, and intended to receive loans from the bank.

(a) Forgery of private documents;

around August 208, the Defendants: (a) purchased the co-ownership share of KRW 1,750,281,00, KRW 2,902 square meters from Nonindicted 25, and KRW 26,827, and KRW 7,154,00 from Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, and each of the co-ownership share of KRW 80,40,00, KRW 300,000, KRW 154, and KRW 7,154, and the co-ownership share of KRW 1,750, KRW 281,00, KRW 14, KRW 2,902, and KRW 1/27, KRW 27, and KRW 27, KRW 80, KRW 400, KRW 507, KRW 400, KRW 500, KRW 400, and KRW 507, KRW 300, KRW 400, and KRW 507,007.

around October 208, Defendant 3 (Non-Party 3): (a) at the office of Defendant 5 (Non-Party 1): (b) around October 20, 2008, Defendant 3 (Non-Party 3): (c) using the computer and fence in the place; (d) “real estate indication”; (d) “The name of Non-Party 11 omitted; (e) the name of Non-Party 12 omitted”; and (e) “the sale price of real estate” was “the KRW KRW 530,00 (5,301,80,000)”; and (d) the “the date of preparation” was indicated as “the KRW 70,000,000”; and (e) Non-Party 25’s seal affixed to Nonindicted Party 1, 250,000,000 won (“Non-Party 1,60,000,000 won” and “the KRW 260,000,00”.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to forge each real estate sales contract in the name of Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 27, which is a private document on the rights and obligations.

(b) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

1) 피고인들은 공모하여, 2008. 10. 21.경 위와 같이 매매대금을 부풀려 위조한 공소외 25, 공소외 26, 공소외 27 명의의 각 부동산매매계약서 사본을 피고인 2를 통하여 안동시 (주소 25 생략)에 있는 한국감정원 ♡♡지점에서 □□지구 토지의 감정평가를 담당하는 그 곳 소속의 감정평가사 공소외 5에게 마치 진정하게 작성된 것처럼 제출하여 행사하였다.

2) The Defendants conspired, from October 22, 2008 to around the 27th day of the same month, submitted to Nonindicted 4 the staff in charge of loans at the same △△ Bank’s similar branches, which were located in the permanent residence ( Address 9 omitted), as seen above, a copy of each real estate sales contract in the names of Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 27, which were forged through Defendant 3 (Nonindicted 3).

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

The Defendants conspired to purchase KRW 7,409,00,000 even if they purchased KRW 3,497,501,000 in total of the four parcels of land in the △△△△△ district to be constructed on the land in the △△△△△△, at the same time of permanent residence of the Defendant on September 22, 2008 at the same time as the same time point of the injured bank located in the ( Address 9 omitted), and submitted a copy of each real estate sales contract in the name of Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 27, which were forged through Defendant 3 (Nonindicted 3) from October 22, 2008, to Nonindicted 4 in charge of loans in the interest of Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 27, who purchased the four parcels of land in the △△ district.

As above, the Defendants deceptioned the same point as the same as the victim bank, and then acquired the total amount of KRW 28,001,800,000 from June 12, 2009 to January 20, 201, as the loan from the same same point as the victim bank, to the account in the name of the non-indicted 2 company in which the Defendant 1 actually manages.

Ⅱ Joint criminal conduct by Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 (Fraud, Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)

The Defendants, as a type of punishment, Defendant 5 company (Nonindicted Company 1) whose representative director is Defendant 1, opened a model house, etc. in relation to the new construction of the “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△” apartment constructed in the Gunsan city ( Address 15 omitted). From December 5, 2009, the sales contract began from December 5, 2009. However, as the sale rate was lower than the anticipated out of the apartment sales rate and the part payments were paid from the buyers of the apartment, and the plan was interrupted for the use of the apartment as the construction cost, the Defendants prepared a false sales contract under another person’s name, received a false letter of contract for part payments, and conspired

Defendant 4, at the end of December 2008, instructed Nonindicted 58 to prepare a false sales contract form with the persons recruited by Nonindicted 28 and prepare a false sales contract form at the “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, etc., at the office of the representative director of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ (hereinafter omitted) company of the △△△△△△△△△△△ building, etc., to manage money to be paid to Defendant 1 by directly transferring the money to Defendant 1, and to pay to the said persons. Defendant 1 instructed Nonindicted 28 to perform the role of preparing loan-related documents.

공소외 28, 공소외 58은 위와 같이 피고인 1의 지시에 따라 사실은 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)가 군산시 (주소 15 생략)에서 건축 중인 ‘△△△△’ 아파트를 공소외 29가 분양받은 사실이 없음에도 마치 실제 분양받은 것처럼 공소외 29와 허위의 분양계약서를 작성하고, 피고인 4는 계약금 명목으로 1,000만 원을 공소외 29에게 건네주고 그 돈을 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)로 입금하게 한 후 대출관련 서류를 준비하여, 2008. 12. 31. 군산시 (주소 16 생략)에 있는 피해자 ◐◐◐◐◐ ▒▒▒▒▒지점(이하 ‘피해◐◐ ▒▒▒▒▒지점’이라 한다)에서 공소외 29로 하여금 위와 같이 작성한 허위 분양계약서 등을 그 곳에 있는 대출담당 직원에게 제출하고 중도금 대출을 신청하게 하였다.

피고인들은 공모하여 위와 같은 방법으로 피해◐◐ ▒▒▒▒▒지점을 기망하고 이에 속은 피해◐◐ ▒▒▒▒▒지점으로부터 중도금 대출금 명목으로 합계 113,520,000원을 피고인 1이 실질적으로 경영하는 공소외 6 주식회사(이하 ‘공소외 6 회사’라 한다)의 법인 계좌로 송금받은 것을 비롯하여, 2008. 12. 24.경부터 2009. 2. 20.까지 별지 범죄일람표 1 기재와 같이 총 86명의 명의로 중도금 대출을 신청하여 피해◐◐ ▒▒▒▒▒지점으로부터 합계 9,628,755,000원을 공소외 6 회사의 법인 계좌로 송금 받아 편취하고, 같은 방법으로 2009. 2. 27. 및 2009. 4. 6.경 별지 범죄일람표 2 기재와 같이 총 3명의 명의로 피해자 ◇◇은행 ▲▲지점(이하 ‘피해은행 ▲▲지점’이라 한다)으로부터 중도금 대출금 명목으로 합계 340,320,000원을 공소외 6 회사의 법인 계좌로 송금 받아 편취하였다.

III. Defendant 1

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and occupational embezzlement;

The defendant is the representative director of the victim company 5 (SP) and the defendant 4 is the representative director of the victim company (SP) and is the actual operator of the non-indicted 2 company whose representative director is the defendant 2, the non-indicted 6 company whose representative director is the defendant 2, and the non-indicted 20 company in which the non-indicted 12 is the representative director (hereinafter "non-indicted 20 company"), and the person who takes overall control of the above company's corporate account while directly managing the above company's corporate account.

가. 피고인은 2006. 11. 29.경 안동시 (주소 8 생략) ◇◇빌딩의 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사) 대표이사 사무실에서, 사실은 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)가 공소외 32 주식회사, 공소외 33 주식회사, 공소외 34 회사, 공소외 31 주식회사 등 4개 업체에 외주공사비(외상매입금)를 지급할 필요가 없음에도 불구하고, 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)의 회계담당직원에게 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)의 법인자금에서 외주공사비 명목으로 공소외 32 주식회사에게 5억 원, 공소외 33 주식회사에게 3억 원, 공소외 34 회사에게 3억 원, 공소외 31 주식회사에게 2억 원 등 합계 13억 원을 지급하는 것으로 회계처리하게 하고, 13억 원을 피고인 명의의 ★★은행 계좌(계좌번호 2 생략)로 송금하게 함으로써 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)의 법인자금 13억 원을 횡령하였다.

나. 피고인은 2008. 9.경 안동시 (주소 8 생략) ◇◇빌딩의 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사) 대표이사 사무실에서, 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)로부터 하도급을 받아 공사를 진행하고 있는 공소외 35 주식회사의 대표 공소외 16에게 피고인 1이 사용할 통장을 하나 개설해 달라고 말하고, 2008. 10. 9.경 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사) 대표이사 사무실에서 공소외 16이 ★★은행 ◀◀지점에서 개설한 ★★은행 계좌(계좌번호 3 생략)의 통장과 비밀번호 및 공소외 16의 도장을 넘겨받았다.

1) 피고인은 2008. 10. 13.경 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)가 공소외 16에게 급여를 지급할 이유가 없음에도 불구하고, 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)의 회계담당 직원으로 하여금 공소외 16에게 4,182,580원을 급여로 지급하도록 지시하여 피고인이 관리하는 공소외 16 명의의 ★★은행 계좌로 4,182,580원을 송금 받은 것을 비롯하여, 2009. 10. 12.경까지 같은 방법으로 총 17회에 걸쳐서 합계 66,770,369원을 피고인이 관리하는 공소외 16 명의의 ★★은행 계좌로 송금하게 한 후, 이를 피고인이 임의로 사용함으로써 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)의 법인자금 66,770,369원을 횡령하였다.

2) 피고인은 2008. 11. 25.경 안동시 (주소 8 생략) ◇◇빌딩의 피해자 공소외 2 회사 사무실에서, 피해자 공소외 2 회사가 발행한 액면금 5억 원의 약속어음(약속어음번호 1 생략) 1매를 아무런 회계처리 없이 임의로 가지고 나와 공소외 16에게 그 할인을 부탁하여, 2008. 11. 25.경 공소외 16이 안동시 남문동 소재 ▥▥▥저축은행에서 약속어음을 할인받고 교부받은 ▨▨▨▨은행 ♡♡지점장이 발행한 액면금 486,662,329원권 자기앞수표(자기앞수표번호 1 생략) 1매를 공소외 16으로부터 교부받아 2008. 11. 28.경 피고인이 관리하는 공소외 16 명의의 ★★은행 계좌에 입금한 후 임의로 사용함으로써 피해자 공소외 2 회사의 법인자금 5억 원을 횡령하였다.

다. 피고인은 2008. 12. 31.경 안동시 (주소 8 생략) ◇◇빌딩의 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사) 대표이사 사무실에서, 청도 신도(송서)지구 수해상습지 개선공사를 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)로부터 하도급 받아 그 공사를 진행하고 있는 공소외 35 주식회사의 대표 공소외 16에게 3차 기성금 합계 586,240,000원에 대한 지급을 위하여 공소외 6 회사가 발행한 액면금 586,240,000원권 약속어음(약속어음번호 2 생략) 1매를 공소외 16에게 교부한 후, 즉석에서 피고인이 직접 약속어음을 할인해 주겠다고 말하면서 ★★은행 ◀◀지점장이 발행한 액면금 350,000,000원권 자기앞수표(자기앞수표번호 2 생략) 1매를 지급하고 나머지 234,240,000원은 피고인이 공소외 16으로부터 개인적으로 차용하였다.

On June 3, 2009, when the Defendant paid the fourth progress payment to Nonindicted 16 of the Cheongdo-do-Do-do Hando-do Hando-ro improvement project for the water and marine wetlands, the Defendant settled the total amount of KRW 586,240,000,000, which was actually paid to Nonindicted 16 as above, and the Defendant treated as settlement of KRW 350,000,000, which was actually paid to Nonindicted 16 as above, thereby requiring the Defendant to additionally pay KRW 234,240,000, which was the personal debt that the Defendant did not repay to Nonindicted 16, the Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 234,240,00,00 as the progress payment to Nonindicted 16, by using the Defendant’s Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Party 1)’s corporate fund of KRW 234,240,000,00 for the Defendant’s personal debt repayment.

D. Around January 21, 2009, the Defendant, at the office of representative director of 5 companies (Nonindicted Co. 1), Defendant 5 of the victim of △△ Building in Ansan-si ( Address 8 omitted), and Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Co. 1) who subcontracted the construction to Defendant 5, to settle the accounts of Nonindicted Co. 16 and the first progress payment for the representative of Nonindicted Co. 35 Co. 16, who continued the construction.

(1) When the Defendant received a claim from Nonindicted 16 for construction expenses, etc., and received KRW 42,575,366 from Nonindicted 16, and paid KRW 56,389,347 for construction expenses, he/she received KRW 422,575,36 from Nonindicted 16 to Nonindicted 16 for the purpose of construction expenses, he/she shall be paid KRW 143,818,980 for the victim’s corporate fund within the scope of loan available amount, taking into account the appraisal of the project site of apartment construction cost calculated by himself/herself, and he/she shall be paid KRW 143,818,980 for the victim’s corporate fund to Nonindicted 5 Company (Nonindicted 1 Company), and he/she shall be paid KRW 50,970 for the victim’s corporate fund to Nonindicted 5 Company (Nonindicted 1 Company): KRW 20,576,4765,5766, May 7, 205).

E. Although Nonindicted 37, who belongs to the victim’s cultural heritage team of the victim’s five companies (Nonindicted Co., Ltd. 1), independently handled the cultural heritage repair work awarded by the victim’s five companies (Nonindicted Co. 1): (a) while Nonindicted 37 directly transferred the cultural heritage repair work to Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Co. 1) accounting officers, Nonindicted 37 paid the 14 staff members of the cultural heritage team to Defendant 5 companies (Nonindicted Co. 1) accounting officers, the Defendant embezzled the cultural heritage team’s total salary from March 10, 2009 to April 10, 201, as if he paid the 277,572,02,020 won to the victim’s five companies (Nonindicted Co. 1) in the form of a representative director’s provisional payment from the defendant, and then the defendant embezzled the 5 company (Nonindicted Co. 1): the victim’s representative director of the corporation’s account in the form of the above funds to use it at his own discretion.

F. On January 209, the Defendant participated in the tender of the “Yongcheon-gun Construction Project on the Do-gun Road Site Relocation Project on the Do-gun,” which was ordered by the Dobong-gun, and subsequently awarded the contract for the construction, consulted with Nonindicted Co. 38 at the intervals of subcontracting to Nonindicted Co. 17 operated by this Nonindicted Co. 38, and, in order to meet the bidding conditions, four members, including Nonindicted 39, who are employees of Nonindicted Co. 17 Co. 39, are formally transferred to the victim as if they were employees of Nonindicted Co. 5 (Nonindicted Co. 1, 2009), and paid the payment by Nonindicted Co. 38 to the victim’s Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Co. 1, 200).

Although the Defendant received a total of KRW 241,136,80 from Nonindicted 38 to December 201, 201, from Nonindicted 38, the sum of KRW 241,136,800 from Nonindicted 39 and paid Nonindicted 39, etc. as salary, the Defendant accounted as if he paid KRW 241,136,80 to Nonindicted 39, etc. out of the corporate funds of the victim Defendant 5 (Nonindicted 1) as remuneration, and embezzled KRW 241,136,800 from the corporate funds of the victim Defendant 5 (Nonindicted 1) as remuneration.

G. On December 28, 2005, the Defendant: (a) around December 28, 2005, the victim Defendant: (b) did not need to pay the credit purchase amount to Nonindicted Company 7, etc.; (c) did not account for the total sum of KRW 1,315,513,927 with the credit purchase amount to Nonindicted Company 7, etc.; and (d) embezzled KRW 2,365,513,927 by withdrawing KRW 2,365,513,927 from the corporate account of the victim Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Company 1) by arbitrarily using the total sum of KRW 2,365,513,927 from the corporate account of the victim Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Company 1), and embezzled KRW 2,365,513,927.

아. 피고인은 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)가 안동시 용상동에 신축하는 “△△△△” 아파트 공사현장에서 발생하는 고철 및 위 “△△△△” 아파트나 광주, 남악의 모델하우스 철거 과정에서 발생하는 H-빔 등 건축자재나 고철 등을 폐기물처리업체인 동남자원을 운영하는 공소외 18에게 판매하면서 그 고철대금 등을 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)의 법인계좌가 아닌 피고인이 개인적으로 관리하는 피고인 4 명의의 ▧▧은행 계좌(계좌번호 4 생략)로 2010. 12. 29.경부터 2011. 12. 6.경까지 사이에 공소외 18로부터 위 아파트 공사현장에서 발생하는 고철대금 명목 등으로 합계 150,445,800원을, 모델하우스 철거 과정에서 발생하는 건축자재대금 명목으로 합계 112,822,900원을 각 송금받아 피고인이 임의로 사용하여 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사) 법인자금 263,268,700원을 횡령하였다.

자. 피고인은 김해시 ◁◁지구의 △△△△ 아파트 및 영주시 ○○지구의 △△△△ 아파트의 각 미술장식품 설치 등과 관련하여, 피고인 2에게 지시하여 ⊙⊙⊙⊙연구소 공소외 41에게 실제 미술장식품 설치비용으로 사용된 금액보다 부풀린 계약서를 작성하고 그 차액을 피고인에게 되돌려 주도록 하게 한 후, (1) 2008. 8. 7.경부터 2009. 5. 18.경까지 김해시 ◁◁지구의 △△△△ 아파트의 미술장식품 설치비용으로 합계 58,000,000원을 피해자 공소외 6 회사의 법인자금에서 지출하고 공소외 41로부터 28,000,000원을 돌려받아 피고인이 임의로 사용하여 피해자 공소외 6 회사의 법인자금 28,000,000원을 횡령하고, (2) 2010. 11. 1.경부터 2011. 4. 20.경까지 영주시 ○○지구의 △△△△ 아파트의 미술장식품 설치비용으로 합계 130,044,950원을 피해자 공소외 2 회사의 법인자금에서 지출하고 공소외 41로부터 70,938,950원을 돌려받아 피고인이 임의로 사용하여 공소외 2 회사의 법인자금 70,938,950원을 횡령하였다.

(j) With respect to the installation of each new construction work of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ apartment in the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, △△△△△△△△△△△, Defendant instructed Nonindicted 2 to prepare a contract with Nonindicted 42 Research Institute and let the Defendant return the difference to the Defendant. (1) From December 7, 2009 to May 12, 2010, the Defendant embezzled KRW 212,036,000 from the Defendant’s funds for Nonindicted 6 corporation, and returned KRW 125,256,00 from Nonindicted 43 to Nonindicted 25,256,00 from the Defendant’s funds for the installation of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and embezzled the victim’s funds by arbitrarily using the Defendant’s funds.

카. 피고인은 공소외 6 회사의 대표이사가 자신이 생활비를 보조해 주는 공소외 19로 등기되어 있으나 사실은 피고인이 실질적으로 대표이사이고 공소외 19는 명의만 올려놓고 전혀 근무한 사실이 없으며, 공소외 2 회사, 공소외 21 회사에서도 공소외 19가 근무한 사실이 없고, 피고인 1이 위 회사들을 실질적으로 운영하는 점을 이용하여, ① 2006. 5. 10.경부터 2011. 2. 22.경까지 피해자 공소외 6 회사의 법인자금에서 공소외 19에 대한 급여 명목으로 공소외 19 명의의 ▧▧은행계좌(계좌번호 5 생략)로 합계 30,428,070원을 송금하여 피해자 공소외 6 회사의 법인자금을 횡령하고, ② 2008. 3. 12.경부터 2010. 4. 22.경까지 피해자 공소외 2 회사 법인자금에서 공소외 19 명의의 위 계좌로 합계 16,900,000원을 송금하여 피해자 공소외 2 회사의 법인자금을 횡령하고, ③ 2009. 2. 10.경부터 2012. 3. 12.경까지 피해자 공소외 21 회사의 법인자금에서 공소외 19 명의의 위 계좌로 합계 91,023,000원을 송금하여 피해자 공소외 21 회사의 법인자금을 횡령하였다.

타. 피고인은 공소외 20 회사의 대표이사가 공소외 12로 등기되어 있으나 사실은 피고인이 운영하는 회사인 점을 이용하여, 2010. 7. 12.경부터 2012. 3. 12.경까지 공소외 20 회사의 법인자금에서 공소외 12에 대한 급여 명목으로 공소외 12 명의의 ◐◐계좌(계좌번호 8 생략)로 돈을 송금한 후 이를 공소외 12로부터 피고인이 관리하는 공소외 12 명의의 ★★은행계좌(계좌번호 6 생략)로 송금받는 방법으로 합계 101,936,839원을 피고인이 임의로 사용함으로써 피해자 공소외 20 회사의 법인자금 101,936,839원을 횡령하였다.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

Since around 1995, the defendant worked as the representative director of the victim company 5 (the company other than the defendant 1) in Ansan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si.

Around January 23, 1999, the Defendant purchased and owned approximately KRW 1.2 billion in total (hereinafter “instant five lots”) of approximately 1.2 billion forest land in Ansan-si ( Address 1 omitted) and KRW 1,699 square meters in Ansan-si ( Address 17 omitted), approximately 2,229 square meters in Ansan-si ( Address 18 omitted), and KRW 539 square meters in Ansan-si ( Address 19 omitted); and KRW 3,919 square meters in Ansan-si ( Address 19 omitted); and around December 27, 2005, the Defendant purchased and owned the instant five lots of land in KRW 2,125,908,000 in the market price at that time without a resolution of the board of directors. Around December 27, 2005, the Defendant purchased the instant five lots of land that was merely a mere address of KRW 2,125,908,000 in the market price at that time without a resolution of the board of directors.

As a result, the Defendant acquired property benefits of KRW 2,674,00, equivalent to the difference between the reasonable market price and the purchase price, in violation of his duties, and caused damages equivalent to the same amount to the victim Defendant 5 company (Nonindicted Company 1).

3. Violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name;

No one shall register any real right to real estate under the name of the title trustee according to the title trust agreement.

A. The Defendant purchased shares of 194/3,302 from Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 46 (371/3,302 shares), Nonindicted 47 (70/3,302 shares), Nonindicted 48 (701/3,302 shares + 225/3,302 shares + 192/3,302 shares + 64/302 shares + 64/302 shares), Nonindicted 49 (324/3,302 shares), Nonindicted 50 (159/3,302 shares), and Nonindicted 23/30 of shares on the land of 19 and 254/30 of shares on the ground of each of the following reasons: (a) the Defendant concluded a title trust agreement with Nonindicted 19 and 304/302 shares; (b) but he purchased shares from Nonindicted 324/302 shares on the land of 250/194,219-30 shares on the land of 19.

B. The Defendant newly constructed the Dombudio in Ansan-si ( Address 21 omitted) at the Defendant’s expense. As such, even though the above room was owned by the Defendant, concluded a title trust agreement with Nonindicted Party 19 to make a registration of ownership preservation in the name of Nonindicted Party 19, and made a registration of ownership preservation in the name of Nonindicted Party 19 on November 25, 2010 at the Daegu District Court within the Dong-dong Branch of the Daegu District Court located in Ansan-dong 235-1, Ansan-dong, Ansan-dong, Seoul District Court.

C. The Defendant newly constructed the Dompum in Ansan-si ( Address 22 omitted) at the Defendant’s expense. As such, even though the above room was owned by the Defendant, entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant 2 to register the preservation of ownership in Defendant 2, and around November 25, 2010, registered the preservation of ownership in the name of Defendant 2 in the Daegu District Court in the name of the said room at the Daegu District Court, Ansan-dong Branch of the Daegu District Court located in 235-1, Ansan-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Seoul District Court.

D. The Defendant purchased the land of 3,170 square meters and 106 square meters ( Address 23 omitted) from each non-indicted 68 on the land located in Ansan-si ( Address 23 omitted) (hereinafter “instant two lots”). However, even if the Defendant purchased the land, the Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant 2 to make a registration of ownership transfer under Defendant 2. Around May 26, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under each of the above lands under Defendant 2’s name on the grounds of sale on April 19, 2010.

4. Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry;

No constructor shall subcontract all of his contracted construction works to another constructor.

Nevertheless, on September 1, 2008, the defendant ordered the "Project to Improve Water Wetland Water Wetland and Sea Wetland improvement project" that the defendant, the representative director of which is the defendant, subcontract the above project to the non-indicted corporation 35 by being awarded a contract from the salary-gun and subcontracting it to the non-indicted corporation. Thus, the defendant corporation 5 (the non-indicted corporation 1) subcontracted all of the construction work for which the defendant corporation was awarded a contract to another constructor.

IV. Defendant 2

No one shall register any real right to real estate under the name of the title trustee according to the title trust agreement.

A. The Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with Defendant 1, even though the above studio was owned by Defendant 1, and registered the preservation of ownership in the name of Defendant, as described in Section 3.3.c., the Defendant, as indicated in Section 3.3.c., within the Dong-dong ( Address 22 omitted).

B. The Defendant entered into a title trust agreement between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant, even though Defendant 1 purchased the instant two parcels from Nonindicted 68, as indicated in Section 3.3. D.

Ⅴ Defendant 5 Company (Counter-board: Company No. 1)

Defendant 5 Co., Ltd. (Nonindicted Co., Ltd. 1), as indicated in Section 3. 4., Defendant 1, the representative director of Defendant 5, has subcontracted all of the construction works contracted to Defendant 5 (Large Co., Ltd. 1) to another constructor by Defendant 5, with respect to the business of Defendant 5 (Large Co., Ltd. 1).

" 2012 Gohap76 - Defendant 1

No one shall contribute any support fund in excess of five million won per year to any supporters' association of a National Assembly member.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2008. 5. 23.경 안동시 옥동에 있는 ★★은행 ◀◀지점에서, 국회의원 공소외 51의 후원회 명의의 ◐◐계좌(계좌번호 7 생략)에 후원금 명목으로 피고인 명의로 400만 원, 피고인이 운영하는 회사의 직원인 피고인 2와 공소외 40 명의로 각 300만 원을 송금함으로써 합계 1,000만 원의 후원금을 기부하였다.

" 2012, 201, 35"

1. Each legal statement of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Nonparty 3);

1. Defendant 4's each legal statement;

1. The witness, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 53, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 16, and Nonindicted 13’s partial statement in court.

1. Each of the statements made by the prosecutor concerning Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Cross-party 3) in each protocol of suspect examination of the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 54, Nonindicted 55, Nonindicted 56, Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 58, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 53, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 62, Nonindicted 63, Nonindicted 64, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 60, Nonindicted 61, and Nonindicted 16

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 36, Defendant 3 (Nonindicted 3) and Nonindicted 30

1. Each investigation report (Investigation records 19-29, 47-83, 84-140, 471-5, 677, 636, 375, 275, 363-1, 675, 67-2, 3638-1, 67, 375, 67-2, 97, 6363-2, 97, 47, 97, 6363-2, 97, 97, 963-1, 97, 97, 1963-2, 97, 97, 97, 1636, 193-1, 67, 275, 278-2, 278-38, 2838-1, 388-2, 378-2, 286-38-1, 378-2;

1. Each investigation report (4,324-4, 656 pages, 4,657-4, 735 pages, 4,805-4, 812 pages, 5,293 pages, 5,294-5, 299 pages, 5,331-5, 332 pages, 6, 171-6, 184 pages);

1. Copy of the register of Nonindicted Company 2

1. A copy of an appraisal report;

1. (Land Appraisal List);

" 2012, 201, 76"

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. A copy of the disbursement resolution of Defendant 5 Company (Nonindicted 1 Company)

1. Copy of remittance receipt, including Defendant 1;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Nonparty 3)

○ Each private document assistance: Article 231 of the Criminal Code and Article 30 of the Criminal Code

○ The exercise of each falsified document: Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Code

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act,

B. Defendants 1 and 4

○ 피해◐◐ ▒▒▒▒▒지점에 대한 사기의 점(포괄하여) : 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제1호 , 형법 제347조 제1항 , 형법 제30조 {다만 형의 상한은 구 형법(2010. 4. 15. 법률 제10259호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제42조 본문에 따른다}

○ 피해은행 ▲▲지점에 대한 사기의 점(포괄하여) : 형법 제347조 제1항 , 형법 제30조

C. Defendant 1

○ The fact that each business embezzlement is made with respect to external construction cost related to Defendant 5 Company (Nonindicted Co., Ltd. 1) (Article 3.1. A.), promissory note related to the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 (Article 3.1.2) (Article 3.2), credit purchase related to the credit purchase amount (Article 3.1. G.), Article 356 and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 42 of the former Criminal Act, however, the upper limit of the punishment is governed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act).

○○ Victims related to Nonindicted 16’s Benefits (Generally: 1.2.1); Nonindicted 16’s Benefits related to Nonindicted 5 Company (Generally: 3; 1.2.1); Nonindicted 16’s Benefits related to the fourth progress payment (Ⅲ; 1.3); Nonindicted 16’s First progress payment related to the payment of staff of the Cultural Heritage Team (generally: 31.5; 31.6); Nonindicted 18’s high steel and construction materials related to the payment of staff of Nonindicted 17 Company (generally: 3; 31.6); 5’s Duties related to each art food related to Nonindicted 6 Company (generally; 31.1.1.6; 1.1.1.6); 19’s Benefits related to Nonindicted 16 Company; 3.1.6.1.25 of the Criminal Act (generally; 3.6.1.6.1.3); and 15.1.61 of the Criminal Act related to each of the victims’ respective art-related benefits related to each of Nonindicted 6 Company).

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356 and Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Act (However, the upper limit of the punishment shall be governed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act)

○ The point of each title trust: Articles 7(1)1 and 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name

Article 96 Subparag. 5 and Article 29(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply)

D. Defendant 2

○ Entrustment of each name: Articles 7(2) and 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name

(e) Defendant 5 company (large-board company: Nonparty 1);

Article 98(2) main sentence of Article 98(2), Article 96 subparag. 5, and Article 29(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Outline 3): Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (overline 1. b. 1 b. b. 1 b. b. b. 2 b. b. b. 1 b. b. b. b. 2) are between the crimes of uttering of each of the above investigation documents described in Decision 1, Article 40, Article 50 of the Criminal Act (overline 1 b. b. 2).

1. Selection of punishment;

Each of the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) shall be punished by imprisonment, each of the crimes of forging private documents, each of the crimes of uttering of each falsified Document, fraud, occupational embezzlement, each of the crimes of violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, and each

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Nonparty 3)

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Code [each punishment and penalty shall be imposed on the concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article]

B. Defendant 4

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with heavier punishment]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3 (Counter-board 3), and Defendant 4: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (each of the following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2, Defendant 3 (Counter-board: 3), and Defendant 4: each of the provisions of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration has been made for more favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 5 Company (Ordered Company: Company 1): Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) regarding each National Housing Fund loan

A. Summary of the arguments by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3 (Counter-board 3) and defense counsel

1) The amount of the purchase price of the apartment project site does not affect the appraisal of the apartment project site, the credit guarantee of the Korea Housing Finance Corporation, or the National Housing Fund loan. Therefore, the submission by the Defendants of a false or forged real estate sales contract or a forged remittance receipt at the same same location of the injured bank does not constitute deception, and it does not constitute fraud because there is no causal link between such act and the act of disposal based on the mistake and mistake of the points similar to that of the injured bank

2) Even if a crime of fraud is committed, the defrauded amount is limited to the amount corresponding to the amount which the purchase price was unfased out out, out of the amounts loaned by the same affiliated branch of the victimized bank.

B. Determination

1) Ultimately, whether the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is established depends on whether the Defendants’ submission of a sales contract and a remittance receipt, etc. with which the purchase price is unrefilled, in applying for a loan from the National Housing Fund to the same same place of the injured bank, can be deemed as affecting the execution of a loan from the National Housing Fund and determining the amount of the loan.

2) Fraud is established by deceiving another person, leaving him/her in mistake, causing his/her dispositive act, thereby obtaining property or pecuniary advantage. Such deception, mistake, and act of property disposal requires causation between deception, and act of property disposal. As a requirement for fraud, deception refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in widely property transactional relationship, and it does not necessarily require false indication on the essential part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient to establish facts that form the basis of judgment for making an actor take property disposal disposition that he/she wishes to take by mistake.

3) Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendants’ submission of a sales contract or remittance receipt in which the purchase price of the apartment site was influored or forged, affected credit assessment, such as the appraised value of the collateral value or the financial capacity of Nonindicted Company 2. If the damaged bank’s affiliated branch became aware of the fact that the false and forged documents were submitted, each of the National Housing Fund loans was not executed as it was. Therefore, it can be acknowledged that the risk of damage equivalent to the amount of the National Housing Fund loans was caused to the affiliated branch of the victimized bank’s affiliated branch due to the Defendants’ fraudulent act of lending based on the security value or the mistake in credit assessment.

① The Defendants, in order for Nonindicted Co. 2, the executor company of the ○○ area executed by Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Co. 1) and each △△△△ apartment construction project in △△△△ District, to obtain more loans with the National Housing Fund as resources from the same branch of the victimized bank, are recognized as having filed an application for loans by withdrawing the purchase price of each apartment project site in order to make it possible for the victimized bank to obtain more loans with the National Housing Fund as resources.

② A similar branch of the injured bank is an appraisal request to assess the security value of the apartment project site prior to each loan from the National Housing Fund. If the appraisal value is determined excessively as the purchase price of the apartment project site is delayed, the amount of loans that can be implemented as security would be increased. Since the Korea Housing Finance Corporation grants a guarantee approval for a certain portion of the loans that the same branch of the victimized bank, which requested a credit guarantee, is ultimately to increase the amount of credit guarantee and the final loan determination amount.

③ The Defendants and defense counsel asserted that the amount of a loan for construction fund of rental housing is limited to 70% of the construction cost calculated on the basis of the standard construction cost of apartment house, and that the purchase price of apartment project site itself does not affect the determination of the loan amount. However, according to the “the basis for calculation of loan amount (security evaluation method)” prepared in the process of the implementation of each loan from the National Housing Fund, the affiliated branch of the injured bank can be recognized as having determined the loan amount within the limit of 70% of the net security price less the minimum rental deposit, which is repaid as priority from the secured price of the leased apartment site and building. In this case, the secured price of the site is calculated on the basis of the purchase price of apartment site and the appraised price of the apartment site, so the purchase price of apartment project site is calculated within the scope

(4) In appraising for the purpose of security, the appraised amount shall be calculated by comprehensively analyzing the trends of land price changes from the basic date to the price based on the officially announced value of the reference land in the neighboring area having similar usefulness to the relevant land, individual factors such as the location, shape, environment, etc. of the relevant land, and the appraisal precedents in neighboring areas, land price level, etc. In such cases, it is general to request a certified public appraiser to submit a sales contract in order to utilize the relevant sales contract as reference material, and the purchase price may affect the appraised amount by reflecting it as “other factors”

⑤ 실제로 피해은행 ◈◈지점의 의뢰를 받은 한국감정원 소속 감정평가사 공소외 5가 ○○지구 토지의 담보가치에 관하여 평가한 감정평가서에는 감정가 산정에 반영된 ‘기타 요인’ 항목에 ‘본건 매매사례’가 포함되어 있고, “매매사례의 본 건은 2008. 3. 28. 매매계약을 체결하여 35,514.8㎡를 170억 원(476,673원/㎡)에 샀으며 구매가격은 정상적인 가격수준인 것으로 판단됨”이라고 기재되어 있다.

④ The appraisal price assessed by Non-Indicted 5 at the time of the price on August 20, 208 at the price is KRW 16,039,643,400 (460,000/m2). This is the same as the appraisal price assessed by Non-Indicted 5 on August 20, 2008 at the time of the price, which is the amount appraised by Non-Indicted 65 at the time of the price of November 21, 2007 at the time of the appraisal by Non-Indicted 65 at the price of Non-Indicted 65 on November 21, 2007 (260,000/m2). The appraisal price increased by approximately 76% compared to the appraisal price of Non-Indicted 5 on the premise that all of the above two appraisal were to be used as the apartment business site. Despite the absence of any particular change in circumstances, the reason why the appraisal price increased by about nine months was reflected as the "non-Indicted 5's other factors."

7) Meanwhile, Nonindicted 5 stated in this court that the appraisal result was justifiable and that the amount of the purchase price did not affect the amount of the appraisal. However, it is inconsistent with Nonindicted 5’s prosecutor’s statement that “the person who conducted an appraisal may not ignore the sales contract from the standpoint of the person who made an appraisal,” or that “the person who made the purchase was appraised at a size of 460,000/m2 as it is impossible to disregard the amount claimed by the person who made the purchase,” and if Nonindicted 5 knew that the actual purchase price of the entertainment site is 10 billion won, it is difficult to calculate the appraisal amount as KRW 16,039,643,40, much more than the actual purchase price.

④ In the case of the △△ District land, Nonindicted 5’s certified public appraiser belonging to the Korea Appraisal Board who conducted an appraisal on the same issue at the request of the similar branches of the victimized Bank, and Nonindicted 53’s certified public appraiser belonging to the Korea Appraisal Board and the future certified public appraiser of the Korea Appraisal Board, appears to have used the sales price so

(9) The amount of the purchase price of a business site or remittance data that has paid the purchase price is directly related to a business operator’s financial ability, and thus, the actual transaction price of a collateral is a major material to assess the successful bid price at the time of exercising a security right, and thus, it cannot be considered in determining whether to execute a secured loan or in calculating the loan amount. In addition, where the fact that an applicant for a loan submitted false or counterfeited documents is revealed, the determination on the credibility of the applicant for a loan is no longer different, and if it is deemed that the credit guarantee of the National Loan Fund is limited, the loan

Therefore, even if the amount of the purchase price of the apartment project site was not affected by appraisal, and the appraised value is within the reasonable scope, the Defendants’ act of withdrawing the purchase price of the apartment project site or submitting a forged remittance receipt seems to have affected the security value of the project site or the credit assessment of Nonindicted Company 2.

(10) In light of the “security assessment report” attached to the “written examination of new technology” prepared by the similar branches of the damage bank in the course of the execution of each loan from the National Housing Fund, the injured bank’s similar branches refer to the amount of each appraisal on the land of the ○○ District and the land of the △ District, which is a collateral, and the amount of each appraisal on the land of the ○○ District and the land of the △ District, which is confirmed based on a sales contract and a remittance receipt, etc. submitted by the Defendants, and calculated the amount of each purchase price and each purchase price

4) Furthermore, as long as each loan from the National Housing Fund was made by the Defendants’ deception, the total amount of the loan, which is likely to cause damages, shall be considered as the “amount of profit” as prescribed in Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and this part of the

2. As to the crime of occupational embezzlement listed in Section 3.1.b.1 of the holding

A. Summary of the defendant 1 and his defense counsel

Defendant 5 Co. 1 (the representative director: Nonindicted Co. 66), who was an engineer, was employed by Nonindicted 16 to receive a contract for construction work, and was paid wages to Defendant 1. Nonindicted Co. 35 (the representative director, Nonindicted Co. 16) operated by Defendant 1, who subcontracted the construction work to Nonindicted Co. 35 (the Defendant’s wife Nonindicted Co. 16) and used his own wages. However, the Defendant did not embezzled this.

B. Determination

However, from the investigative agency to this court, Nonindicted 16 consistently stated that “it is only an employee of Defendant 5 company (the company other than the public prosecution: the company other than the public prosecution) and did not agree to receive the payment, since it is not regularly employed, it is difficult to make cash loans due to the lack of time to receive the subcontract payment.” In the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, Nonindicted 16 did not have worked for Defendant 5 company (the company other than the public prosecution: the company other than the public prosecution). In other words, Nonindicted 35 company operated by Nonindicted 16 appears to remain in the subcontract payment amount not received from Defendant 5 company (the company other than the public prosecution) until now, taking into account the following facts, the credibility of Nonindicted 16’s statement is recognized, and this part of the facts charged is also found guilty.

3. As to the embezzlement of KRW 1,315,513,927 among the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in the judgment No. 3. 1.g.

A. Summary of the defendant 1 and his defense counsel

On December 28, 2005, the Defendant issued 20 copies of a promissory note with a total face value of KRW 1,315,513,927 for the repayment of the obligation to pay the construction price of KRW 1,315,513,927 against the subcontractor of the Chungcheong apartment company by Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Company 1) and released the amount equivalent to the promissory note, and then, during the period from January 26, 2006 to May 25, 2006, the Defendant embezzled the sum of KRW 1,315,513,927, which is equivalent to the amount of the promissory note, from the victim’s five companies (Nonindicted Company 1) during the period from January 26, 2006 to May 26, 2006.

B. Determination

According to the above evidence, although the victim defendant 5 company (the non-indicted 1 company) did not pay the credit purchase amount of KRW 1,315,513,927 on December 28, 2005, it is recognized that KRW 1,315,513,927 was withdrawn from the corporate account of the victim defendant 5 company (the non-indicted 1 company) under the name of the "foreign purchase amount" and that the above amount was deposited into the corporate account of the non-indicted 6 company managed by the defendant and was treated as "the number of representative director".

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had an intent to withdraw and use the amount equivalent to the promissory note in the victim company 5 (Nonindicted Company 1) by issuing promissory notes from the subcontractor company, and as alleged by the Defendant, even if the Defendant subsequently paid the amount of the promissory note in the form of a virtual half of the amount from the victim company 5 (Nonindicted Company 1) in the form of a virtual half of the amount, it is nothing more than the compensation for the amount of embezzlement, and therefore, this part of the facts charged is sufficiently guilty.

4. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

A. Summary of the defendant 1 and his defense counsel

In light of the case where Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Company 1) purchased on December 27, 2005 the land (hereinafter “instant five parcel”) with a total of 13,767 square meters of five parcels, such as Ansan-si ( Address 1 omitted), from the Defendant on December 27, 2005, 4.8 billion won (hereinafter “instant five parcel”), although it did not undergo an appraisal, it was traded with a total of 1,026 square meters of land ( Address 2 omitted), total ( Address 2 omitted), 1,026 square meters in the vicinity of the instant five parcel ( Address 3 omitted) on February 25, 2005, since the five parcel of this case was purchased at a price higher than the appropriate market price or market price, it did not cause any damage to the victim Nonindicted Company 6.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, 4.8 billion won in the purchase price of five parcels of this case is to be deemed to have been unfairly excessive in light of the market price at the time of the sale on December 27, 2005. Accordingly, the amount of damages suffered by the Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Company 1) who is the purchaser and the amount of profit acquired by the Defendant who is the seller, shall be deemed to have a balance of at least 4.8 billion won and the amount of profit acquired by the Defendant who is the seller, at least 2,125,908,000 won. Accordingly, this part of the facts charged

① 피고인이 사례로 든 안동시 (주소 2 생략), (주소 3 생략) 토지는 왕복 6차선의 대로변에 위치해 있고, ☆☆◐◐협동조합이 이를 매수한 뒤 주유소를 설치하여 운영하고 있는 반면, 이 사건 5필지 중 상당 부분은 접근성이 떨어지는 임야인데다 피해자 피고인 5 회사(대판:공소외 1 회사)가 이를 매수한 이래 7년이 더 지난 지금까지도 별다른 활용 없이 방치하고 있는 점에 비추어 가격에 차이가 있을 수밖에 없으므로, 인접한 토지라는 사정만으로 그 시세를 평면 비교할 수는 없다.

② On January 23, 1999, the Defendant purchased five parcels of this case at KRW 1.2 billion, the officially announced price of the five parcels of this case at the time of 1999, is KRW 360,297,130, and on December 27, 2005, the officially announced price of the five parcels of this case was KRW 660,921,000, KRW 827,963,500, and KRW 827,963,500, the officially announced price of the five parcels of this case at the time of selling the five parcels of this case to Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Company 1: the officially announced price of the five parcels of this case) and the officially announced price of the five parcels of this case at a large rate of KRW 7,00,00,000. This suggests that Defendant 1 sold the five parcels of this case to Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Company 1: Nonparty 1).

③ As of March 6, 2008, the Korea Appraisal Board assessed the five parcels of this case as of March 6, 2008, KRW 2,125,908,00. As seen earlier, the officially announced value of the five parcels of this case has been continuously increased. As such, the appraisal of the land is basically based on the officially announced value. As such, the appraisal of the five parcels of this case was determined based on the officially announced value. As of December 27, 2005, when the appraisal conducted an appraisal of the five parcels of this case as of December 27, 2005, which was lower than the officially announced value at the time of the said appraisal, it would have been deemed that the appraisal would have been conducted rather than KRW 2,125,908,00 if it had been conducted an appraisal of the five parcels of this case as of December 27, 2005 (i) even if the said appraisal was assessed compared to the actual market value according to the purpose of the appraisal of collateral value, such a difference would be

5. As to the violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name in Articles 3.3.4 (d) and 4.2 (b)

A. Summary of the assertion by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and defense counsel

Defendant 2 borrowed the land purchase price from Defendant 1 and actually purchased the instant two parcels from Nonindicted 68, not title trust.

B. Determination

However, Defendant 1, at the prosecution, stated that the actual owner of the two parcels of this case is himself, and he purchased them from Defendant 5 company (Nonindicted Company 1) to use them as an apartment site, and attempted not to sell them with the knowledge that the seller would use them as an apartment site. Even if the sale was made, he would demand more than two to three times the purchase under Defendant 2's name, so that he would have purchased them in the name of Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 also stated that the two parcels of this case was the ownership of Defendant 1 in the prosecutor's office. While denying the fact of title trust in this court, Defendant 1 stated that the two parcels of this case was the ownership of Defendant 1, it was not the purchase, but it was again made a statement to Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Company 1) in accordance with Defendant 1's order, and therefore, this part of the facts charged is also guilty.

1. Defendant 1

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not less than two years and six months but not more than twenty-two years and six months;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic crime: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

[Criminal Type] Fraudulent Crime, General Fraud, Type 4 (not less than five billion won but less than 30 billion won)

[Special Mitigation] If the risk of the occurrence of damages is not substantially realized, the penalty surcharge shall not be imposed.

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is very poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, Imprisonment with labor for not less than three years, but not more than six years

2) Handling of multiple crimes

Since there are three or more multiple crimes and three basic crimes, if the term of imprisonment with prison labor for six years, which is the upper limit of the scope of punishment for the basic crime, is added to three years, 1/2, and 1/3, the term of imprisonment for not less than three years, but not more than 11 years.

3) Since the sentencing guidelines have not been set among the concurrent crimes, only three years of imprisonment, which is the lowest limit of the sentencing range under the sentencing guidelines, shall apply.

(c) Determination of sentence: Four years of imprisonment; and

2. Defendant 2

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not less than two years and six months but not more than twenty-two years and six months;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic crime: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

[Criminal Type] Fraudulent Crime, General Fraud, Type 4 (not less than five billion won but less than 30 billion won)

[Special Mitigation] If the risk of the occurrence of damages is not substantially realized, the penalty surcharge shall not be imposed.

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is very poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, Imprisonment with labor for not less than three years, but not more than six years

2) Handling of multiple crimes

In the event a document forgery crime is accompanied by a document forgery crime committed while committing a fraud, it shall not be treated as a majority crime, and only be treated as a sentencing factor for "where the method of criminal administration is extremely poor". As such, two major crimes are deemed to be two major crimes, and the imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years and not more than nine years should be added to six years, which is the upper limit of the scope of punishment for the basic crime.

3) Since the sentencing guidelines have not been set among the concurrent crimes, only three years of imprisonment, which is the lowest limit of the sentencing range under the sentencing guidelines, shall apply.

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months and three years of suspended execution, which exceeds the lowest limit of the sentencing criteria, in light of the following specific reasons for sentencing:

3. Defendant 3 (Counter-board: 3)

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not less than two years and six months but not more than twenty-two years and six months;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic crime: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

[Criminal Type] Fraudulent Crime, General Fraud, Type 4 (not less than five billion won but less than 30 billion won)

[Special Mitigation] If the risk of the occurrence of damages is not substantially realized, the penalty surcharge shall not be imposed.

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is very poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, Imprisonment with labor for not less than three years, but not more than six years

2) Handling of multiple crimes

In the event a document forgery crime is accompanied by a document forgery crime committed while committing a fraud, it shall not be treated as a majority crime, and only be treated as a sentencing factor for "where the method of criminal administration is extremely poor". As such, two major crimes are deemed to be two major crimes, and the imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years and not more than nine years should be added to six years, which is the upper limit of the scope of punishment for the basic crime.

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months and three years of suspended execution, which exceeds the lowest limit of the sentencing criteria, in light of the following specific reasons for sentencing:

4. Defendant 4

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not less than two years and not more than six months but not more than 11 years and not more than three months;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic crime: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

[Criminal Type] Fraudulent Crime, General Fraud, Type 4 (not less than five billion won but less than 30 billion won)

[Special Mitigation] If the risk of the occurrence of damages is not substantially realized, the penalty surcharge shall not be imposed.

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is very poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, Imprisonment with labor for not less than three years, but not more than six years

(ii) Concurrent offences: Fraud;

[Criminal Type] Fraudulent Crime, General Fraud, Type 2 (not less than KRW 100 million but less than KRW 5 billion)

[Special Mitigation] If the risk of the occurrence of damages is not substantially realized, the penalty surcharge shall not be imposed.

[Special Person] Where the Criminal Code is very poor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, Imprisonment for not less than 10 months, but not more than 2 years and not more than 6 months;

3) Handling of multiple crimes

Since two crimes are two, one year and three months shall be aggregated with imprisonment of 1/2 of the upper limit of the scope of punishment for crimes concurrent with six years of imprisonment, which is the upper limit of the scope of punishment for basic crimes, and three to seven years shall be aggregated with imprisonment.

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months and three years of suspended execution, which exceeds the lowest limit of the sentencing criteria, in light of the following specific reasons for sentencing:

5. Specific grounds for sentencing

A. Defendant 1

The Defendant, by forging a sales contract and a remittance receipt on the site of apartment business to be offered as security, neglected the security value and credit rating, obtained a loan from the National Housing Fund amounting to approximately KRW 54 billion, prepared a false sales contract and acquired a loan of KRW 64 billion in total by obtaining an intermediate payment loan of KRW 10 billion, and acquired a loan of KRW 64 billion in total by taking over a loan of KRW 10 billion in an unsold apartment. The Defendant, whose representative director is the Defendant, and Nonindicted Company 2, Nonindicted Company 6, and Nonindicted Company 2, which the Defendant actually manages, and acquired KRW 8.6 billion in total by taking care of the respective corporate accounts of Nonindicted Company 2, Nonindicted Company 2, and Nonindicted Company 20, and 20, respectively, as a breach of trust.

As such, in light of the fact that the Defendant, while conducting an apartment project, manipulates documents, deceives banks by false facts, steals a large amount of loans, and privateizing a large number of companies that he operates, and uses large amount of funds of the Defendant as a means of embezzlement by taking advantage of his superior position in light of the method of crime and the scale of damage, etc., the Defendant is deemed to have used the subcontractor or the subcontractor as a means of embezzlement, and during that process, it seems that there was considerable sense of self-gradation or mental suffering, and the Defendant was working only on his own name by making efforts to have been committed, and does not seem to have a strong attitude against it. Therefore, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant with strict liability.

However, in determining the punishment, the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant, approximately KRW 5.9 billion in the amount of embezzlement, the National Housing Fund loans are being repaid without any delay, and the intermediate payment loans are being repaid or repaid to the true buyer, and the actual amount of damages to be determined in the future seems to fall far short of the loans, the actual amount of damages to be determined in the future is deemed to fall short of the loans, Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Company 1), Nonindicted Company 2, Nonindicted Company 6, and Nonindicted Company 20 are in fact controlled by Defendant 1, and the facts that there are no criminal records of fines, shall be considered as the factors favorable to the defendant's punishment, taking into account all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, circumstances after the crime, etc.

B. Defendant 2, Defendant 3 (Nonindicted 3) and Defendant 4

The Defendants do not seem to have taken part in the crime of defraudation of a large amount of loans, but the Defendants appears to have never obtained personal benefits, appears to have practically been in charge of duties according to the orders of Defendant 1, victims do not want the punishment of the Defendants, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 (Nonindicted 3) are paying off the National Housing Fund loans which Defendant 4 participated in defraudation without delay. The intermediate payment loans, which Defendant 4 participated in the crime of defraudation, are in excess of the repayment or settlement by the genuine buyer, and the actual amount of damages to be determined in the future are likely to considerably fall short of the loans. Defendant 3 (Large 3) did not have any previous criminal record, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 did not have any prior criminal record of each fine, taking into account all the circumstances in the arguments of this case, including the age, character and conduct of the Defendants, and circumstances after the crime of this case, and comprehensively consider all the sentencing conditions in the sentencing of this case, the sentencing guidelines for each of the above Defendants is sentenced to the minimum period of two years and six years.

1. Summary of the facts charged regarding the crime of interference with business against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Nonparty 3)

A. On April 13, 2009, the Defendants conspired to sell the apartment of “△△△△△△” in the second room of the Permanent Viewing 470 Dong 470, a permanent resident, to submit a false sales contract to Nonindicted 5 as if he purchased the ○○ area’s land at KRW 17 billion, and had Nonindicted 5 attend Nonindicted 8, an employee of Defendant 5 Company (Nonindicted 1 Company) at Nonindicted 8, a false appraisal report at a higher price than the actual one, and had Nonindicted 8 respond to the questions of the members, as if he purchased the ○○ area’s land at KRW 17 billion, thereby having the members of the review committee determine the amount of apartment of “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△” in the ○ area, which was held in the second room of the permanent resident viewing.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the decision of the sale price by fraudulent means.

B. On May 25, 2009, the Defendants conspired to sell the apartment of the “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△” located in the second room of the Dong-dong 344, Ansan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, and had Nonindicted 5 submit a false sales contract to Nonindicted 5, as if he purchased the land in the △△△△△△△△△ KRW 15,424,662,00 in total, and submit an appraisal report at a higher level than the actual amount of appraisal by Nonindicted 5, and had Nonindicted 8 attend Nonindicted 8 of the △△△△△△△△ (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted 1”) by having Nonindicted 8 purchase the land in the △△△△△△△△△△△△△, as he purchased KRW 15,424,62,00 in total of the land in the △△△△△△△, a false sale price was determined in a way to answer questions of the examiners.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the decision of the sale price by fraudulent means.

2. Summary of the arguments by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3 (Counter-board 3) and defense counsel

Since the amount of the purchase price of apartment project site does not affect the appraisal and assessment of housing site costs or the determination of the upper limit of the sale price, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have interfered with the affairs of the sales price determination of the upper limit of the sale price of apartment project site.

3. Determination

A. The key issue of this part is whether the Defendants, by submitting a false sales contract to Nonindicted 5, calculated excessively the appraised value of each housing site cost in the ○○ District and △△ District; further, whether the Defendants, at the time of permanent residence of Defendant 5 (Nonindicted Company 1) employees of Nonindicted Company 8 (Nonindicted Company 1), participated in each of the sale price examination committees at the time of permanent residence with the sales price examination committee, and made the Defendants make a false statement of each of the purchase price of the land in the ○ District and the △ District in a false manner, affected each of the sales price determination affairs by the sales price examination committee.

B. The establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, but there is sufficient risk of causing interference with business. However, if there is no risk of occurrence of the result, this crime is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9028, Apr. 27, 2007, etc.).

C. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the act described in this part of the facts charged alone was an excessive assessment of the appraised value of each housing site cost in the ○○ District and △△ District, or that each sales price examination committee at the time of permanent residence and Ansan-dong was likely to mislead the relevant sales price assessment, and there is no other evidence to

(1) In the case of a house subject to the upper price ceiling system under the Housing Act, the sale price shall be determined within the scope of the upper limit of the sale price determined by aggregating the housing site cost and the construction cost. In the case of supplying a house in a housing site other than a public housing site, the price of the housing site shall be determined according to the appraised value regardless of the actual sale price, except in exceptional cases where the purchase price concerned can be verified, such as light or public auction price, the price purchased from a public institution, such as the State or a local government, and other cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such price shall be determined by adding a certain amount to the price appraised by an appraisal institution pursuant to the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act.

(2) The Parcelling-Out Price Examination Committee shall determine the upper price of the housing site cost and construction cost requested by the project undertaker after examining the housing site cost and construction cost, and determine the upper price of the housing site subject to resolution. That is, the reason for revaluation prescribed in Article 12(1) of the Regulations on the Calculation, etc. of Sale Price of Multi-Family Housing, i.e., the appraised by an appraisal institution, unless the highest price exceeds 110/100 of the lowest appraised value or the project undertaker raises an objection against the appraisal result, the appraised value of the housing site cost is bound to be accepted

③ Among the instant ○○ District and △△△ apartment located in △△△△△△ District, a household that is sold to the general public is subject to the sales price ceiling, and the supply of a house in a housing site other than the public housing site does not constitute exceptional grounds that regard the purchase price as the cost of the relevant housing site. As such, the relevant housing site cost is determined based on

④ In fact, at the time of permanent residence held on April 13, 2009, the Sales Price Examination Committee accepted KRW 16,213,986,885, which is the average value of the appraisal value of the two areas of the non-indicted 2 company (the value of Non-indicted 10, Non-indicted 516,283,724,930, Non-indicted 116,14,249,770, which is the certified public appraiser belonging to the Korea Appraisal Board), and applied for an appraisal fee of KRW 16,239,569,585, which is the total of KRW 25,582,70, and decided as the cost of the housing site. On the basis of the appraisal cost of Non-indicted 137,49,209,009, 200,000, the appraisal corporation of the housing site applied for the appraisal cost of the non-indicted 2 company among the newly established appraisal cost of the housing site.

⑤ The prosecutor indicted Nonindicted 5’s act of having Nonindicted 5 submit a false sales contract to Nonindicted 5 to the Korea Appraisal Board for appraisal at a higher price than the actual sales price. However, Nonindicted 5 assessed only the housing site cost in the ○○ area as set forth in Paragraph 4, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants participated in the calculation of the housing site cost in the ○○ area, even if the false sales contract was submitted to Nonindicted 5, it is difficult to view that the appraisal of the housing site cost is excessive or that the determination of the upper price of the sales price was hindered.

④ Meanwhile, as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment, it is clear that Nonindicted 5 received a false sales contract from the Defendants while conducting an appraisal for the purpose of collateral on the ○○ area upon request of the branches similar to that of the victimized bank. As such, it is true that there is a doubt that the false sales contract would not affect the appraisal of the site in the ○ area.

However, the appraisal of the cost of a housing site does not evaluate the current value of the subject land, but rather evaluate the future value by presenting a case where an apartment building is constructed on that housing site, and thus evaluating the future value. Therefore, the contents and methods of the appraisal of the purpose of general security are different from those of the appraisal of the object of security. In fact, unlike the appraisal of the object of security for the ○○ District prepared by Nonindicted 5, the “the case of sale and purchase” is not reflected in the appraisal. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the false sales contract submitted to Nonindicted 5 was affected by the appraisal

7) Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 53, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 14, who was in charge of the appraisal of the housing site cost and each housing site cost in the ○○ District and △△ District, were present at this court and stated to the effect that the appraisal and assessment of the housing site cost does not affect the purchase price in a case of appraisal and assessment

D. Thus, since the obstruction of business among the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the judgment of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Man Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)

1) Although the bill of indictment purchased KRW 10,925,326,00 in total amount of KRW 15,424,662,00,00, the difference of KRW 4,49,336,00, which was stated that the purchase of KRW 15,424,662,00 in aggregate of the land in the △ District was made up of KRW 4,49,36,00, as stated in its reasoning, it is recognized that the difference in the land in the △ District was unrefilledd of KRW 3,91,49,36,000, and there is no evidence to prove that the difference in the land in the △ District was over KRW 4

2) The prosecutor appears to have charged two or more concurrent crimes with substantial concurrence. However, it is recognized as a single comprehensive crime in light of the subject, time, content, method, etc. of the crime, and thus correct it without modification of an indictment.

Note 3) In the indictment, “Nonindicted 38” appears to be erroneous.

Note 4) The phrase “72,765,200 won” stated in the written application for amendment of indictment appears to be erroneous.

Note 5) The phrase “72,765,200 won” stated in the written application for amendment of indictment appears to be erroneous.

Note 6) The purchase price calculated against the officially announced land price is approximately 3.3 times.

Note 7) The sale price for the officially announced land price is approximately KRW 7.2 times as of 2005, approximately 5.7 times as of 2006.