A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Fraud;

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

Inception (prosecution) and Kim Tae-tae (Trial)

Law Firm D (for Defendant A)

Attorney E

Law Firm F (Defendant A)

Attorney G, H

Law Firm I (Defendant B)

J, K, L

Law Firm M (for the defendant C)

Attorney N, N,O

January 24, 2018

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for two years, and imprisonment for one year and six months.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, four years for Defendant A, for Defendant B, for three years for Defendant C, and for two years for Defendant C, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended. Of the facts charged in this case, the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for Defendant A and C P is not guilty.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On January 4, 2008, Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) at the Seoul Central District Court, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of five years on January 15, 2009. On May 3, 2012, Seoul High Court sentenced a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) at the Seoul Central District Court, which became final and conclusive on November 29, 2012. Defendant C was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) at the Seoul Central District Court on September 9, 2016 and became final and conclusive on December 15, 2016.

[Specific Crime]

1. Facts of premise;

Q Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as " Q") was established around January 1995 and was de-listing around April 2010, 2010, and was located in Gangnam-gu R and 10 floors in Seoul and engaged in the manufacture and sales business of peripheral devices.

on December 14, 2007, Q entered into a joint agreement with SS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”) to participate in the casino business, which is being promoted, and paid to S in order to invest double KRW 1.8 billion in T (hereinafter “T”) by withdrawing KRW 28.1 billion as advance payment on January 2008. In addition, there was a fact that T was offered to U.S., which is a casino operating company owned by T, a blank bill, a blank check with KRW 3, a blank check with KRW 2.46 billion, a promissory note with KRW 1.32 billion, and a promissory note with KRW 1.32 billion, and a check with KRW 1.32 billion.2 million.

However, Q was at risk of delisting because of almost little business performance such as operating income -1,70,736,00 won for the first half of 208, short-term loans, 6,945,360,188 won for short-term loans, and 30.9 billion won for cash holding 30.0 billion won for short-term loans, - 2,144,390,000 won for short-term loans, 4,921,526,266 won for short-term loans, 32,79,000,000 won for business loss of the company due to continuous decline in sales, and 34,210,000,000 won for current net loss, and 4,50,000 won for short-term loans and 30.0 billion won for short-term loans for which the redemption period has expired, were issued in the name of a bill, and thus, it could not be paid.

2. The position and role of the Defendants

Defendant A and B acquired one listed company at the same time to raise funds necessary for casino business through the new listed company, entered into a contract for acquisition of management rights with Q's management right with the company, and acquired the shares of Q with payment of KRW 600 million to WW who had been a major shareholder as the down payment, and actually operated Q as the representative director of Q, while actually operating Q Q.

In this process, Defendant A, with U.S. shares in T Casino operating corporations, served as a part of Cambodia, and Defendant B, as the actual operator of S, to raise funds related to T casino operation in Korea, and Defendant C, while taking charge of the operation of Q Q, to prepare the method of issuing Q Q’s promissory notes and the check of the number of shares.

3. Criminal facts;

A. Fraud against Defendant B and C’s victim X

The Defendants conspired to:

1) On September 12, 2008, Defendant C issued a check number of KRW 600 million in Q’s name and delivered it to Defendant B. Defendant B was in the office of the victim X located near the Z basin located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and the fact was difficult at the time to prepare for the costs of the casino business, and Q offered as security and discounted the number of shares from the victim because the financial situation of Q is not good, there is no problem that Q would have an intention or ability to pay a check on the date of payment. As Q made investments in the hotel of Cambodia, there is no problem that Q’s net income equivalent to KRW 1.5 billion each month from its investment in the casino of Cambodia, and there is no problem in paying the amount on the date of payment of the check. On the discount of KRW 600 million in the number of shares issued by Q, Defendant B obtained a discount of KRW 600,000,000 from the victim’s name and provided it to the victim with Q’s right of KRW 400,500,00.

2) On September 13, 2008, Defendant C issued a check of KRW 1.2 billion in Q’s name and delivered it to Defendant B. Defendant B, at the mutual infinite coffee shop near Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the fact was difficult to prepare for the cost of the casino business at the time, and Q was not suitable for Q’s financial situation.

In the absence of intent or ability to pay a check on the date of payment even if the check is provided as security and the check is discounted by the victim, it is false to the victim X that "I would pay KRW 1.2 billion by means of settling the check on October 7, 2008, which is the date of payment of Q, because it is well in the Cambodia casino business, and the funds are urgently required for the company," and that "I would pay KRW 1.2 billion by means of settling the check on October 7, 2008, which is the date of payment of the check," and the victim was provided with the check of KRW 1.2 billion in the name of Q issued by the defendant C, and acquired it by receiving KRW 90 million from the victim as a discount on the face.

B. Fraud against Defendant A and C victim X

The Defendants conspired to:

1) On October 13, 2008, Defendant C issued a ticket of KRW 1.5 billion in Q’s name and delivered it to Defendant A. Defendant A. The fact that the victim was in a coffee shop near the new subway station in Gangnam-gu Seoul at the time was difficult to secure the cost of its casino business, and even if Q offered a ticket in Q’s name as security and borrowed money from the victim, Defendant C has no intent or ability to pay the money. The casino business is well established, and Q’s name should be prevented from paying the money. At present, Q’s current number of shares is presented in Q’s bank, and Q’s payment of KRW 60 million was not made, but Q’s payment was not made in full by the victim’s loan of KRW 1.5 billion in total, KRW 4 billion in the interest rate of KRW 600 million in Q’s total, KRW 1.4 billion in the interest rate of KRW 1.5 billion in the first place.

To receive KRW 600 million from the bank account in the name of the bank (AB) and to defraud them;

2) On October 17, 2008, Defendant C issued a list of 400 million won unit price (Korea bank AC) in Q Q and delivered it to Defendant A. The Defendant AE hotel coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was unable to provide the victim with the cost of its casino business at the time, and Q’s financial situation was not good, and even if Q offered as security and borrowed money from the victim, the casino business did not have the intent or ability to repay it. “Although it was well for the casino business, it is well, but the casino business was planned to pay KRW 1.54 billion at the discount on October 13, 2008, one of the 1.5 billion unit price table is expected to be paid immediately, and it is urgently necessary to prevent this from being paid. The Defendant A shall be paid KRW 370 billion in the name of the victim by means of false transfer of KRW 400 million in the name of the victim.

1) The Defendant, at the “AI coffee shop” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul on October 2008, the Defendant met the victim like the Defendant-friendly AJ, and the fact that the Defendant was unable to prepare expenses for the business of the instant casino at the time, and even if Q did not borrow money from the victim due to the lack of intent or ability to repay the said money, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the said money. “AJ is well in the casino business, but the check already issued by Q is in the crisis of default. First of all, if Q lends the paid amount of KRW 150,00,000,000,000 won, the Defendant would have repaid the remainder of KRW 90,000,000,0000,000 won. Before Q was defaulted, it cannot be repaid from the victim on the same day as Q Q on the same day.

To receive KRW 140,000,000 from our bank account (AB) in the name of the Republic of Korea and to obtain money from the Defendant in a way that he does not fully repay KRW 90,000,000 which the Defendant had to pay;

2) On October 31, 2008, the Defendant: (a) at the same place, at the time, was in a crisis in the closure of Cambodia’s casino business; and (b) continued to return promissory notes and the check number issued in Q’s name for the purpose of the casino business; (c) even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the check issued by Q Q is well in the casino business, but is in the crisis in which Q Q is in default; (d) in the absence of the intent or ability to repay the money, the check already issued is going to be in the crisis in which Q Q would be in default; and (e) the promissory notes already issued are trying to be in default; and (e) the Defendant requested AL to pay a discount to AL amounting to two billion Won AK Promissory notes; and (e) upon the request of AL amount, AL amount would be at a discount. The false statement stating that the payment of money is immediately refunded, and (e) the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the victim to the bank account in the name of Q (AB).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness X;

1. Each legal statement of the witness C, AM, B, and A;

1. The description of each part of the prosecutorial examination protocol against the Defendants and AM (including each part of the interrogation protocol)

1. Each prosecutor's statement (or a copy thereof) for X, W, andN;

1. Statement in part of the police investigation record concerning AM (not more than seven pages 123 of investigation record) (with respect to the defendant A);

1. Statement of the police statement made to AO;

1. Some of the statements made by the police in relation to AP;

1. A criminal investigation report (the details of Q Fund spendings seized at the SO Investment Office, the report accompanied by the name of the B Chairperson, the complaint, written agreement and attachment of other documents, evidential data of the complainants, and the details of account transactions) filed by the suspects due to the forgery or alteration of the checks other than this case;

1. Court rulings (Seoul Central District Court 2010Gohap163, Seoul High Court 201No126, Seoul High Court 201No. 126), account details (in cases of investigation records 3: 801 pages), X female-related financial statements, Q208 semiannual report, Q largest S equity ratio, quarterly report in 2008 (3 quarter), quarterly report by an external auditor in 2008, audit report by an external auditor in 2008, copy of the number of units (in cases of investigation records 7: 49 pages);

1. For each previous conviction: Court rulings concerning criminal records (B), B, and C;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to the facts constituting the crime and the choice of punishment (defendants);

Each of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 3(1)2 of the Criminal Act; Article 347 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act [In general, Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)]

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant B, C);

Articles 37 (latter part) and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant B, C);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (the defendants);

Judgment on the defendants and defense counsel's arguments under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Defendant A

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

1) As to the defendant's borrowing of money

Of the facts charged, the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the Q account by requesting X to lend KRW 100 million rapidly in order to settle the check of the number of shares issued by Q on October 31, 2008. However, the Defendant cannot recognize the remainder of the facts charged as follows.

A) On October 13, 2008, with respect to loans of KRW 600 million related to the per unit plan of KRW 1.54 billion on Oct. 13, 2008, the Defendant paid the above check by borrowing KRW 900 million from X upon request from B and C on Oct. 7, 2008 to prevent the default of the per unit plan of KRW 1.2 billion on Sept. 13, 2008, and selling KRW 1.540 million issued by Q on Sep. 13, 2008. However, at the time, X demanded the above KRW 340 million interest on KRW 90 million, and the Defendant additionally guaranteed the above KRW 950,000,000,000,000 for KRW 1.5 billion,000,000,000,000 for KRW 1.5 billion on the same month.

B) On the loan of KRW 370,000,000,000,000,000 per unit of 17.40,000 won, AP discounted upon request from X. However, the Defendant was asked to verify the authenticity of the above unit of 1,00 won that X brought by AP at the time and came to its place, and it was confirmed that the above unit of 1,000 won was a check normally issued by Q Q, and the Defendant merely guaranteed the payment only, but not directly discounted the above unit of 1,00 won from X.

C) As to the loan of KRW 140 million on October 20, 2008

The Defendant did not agree to lend KRW 140 million from X at the time. However, the Defendant is only aware of the fact that Q Q borrowed the above KRW 140 million from X through AJ lasts.

2) As to the intent of deception and fraud

Even if the Defendant directly asked X to discount the number of shares issued Q Q or borrowed money, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent by deception or deception. In other words, the Defendant introduced Cambodia casino business and arranged to acquire the right to operate the said business, but did not actually operate Q. Moreover, Q casino business was operated normally after it was opened in August 2008. At the time of the instant case, there was a temporary difficulty in the said casino business, and it was sufficiently aware that X’s financial situation was not good. On October 2008, the Defendant did not receive money from the Plaintiff as collateral because of the failure to visit the Chinese doctor’s degree and to take over the right to operate the said business, and the Defendant did not receive money from the Plaintiff at the time of the instant case. In addition, the Defendant did not receive money from the KRW 100,000,000,000.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the Defendant’s borrowing of money

A) Determination on October 13, 2008 on the fact of borrowing KRW 600 million

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances revealed through evidence duly admitted, the Defendant’s issuance of Q 1.54 billion won per unit of the issuance of Q Q 1.5 billion won, and the Defendant’s new borrowing of KRW 600 million from the victim X, as stated in its reasoning.

(1) From the investigative agency to this court, the victim loaned KRW 600 million to the defendant's "if the defendant does not stop the number of KRW 600 million of the issuance of Q, the default will occur." In order to prevent the number of KRW 1.2 billion of the issuance of Q discounted on September 13, 2008, the defendant stated to the effect that, in order to prevent the distribution of the number of KRW 1.2 billion of the issuance of Q discounted on October 7, 2008, the defendant would give KRW 40 million interest at KRW 60 million, which he borrowed from Q at the discount on October 7, 2008, and the payment date would bring KRW 1.54 billion interest at the rate of KRW 1.5 billion on October 21, 2008, it was consistently stated to the effect that "the defendant remitted KRW 600 million to Q account."

(2) In order to prevent the check of the number of shares of KRW 900 million from the investigative agency on October 7, 2008, the defendant also stated in substitution with the victim about the situation where the victim was found to borrow KRW 900 million from the investigative agency and the fact that Q issued the statement of KRW 1.540 million number of shares of KRW 1.540 million on the day of issuance of Q in order to deliver the statement of KRW 969,000,000 of the number of shares of KRW Q. On the same day, it is confirmed that the victim actually deposited KRW 600 million in the name of Q in Q A0 on the same day (the investigation record of KRW 99,158,159).

(3) In addition, with respect to the AR-related guaranteed debt claimed by the Defendant that part of the amount of the above AR-related debt is included, the victim did not recover the above BR-related debt amount on October 13, 2008, including the amount of AR-related debt on October 13, 2008, separately from the 1.54 billion won check, and supplement the Q Q’s issued blank Bill as security at the time of lending the amount of KRW 930 million to the amount of KRW 9.7 billion on October 7, 2008." In fact, the defendant issued the 1.540 million check to the victim and did not recover the above BR-related bill (the investigation record 3.5 billion won) (the investigation record was included in the AR-related debt amount of KRW 1.500 million,000,0000,0000,000 won) (the AR was recovered from the prosecutor’s bill under the name of KRW 3.8 billion).

(4) On July 16, 2017, B made a statement to the effect that, for the first time during the prosecutor's investigation, Q Q was unable to use the check of KRW 600 million on the day, its business hours are not borrowed from X, and Q was unable to use the check of KRW 600 million on the same day, and received KRW 600 million from X (in the investigation record, KRW 50 million was remitted). However, in the previous investigation process, B did not know that it was not involved in the above 1.54 billion unit discount process, and later, it did not present any objective data corresponding thereto in the investigation agency; ② Defendant also did not have any such assertion to the effect that Q was used in the above 600 million unit discount process; ③ The victim’s statement of KRW 1.5 billion on the day after the date when Q was transferred to Q account; ③ The victim’s statement of KRW 1.55 billion on the day when Q account was transferred to Q account (2.5 billion on the following day).

B) Determination on October 17, 2008 on the fact of borrowing KRW 370 million on October 17, 2008

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted, the fact that the Defendant lent money directly to the victim X and issued the check of the number of units of Q issuance to the victim X, as stated in its reasoning, that the Defendant wired money of KRW 370 million to the victim X.

(1) The victim, who did not have any other exchange in this court, found AP to have been using a check (not a check for the issuance of Q) on the day and at a discount. When intending to refuse and return, the defendant himself/herself appeared and there was a check at Q companies. The check has been made at the present time. The amount of KRW 1.54 billion at a discount on October 13, 2008, which was scheduled to be settled on October 21, 2008, has been changed to KRW 370 million at this time. At that time, the defendant prepared a check for the issuance of Q Q’s 40 million number of shares, and the defendant remitted money to the account for which he/she was not entitled to receive money. In light of the above, the victim’s statement has been made specific and clear as to the circumstances leading up to the issuance of the said money, and the victim’s statement has been consistently made in an investigative agency to the effect that it was consistent with the purport that the credibility of the victim’s statement.

(2) On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that QP only confirmed the authenticity of AP’s number of shares issued upon X’s request at the time of issuance, and that the Defendant merely guaranteed payment, and that the Defendant appeared to sit at a coffee shop by the investigation agency. The Defendant saw that the Defendant had her body with the victim, and that the Defendant had no her body her own, and that the check discounted by the victim was not related to the Defendant. The check discounted by the victim was not known of the fact that it was difficult for the Defendant to confirm the fact that the Defendant had no money from the victim, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to check the fact that there was no money from the victim. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s statement and the fact that the Defendant had no money from the victim, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that it was difficult for the Defendant to confirm the credibility of the check’s number of shares at the time of issuance, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to deposit the money with the Defendant’s account to the effect that the Defendant would not be able to deposit it with the Defendant’s account.

C) Determination on October 20, 2008 on the fact of borrowing KRW 140 million on October 20, 2008

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted, the defendant may be recognized as having the victim X lend the above money directly to the victim X, 140 million won, as stated in its reasoning.

(1) In this court, the victim found a payment of KRW 140,000,000,000, which was conducted by the defendant as at the time of the filing of the check, and the victim borrowed KRW 1440,000,000,000,000 from the time of the filing of the check. The victim did not pay the check at present. The victim's statement to the effect that the statement was not consistent with the purport that the victim's statement was not made to the effect that the payment of KRW 1.54,40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was not received at that time and, without interest, was not given to the defendant. However, the victim's statement to the effect that the victim's statement to the effect that it was not consistent with the above investigation agency's statement to the effect that the victim's statement was not made yet.

(2) In addition, on October 21, 2008, the actual following day: (a) the victim had been the due date for the payment of KRW 1.54 billion of the issuance of Q Q at the request of the defendant as mentioned in the above paragraph (a); (b) AJ was carrying on the sale of commercial buildings together with the defendant at the time (in the investigation record 5:2,182 pages) Q Q or Cambodia casino, who had no direct relations with the defendant at the time, seems to have no reason for AJ to raise funds by discounting the number of shares in order to prevent the bankruptcy of Q issuance; (c) At the time, the victim believed the defendant's horse to the effect that "the amount of money borrowed before Q Q issuance is not repaid is not repaid," and (d) the victim's statement to the effect that Q would not be recovered from Q from the victim's right to the number of shares or promissory notes, and (e) the defendant's statement to the effect that Q 100 billion won will not be recovered from the victim's account at the time of Q 1.

2) Determination as to the criminal intent of deception and deception of the defendant

A) Relevant legal principles

(1) The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, the process of transaction, and relationship with the victim, etc. before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do74, May 14, 2004; 2006Do8418, Apr. 27, 2007). The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a conclusive intention is sufficient.

(2) In addition, even though there is no conviction that a check or a bill will not be settled on the date of payment, or that it may be paid on the date of payment, if the check or a bill is discounted without notifying the addressee of such fact, fraud is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1095, Jul. 25, 1997; 98Do3282, Dec. 9, 1998).

B) Specific determination

(1) According to the evidence duly admitted, the following facts and circumstances are recognized.

① A listed company, which was acquired through S around December 2007 for the selection of a casino operating corporation and the raising of funds necessary for the operation of the casino business as promoted by the Defendant. At the time of acquisition, sales of the existing telephone system manufacturing business and other businesses had been continuously decreased, and Q’s profits and financial standing was almost rarely dependent solely on the Defendant’s continuation and failure of the casino business. (ii) The Defendant promoted the casino business by depending on the funds raised from others through Q, etc. without any particular funds. As the opening of the casino was delayed in April 5, 2008, the total amount of expenses incurred by the local employees, personnel expenses, sojourn expenses, and general expenses incurred in the opening of the casino was rapidly increased, and the investors who were against the delay in opening the casino were also demanding the collection of the investment money.

③ From July to August, 2008, most of the money raised through the discount of the number of shares and promissory notes issued by Q is continuously used to prevent the payment of the outstanding promissory notes and the check of the number of shares issued earlier, and the number of shares and promissory notes issued by Q gradually increased.

④ Although a casino was opened at the end of August, 2008, Q’s financial situation was not supported. In particular, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s casino business outlook was more dissured due to the Plaintiff’s collective visit of Chinese doctor’s degree in the immediately preceding year, and the global financial crisis, etc. around October 2008, when the Defendant started to borrow money from the victim in order to prevent the Defendant from failing to pay the check of the number of shares of Q issuance that was imminent due to the date of the payment.

⑤ Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) stated to the effect that in order to prevent the payment of the previous shares of Q from issuing Q from being repaid money; (b) demanded the Defendant to continue to transfer money at a discount of the shares number of Q issuance; and (c) upon the Defendant’s request, Q issuance at a discount of the victim’s discount amounted to KRW 1.54 billion on October 13, 2008 and the shares of KRW 400 million on October 17, 2008 were all falsely reported.

6. The victim stated to the effect that "the victim was entrusted with the check at "bank," but it was called that he was refused to pay the check by alteration, and that the defendant resisted the phone to the defendant, and that it was difficult for the defendant to find and send him to the case. It is better to say that the above change was better than the default or default, and that he would be responsible for the settlement of the money." The defendant again lent money to the defendant. The defendant also responded to the purport that "at the time of "the defendant received an objection from the victim and made the above remarks" (No. 5 rights of investigation record 2,190-2,192 pages). (7) The defendant could not continue to lend the money to the defendant through the discount of the number of shares offered in Q, and the victim could not have paid the money to the defendant, and the victim would have demanded the defendant to continue to collect the money by borrowing the money from the defendant."

(8) On October 31, 2008, at the time of the Defendant lending KRW 100 million from the victim, the Defendant appears to have been in a situation where there was a very little possibility of a new financing because of the continued failure of attracting investment, which was immediately prior to the occurrence of a casino business. After two to three days from the Defendant, the Defendant was in the name of her wife by demanding the continuous repayment of the victim, and the Defendant was in the name of her wife, but she was in the name of her wife, but she would only use her name and return her name because it is necessary for her children to use her name and return her money. Accordingly, the Defendant immediately recovered her money from the victim without fully paying the money up to that time.

① Meanwhile, the victim was aware of her husband’s birth in the same school, which was a father’s birth and a long-term marriage, and had been engaged in money transactions in the past, and it seems that the victim borrowed money by again relianceing on the Defendant’s horse and at a discount rate of the number of shares issued Q. In light of the type and progress of transactions between the Defendant and the victim, the Defendant’s potential reaction after the Defendant’s locking, etc., the victim did not seem to have been aware of the financial structure or payment ability of Q at the time.

(2) Examining the aforementioned facts and circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant borrowed money by means of a check with the victim while hiding the fact that the financial situation of Q has significantly deteriorated, and that Q would not be paid on the date of payment, even though there is no conviction that Q would have been able to pay on the date of payment, and that the Defendant continued to borrow money by means of a check with the victim without the intent or ability to pay, and further borrowed money without the victim’s intention or ability. Accordingly, the Defendant’s deception and the criminal intent of obtaining money can be fully recognized.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged by the defendant is fully convicted, and all of the arguments of the defendant and his defense counsel are not accepted.

2. Defendant B

A. Summary of the assertion

1) At the time, the Defendant did not have a fluencing fe with respect to the revenues of Cambodian casino business, such as the facts charged.

2) The Defendant was aware of the fact that Q was taken over for Cambodia casino business conducted by S., and was involved in Q more than two times as stated in the facts charged. However, the Defendant did not know about the specific financial situation of Q, and simply attempted to raise funds through a friendly relationship with the representative SAU. The Defendant believed the success of casino business, and the Defendant did not seem to have been aware of the fact that Q was taken over for the casino business, and that the number of units was not settled on the wind that the casino business was carried out due to the collective visit by the Chinese Do doctor, which was not opened at October 2008, due to the SAU’s Do doctor’s Dor’s Dor’s Dor’s Dor’s Dor’s Dor’s Dor’s Dor’ss sc

B. Determination on the criminal intent of deception and deception by the defendant

1) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the Defendant’s deception and the evidence duly admitted by the victim’s awareness, the Defendant, as indicated in its holding, explained the profitability and prospects for the casino business of Q Q, demanded a discount on the number of shares issued by Q. The victim’s speech and behavior. The victim may be deemed to have led to the lending of money by means of the discount on the said check in reliance on the Defendant’s speech and behavior.

A) On September 12, 2008, the victim was found to have called from the investigative agency to the date of this court that "AM called that money would be urgently needed, and the defendant lent money. In that case, the defendant shown that "the number of punishments, the amount of money would be 1.5 billion won per month," and "I would like to know about the settlement of the check," and "I would like to lend money to the defendant. I would like to say that I would like to know whether Q would be 60 million won of the issuance of the check." On the following day, I would like to receive money from the defendant and make a decision on the payment of money. On the following day, I would like to find out the number of shares per 1.2 billion won of the issuance of Q Q, because the defendant was more necessary and shown in the phone, so I would like to believe that the defendant would make a consistent statement to the effect that he would lend money in the casino operation of Cambodia."

B) In the purport that the Defendant, from the investigative agency to the time, made the victim request for the discount of the number of shares per second time due to the need for a large amount of funds of Q companies from the investigative agency to the time of prosecution, the Defendant made a statement in substitution for the victim’s statement regarding the developments leading up to the discount of the number of shares per each part.

C) The AM also investigative agency, when introducing the Defendant to the victim at that time, “The Defendant Qua Association”

A person related to G, Q introduced that Q is a company that invests in Cambodia casino and a company that is well aware of it. After that, the victim made a statement corresponding to the victim's above statement to the effect that "the victim was in detail the defendant for the check, and the introduction of Q company would have been the defendant." (No. 7 investigative records, No. 126, 127 pages).

D) The victim consistently asserts to the effect that, around July 2008, the previous victim made a discount on the number of shares of Q published several times, it is difficult to view that the victim would have made a discount upon the defendant's request from the defendant for the discount of the number of shares of Q issued at the time of the instant case, in light of the fact that the victim became the defendant through the line of AM at the time of the instant case, it is difficult to view that the victim would have made a discount upon the defendant's request from the defendant for the discount of the number of shares issued by Q issued at the time, and that there is a high possibility that the defendant believed and discounted the number of shares.

2) Determination on the criminal intent to acquire by deceit of the defendant

A) According to evidence duly admitted, (1) as recognized in Article 1-2(2)(2) of the Act, Q has been delayed opening of a casino, resulting in a rapid increase in the expenditure of the expenses, and (2) from July to August 2008, most of the money raised through a discount of Q is actually being used only for the payment of obligations, etc., the due date for which is imminent, and (2) the Defendant was involved in the process of accepting Q through S in reviewing the feasibility of the casino project proposal, and was in charge of raising funds for the operation of the casino through Q, and (3) the Defendant was also in charge of raising funds for the operation of the casino, with the need for checks upon the request of the investigative agency. However, from Cambodia to August 208, the right to request the recovery of investment funds of investors, etc., the right to make a statement was not fully known to the effect that the funds were insufficient until it was closed or closed due to the lack of funds from A.V. 1 to 2.78(5).

B) Examining the aforementioned facts and circumstances in light of the victim’s deception, victim’s awareness, financial situation, the role and awareness of the defendant, etc., it is reasonable to view that the defendant, in the end, borrowed money from the method of the victim’s check by deceiving the victim, even though there is no conviction that Q would not be paid even if Q would have been discounted on the date of the payment because there was no profit in casino business and the financial situation of Q has significantly deteriorated, and there was no conviction that Q would not be paid on the date of the payment. Therefore, the intent of the defendant’s defraudation can be sufficiently

C. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged by the defendant is fully convicted, and the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion to the different purport is not accepted.

3. Defendant C.

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

Although there was a fact that the Defendant was a representative director at the time of the instant case, the Defendant only determined the extent of the expenditure of small-scale funds related to the operation of the Company, and there was no substantial authority to decide on the financing and enforcement of casino business related to casino business. Moreover, the director AV, who was in charge of funds, issued the Defendant’s seal impression and notified the Defendant of the fact ex

In particular, since the Defendant submitted a letter of resignation of the representative director on October 10, 2008 and was hospitalized in a hospital, it cannot be deemed that he participated in the crime through a discount of the number of units issued thereafter, given that he did not participate in the operation of Q. Moreover, on October 2008, the Defendant was undergoing investment consultation in an amount equivalent to KRW 10 billion with respect to the business of Cambodia Q Q Q from the early-run casino on a large scale investment, and the Defendant believed that it would be possible to settle the current number of units and promissory notes issued in Q from the date of payment to the due date through the inducement of large-scale investment. Accordingly, the Defendant was not involved in the fraud of the Defendant, as stated in its reasoning, and the Defendant did not have any intent to commit fraud.

B. Determination on the defendant's participation in and fraud of the crime

1) Relevant legal principles

A public invitation of two or more accomplices who jointly commit a crime does not require any legal fixed penalty, but are sufficient if there is an implicit communication on the joint execution of the crime directly or indirectly between the accomplices who intend to jointly commit a crime, and even if there is no direct evidence, it may be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules. In addition, the joint commission of a crime by a public invitation is not premised on the realization of the elements of the crime by all accomplices, and it is possible to cooperate with the accomplices who implement the act to strengthen the decision on the act. Whether the act constitutes a public invitation shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding about the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, and the intent to control the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006).

(ii) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly admitted, the Defendant was selected and appointed as a registration director of Q around December 2007 as the proposal A and B, and from January 2008, Q was appointed as the representative director of Q. The Defendant had been performing his duties as the representative of the company when he received the degree of KRW 700,000 per month due to remuneration. ② However, as recognized in the preceding paragraph 1-B(2) (Judgment No. 17), Q continued opening of casino, the rapid increase in the cost expenditure due to delayed opening of casino, and since July 2008 upon investors’ request for the collection of investment funds, the amount raised through the discount of Q’s number of shares and promissory notes was actually used continuously for the payment of debts, etc. which most of the date of payment was imminent, ③ the Defendant, while working as the representative director of Q, was aware of the need for redemption of Q Q 1-4 (the number of shares issued by Q 181) and Q 184 (the number of shares issued by Q 184).

3) Determination

A) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant made an essential contribution to the crime of this case by providing necessary means in realizing the crime of this case through the discount of the number of shares issued by Q in Q’s name, even if he did not know about the specific process of procurement or directly decide whether to raise funds related to casino business, in light of the fact that the defendant did not know about the specific process of financing in detail or directly decide whether to raise funds related to casino business in detail.

B) In relation to the scope of Defendant’s participation in the crime, around October 10, 2008, the Defendant revealed his intention to resign from the position of Q representative director on the S side, and argued that Q’s post was not involved in the act of issuing the current number of shares (i.e., joint crime part with A), but the Defendant appears to have been well aware of the fact that the issuance of the current number of shares and promissorysory notes for Q with extreme aggravation of financial situation at the time would have to be necessary to continue to meet the urgent debt of Q, and the Defendant continued to have been in the first place of October 2008, with the knowledge of the fact that there was a big loss of business due to the Plaintiff’s collective visit by the Chinese Do doctor’s degree first, October 13, 2008, and that the Defendant continued to have been in the name of the representative director for whom Q’s total number of shares was 10 years and 20 years after the entry into a casino. Moreover, it was difficult to view the Defendant’s statement to the effect that Q 181 was difficult to collect money.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged by the defendant is fully convicted, and the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

From 3 years to 15 years of imprisonment;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] The amount of not less than 50 million won for general fraud, and less than 5 billion won for fraud (Type 3)

[Special Convicted Persons] Where punishment is not granted or damage is recovered from a considerable part;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, one year and six months to four years of imprisonment. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years.

The Defendant acquired money from a victim by means of discounting the number of shares of Q issuance with virtually lacking ability, and caused continuous damage while requiring additional funds in order to repay money without any specific repayment plan. It is bad that the Defendant has sustained a large amount of damage, and that the Defendant has kept away for a long time without endeavoring to recover damage.

However, given the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and method of committing a crime, circumstances after committing a crime, etc., where financial standing has aggravated due to some external factors, etc., the Defendant’s punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and method of committing a crime; and (b) the Defendant has paid considerable amount of damages and agreed with the victim when the Defendant was unable to proceed with the instant crime;

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

From June to June of 1 year and six months of imprisonment;

(b) Non-application of the sentencing criteria;

Article 37 of the Criminal Code provides that the sentencing criteria shall not apply to crimes falling under latter concurrent crimes.The sentencing criteria shall not apply to the suspended sentence: two years of imprisonment.

The Defendant knew that Q’s financial situation has deteriorated, the profitability of casino business was distorted, and the Defendant demanded the victim to discount the number of shares issued by Q Q to obtain a large amount of money.

However, in relation to this part, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the victim’s check of the number of shares at the discount is deemed to have been substantially recovered in the course of settling the account, the need to consider equity in the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time with each previous conviction in the judgment, and other factors such as the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and method of committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, etc.,

3. Defendant C.

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

From June to June of 1 year and six months of imprisonment;

(b) Non-application of the sentencing criteria;

Article 37 of the Criminal Code provides that sentencing criteria shall not apply to crimes falling under latter concurrent crimes.The decision of sentence: 2 years of suspended sentence in January and June.

The defendant, who is a representative director of Q, has been well aware that the financial standing of the company has deteriorated, issued a check of the number of shares without delay, thereby engaging in an essential act in realizing AP B's fraudulent act as a means of such act, and the fact that the amount of damage is significant is bad.

However, it does not seem that the Defendant did not play a leading role in the crime of this case, and the degree and circumstances of the Defendant’s participation in the crime are considered; it appears that some damage would have been actually recovered in the course of settling the amount of the check-up; considerable damage has been paid; and the need to consider equity in the case where the Defendant rendered a judgment at the same time as the previous conviction is determined as ordered by taking into account the following favorable circumstances: the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.; and the punishment is determined as ordered by the disposition

Part of innocence (Defendant A, C)

1. As to the Defendants’ fraudulent conduct related to the discount of the per unit discount on September 14, 2008 against the victim X

A. Summary of the facts charged

On September 14, 2008, Defendant C issued a check of the number of shares in Q Q’s name, and Defendant A received a check of KRW 600 million from the victim X by offering it to the victim X as security and receiving KRW 450 million from the account in the name of AW under the name of AW under the pretext of discount, even if Q’s financial situation was not good, and borrowed money from the victim, although there is no intent or ability to repay it, Defendant C did not have any intent or ability to pay it. The casino business is well operated. Around October 3, 2008, the date of payment of Q Q’s issuance at a discount of KRW 600 million.”

B. Defendants’ assertion

The Defendants did not know the developments leading up to X’s transfer of KRW 450 million to AW’s account to KRW 450,000, and did not dispute to the effect that it is a transaction that is unrelated to Q Party’s discount.

B. Determination

1) As stated in the facts charged, the direct evidence that X made a discount on the number of shares of Q issuance at the request of Defendant A, and made a transfer of the check discounted to KRW 450 million in the account in the name of AW on September 14, 2008 (in the case of Defendant A at the time of Cambodia at the time, Defendant A asked for a discount of KRW 600 million in the number of shares of Q issuance at the latest, and Defendant A made a statement in X (the purport that Defendant A received KRW 450 million in the account in the name of AW and received KRW 450 million in the number of shares from Q employee).

2) However, the following circumstances revealed in the record of the instant case, namely, ① the Defendants consistently denied this part of the facts charged to the effect that “X transferred money from the investigative agency to the account under the name of AW in terms of KRW 450,000,000,000,000 to the account under the name of AW,” without knowledge of the details of transfer, and the Defendants did not confirm that there was a de facto management of AW’s account or there was a transaction relationship between A or Q and AW. ② A was called “Defendant A” in contact with the Defendant A in the course of the investigation on August 10, 2016, and it was difficult for the Defendants to recognize that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that X was a genuine witness at the time of this case’s request for testimony, including, but not limited to, the above part of AW’s statement to the effect that “I would not have any other evidence to acknowledge that X was a witness at the time of this case’s request for testimony.”

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged against the defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, each not-guilty verdict should be made pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as each conviction of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is found against the defendants in relation to such a single comprehensive crime,

2. As to the crime of fraud against the victim P

A. Summary of the facts charged

On September 2008, Defendant A introduced, at the office of HK Savings Bank located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, that “A shall actually purchase Q Q, and Q shall pay money to the victim P on the due date of the promissory note if Q has been offered as collateral for the promissory note,” and Defendant A shall make a false statement stating, “A shall pay money on the due date of the promissory note if Q has been given as collateral for the promissory note.” Defendant A shall pay money to the victim in the manner of paying interest of KRW 1.5 billion, including interest amount of KRW 50 million on the due date.” Defendant C shall issue a promissory note under Q’s name (AX) 1,550,000,000 won and delivered it to the victim through Defendant A. However, even if Q had already been given as collateral, Defendant A shall not have the ability to return money to the victim under the name of the promissory note or the promissory note.

As above, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim and deceiving the victim from the victim on September 23, 2008, thereby deceiving KRW 400 million to the account in Q Q’s name on September 24, 2008, KRW 500 million to the account in the name of AY on September 24, 2008, and KRW 600 million to the account in the name of AZ.

B. Defendants’ assertion

1) Defendant A

In September 2008, the Defendant received a promissory note of KRW 1.5 billion from Q and discounted it through Q and lent KRW 1.5 billion to Q. However, the Defendant did not mean that the Defendant lent money to P through AM as in the facts charged. In other words, AM borrowed money from the sales price to KRW 2 billion if the Defendant resolved the issue of provisional disposal of stocks of KRW 2 billion;

The Defendant resolved the dispute through C, and, as a result, AM did not lend money from the proceeds of the sale due to its credit relationship, the Defendant borrowed money from AM to HK Savings Bank as collateral for QK Savings Bank. The Defendant came to know that it was money lent by P in the course of extending the payment of the said bill thereafter. Accordingly, the Defendant did not deceiving P through AM to acquire money from P, but did not intend to do so.

2) At the time of Defendant C., Q’s issuance of a promissory note KRW 1.5 billion in the name of Q, but the Defendant was aware that A was taking money from HK Savings Bank at the discount of the said promissory note, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the money was borrowed from P was later known.

1) Therefore, in order to examine whether Defendant A passed AM as shown in the facts charged, or obtained money from Defendant A after directly deceiving P, there is evidence corresponding thereto each of the following statements in the investigation agency of P and AM.

A) During September 2008, P borrowed 8 billion won from the investigative agency to AM in 2004, P accepted the request to the effect that "AM and Defendant A were able to repay the amount of money in order to resolve the issue of provisional disposition of shares in B, and Defendant A was able to pay the amount of money in accordance with the request to the effect that "A would lend 1.5 billion won to Defendant A," and that "I would be able to resolve the issue of provisional disposition of shares in B," and that "I would have borrowed 1.5 billion won to Defendant A, who is the actual owner of Q, as security of promissory notes issued 1.5 billion won in Q, with the right of investigation record No. 1,867,186,88, 208, 2038, 208, 2038, 208, 2000 won." (The right of investigation record No. 4, 2008, 20038, 238, 238.38, 28.

B) At the prosecution, the AM also stated to the effect that the Defendant A was aware of the fact that it would have been 1.5 billion won by taking a bill of Q from P as security (the investigation record No. 5 2,235 pages).

2) However, considering the following circumstances revealed by the record, it is difficult to view that there is no room for reasonable deliberation to support the fact that Defendant A issued a promissory note to the investigation agency of P and AM with the intent to the same effect as the above facts charged, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

A) P received a proposal from 'AM to lend 1.5 billion won to 'AM to 'A' on behalf of 'AM', and QM also has been mixed with 'AM. AM promptly takes priority over 'AM' and 'AM borrowed 3 billion won (including 1.5 billion won separately borrowed)' in 'AM to 'AM' and 'AM borrowed 'AM borrowed 'AM' and 'AM borrowed 1.5 billion won. At that time, 'A' was sent to 'A' in the course of negotiations on HK Savings Bank, but 'A' did not borrow 'AM borrowed money from 'AM' to 'A' and 'AM made a statement to the effect that 'A' was a person who will receive money from 'AM' to 'A' in the investigation agency.

B) AM also made a statement to the effect that “AA” in the prosecutor’s office borrowed money from the proceeds of the sale of the shares of BA to the Defendant, and that the creditors were unable to directly enter and borrow money, Defendant A intended to directly borrow money from the creditors as collateral for QK Savings Bank, which became known to the creditors that QK Savings Bank was in consultation with the creditors and borrowed money as collateral (No. 4 rights in investigation record 1,867 pages), and ② in this court, Defendant A would be able to use money to cover KRW 2 billion when the issue of the BA’s stock disposal was resolved first to the Defendant at the time of the resolution of the issue of the BA’s shares disposal. In addition, Defendant A would not have been able to pay back money with the actual proceeds of the sale, and Defendant A would not have been able to directly borrow money from the PK Savings bank in the form of a promissory note to the effect that QK Savings would not have been given a discount in the form of the PK Savings.

C) Defendant A made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the same effect as the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement as seen earlier, and Defendant A did not directly borrow money from P or B as collateral for QK Savings Bank among the creditors. The first statement was made to the effect that “B (P) was aware of the fact that the creditors were aware of the lending of money at the UN HK Savings Bank, and later, they were aware of the fact that they were the money of B(P) when they were to have failed to repay (the investigation record Nos. 5 1,924, 1,925, 1,925, 2, 217, 2, 218), and Defendant C issued a promissory note to the effect that “The investigative agency consistently stated that Q was to borrow money from the HK Savings Bank as collateral” (the investigation record No. 41,836, 2,209, 22,10 pages).

D) In full view of the above statement, Defendant A or the Defendants intended to borrow money from AM or HK Savings Bank as collateral for a promissory note issued by Q Q, and also used to lend money to AM with trusting the horses of PM. Ultimately, it is difficult to recognize this part of the facts charged under the premise that Defendant A acquired money from P through AM or by directly deceiving P, and it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants had such intent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

D. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged against the defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

The presiding judge, the Kim Jong-dong

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Doi-ro