Defendant

J. H. L.S. Only

Attorney Choi Sung-chul et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The defendant is the representative director of the non-indicted 6 corporation and the non-indicted 2 corporation. The defendant entered into a real estate sales contract with the non-indicted 6 corporation and the non-indicted 5 corporation, jointly with the victim non-indicted 1 to purchase 41,554 square meters of forest land (number 1 omitted) located in the old-gu repair (hereinafter "the land in this case"), and entered into a joint business agreement with the defendant to carry on the logistics warehouse business, and the defendant paid only the down payment, and the balance is paid first in the purchase of the forest in advance with the seller's cooperation, and agreed to pay the money borrowed as the collateral. On November 14, 2003 with the non-indicted 4 and 5, the owner of the forest in this case, and the non-indicted 6 representative director of the non-indicted 1,879,00,000, 100,000, 100,000, 800, 800, and 80, 000.

1. The defendant, who is engaged in the business of transferring ownership pursuant to the above business agreement with the victim non-indicted 1, has a duty to promote the smooth progress of the logistics warehouse business with the victim who is a partner by means of completing the registration of transfer of ownership in the process of completing the registration of transfer of ownership, etc. with the victim's joint name or by determining the contents of the registration of transfer of ownership in consultation with the victim. However, the defendant alone runs the logistics warehouse business in violation of his duty by arbitrarily changing the purchaser of the forest and land to his name and excluding the victim.

Around April 14, 2004, Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5, the seller of the said forest and field, who was unaware of the fact that he was killed in the victim at an unclaimed place, prepared an agreement with Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5, who was the seller of the said forest and field, to the effect that "a new real estate sales contract is nullified on November 14, 2003, and a new real estate sales contract is concluded, but the purchaser is designated by the defendant and the defendant." On May 20 of the same year, it concluded a new real estate sales contract for the said forest and field individually with Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5, respectively, around May 20 of the same year. On June 29, 2005, one parcel divided into 29,752§³ of the said forest and field into the name of Nonindicted 2 corporation operated by the defendant, the remainder (number 3 through 6 omitted) divided into the name of the defendant, and the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the victim, and the amount equivalent to the above land and property gains.

2. The facts are as follows: (a) in the buyer’s column of the real estate sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) dated November 14, 2003, Nonindicted Party 1’s name is stated and sealed by Nonindicted Party 1, the partner of Nonindicted Party 6 Co. 1, the representative director of the Defendant, and Nonindicted Party 1, the partner of the instant sales contract, using the pentle, despite the consent of the Defendant, with the aim of having Nonindicted Party 1 criminal

Around June 23, 2004, at the office of ○○○○○○ Attorney-at-law located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, a letter of complaint stating that “ Nonindicted Party 1, the Defendant at the Defendant’s complaint, made an alteration of private documents on rights and obligations by stating and sealing the name of the Defendant without the consent of the complainant on November 14, 2003 on the purchaser column of the real estate sales contract concerning the land of this case,” and submitting the above letter of complaint to the public service center of the Suwon-gu, Suwon-dong, Suwon-dong, Suwon-dong, Suwon-dong, a temporary closure of Nonindicted Party 1 by submitting the above letter of complaint

3. The facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 agreed to operate a logistics warehouse business as seen above in the Defendant’s proposal; (b) KRW 80,00,000 borne by Nonindicted Party 1 as the down payment of the above sales contract; (c) the amount invested by Nonindicted Party 1 as part of the above sales contract; and (d) Nonindicted Party 1 consented to the entry and sealing of the name in the purchaser column of the above real estate sales contract; (c) upon Nonindicted Party 1’s request, the Defendant directly affixed the rubber and the Defendant’s official seal on the copy of the above real estate sales contract; and (d) Nonindicted Party 1’s sending a facsimile of the draft of the said sales contract, the purpose of Nonindicted Party 1’

A. A. On January 26, 2005, at the court court located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the U.S. District Court 2004Kadan5234, on Non-indicted 1, the defendant appeared and testified after taking an oath as a witness of the first instance trial of the defendant's case, such as the fabrication of private document at the court room located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the defendant raised a false statement contrary to memory by stating that "the defendant is an employee of the company operated by the witness, and the above KRW 80 million is borrowed from the defendant as the defendant was employed as an employee, and the purchaser of the real estate sales contract at the above real estate sales contract was completely aware of the fact that the defendant stated his name and affixed his name, and later became aware at the same time as the previous lease contract was forged."

B. Around September 28, 2005, at the court of the court below in the U.S. on the jurisdiction of the Suwon District Court, the defendant appeared as a witness of the appellate court on the charge of forging Private Document No. 2005No1685 against Non-indicted 1, and testified after being sworn, the defendant presented a false statement that "no memory shall be memory with respect to the facts that the defendant received the draft of the same business contract" and presented a false statement contrary to memory.

1. Part of the statements of the defendant in the sixth trial records;

1. Part of the witness’s statement in the fourth trial record, Nonindicted 1’s statement and Nonindicted 7’s statement in the fifth trial record

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including Nonindicted 1's statement)

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 9

1. Each police protocol against Nonindicted 10, 11, and 12

1. Copies of trial records;

1. Each protocol of examination of witness (Evidence records 99 to 147 pages);

1. Investigation report (Attachment, such as a copy of application for new establishment of a factory and a copy of application for permission for conversion of a mountainous district, and attachment of written judgment);

1. A sales contract for a purchaser, the president of each account, a written resolution for disbursement, a draft of the same business contract, a complaint (record 92 pages), a certified copy of the real estate register, a written agreement, and each letter;

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

(a) Breach of trust: Article 1 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 355 (2) of the Criminal Act;

(b) Point of accusation: Article 156 (Selection of Imprisonment with Labor)

(c) The point of each maternity perjury: Article 152 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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, which is the largest penalty]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered as favorable to the reasons for sentencing)

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts as follows:

① The Defendant borrowed KRW 80 million from the victim to use it as the funds for the purchase of the instant land. The Defendant employed the victim as the employee of the Defendant Company, thereby doing business related to the purchase of the instant land and the construction of a warehouse, and it does not constitute a crime of breach of trust since there was no agreement with the victim to do so.

② Since the victim had altered the contract by stating “Non-Indicted 1” in the buyer column of the instant contract after sunset without the consent of the Defendant, the Defendant who filed the complaint is not guilty of false accusation.

(3) Since all statements made by the defendant after attending the court in a criminal case against the victim are true, perjury is not established against the defendant.

2. Basic facts

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

A. A. Around September 2003, the Defendant attempted to purchase the land owned by the victim located in the Dongcheon-ri, a victim had already sold the said land to a third party when the Defendant met the victim. After that, the Defendant, around October 2003, intended to purchase the instant land through the brokerage between Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11 while coloring the site for the new construction of a logistics warehouse with the victim who was well aware of the land development and authorization procedures.

B. On November 14, 2003, the Defendant decided to purchase the instant land in KRW 879 billion between Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5, the owner of the instant land, and concluded a sales contract with the effect that the payment of the down payment KRW 100 million shall be made on the date of concluding the contract and the remainder shall be paid after receiving a loan as security for the instant land.

The above sales contract was concluded at the office of Magsan, which is located in the Donggsan-dong, and Nonindicted 13, the secretary of the above office of the certified judicial scrivener, prepared a draft of the sales contract (the first chapter for the buyer, the first chapter for the seller, and the first chapter for the custody of the certified judicial scrivener office) and signed and sealed the name of “Nonindicted 6 Co., Ltd. and one other” in the seller’s column and “Nonindicted 4 and 5” in the seller’s column, but until then the victim did not appear at the above location.

The buyer's name and seal shall not be affixed to the seller's contract for the above sales contract and the contract for keeping the certified judicial scrivener's office, but the buyer's name and seal shall be affixed to the buyer's column of the sales contract of this case, which is the contract for buyer.

C. After March 2004, the Defendant obtained permission to establish a new factory on the instant land (the Defendant, on December 20, 2003, obtained an application for approval to establish a new factory in the name of the non-indicted 6 corporation) and received the permission alone.

D. On April 14, 2004, the Defendant: (a) drafted a written agreement with Nonindicted 4 and 5, the seller of the instant land, to the effect that “The real estate sales contract becomes null and void as of November 14, 2003; and (b) entered into a new real estate sales contract; (c) the purchaser’s name is designated by the Defendant and the Defendant; (d) applied for the change of the name of the factory establishment permission to Nonindicted 2 Co., Ltd. on April 20, 2004; and (d) entered into a new real estate sales contract with Nonindicted 4 and 5 on May 20, 204 as to the instant land.

E. After that, while asking Nonindicted 9, who had entered into a design service contract for the land of this case, sought the time when the application for a change of the purpose of use of the land of this case was received in the name of another person, and the Defendant came to know that he had entered into a new sales contract as above, around June 1, 2004, on the land of this case, the seller of this case filed an application for a provisional injunction against the disposal of real estate at Liwon District Court branch as the other party to the sales contract of this case. On April 7 of the same month, the seller, who had accepted the above provisional injunction application, filed a lawsuit of objection immediately, and on April 26, 2005, the above provisional injunction was accepted, and the registration of the provisional injunction was revoked on May 16, 2005.

F. Upon the cancellation of the provisional disposition registration as above, the Defendant borrowed the instant land as collateral and paid the balance to the seller on June 29, 2005, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts as to the instant land on June 29, 2005, and newly constructed a logistics warehouse on the ground by September 2006, and sold the instant land and its ground logistics warehouse on December 18, 2006 to Nonindicted Co. 14 in KRW 28 billion.

G. Meanwhile, on June 23, 2004, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Suwon-nam Police Station for the crime of altering a private document against the victim, etc. (Article 2 of the Act). On April 20, 2005, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment convicting the victim of the crime of altering a private document. However, on the other hand, the victim appealed from the court of appeal on August 21, 2007, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the victim entered his name in the sales contract for the buyer without the consent of the defendant and the seller, and the judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

H. The Defendant appeared as a witness in the above criminal trial against the victim and testified with the same content as stated in Paragraph 3 of the crime.

3. Determination

A. Whether the crime of breach of trust is established

(1) Whether the defendant has a business relationship with the non-indicted 1

(A) As to the character of KRW 80 million paid by the Defendant from Nonindicted 1, the Defendant did not prepare a loan certificate for the above KRW 80 million, and the Defendant himself did not have any specific discussion about the period of repayment, interest rate, interest for arrears, etc., and the Defendant argued that the victim was the victim as of December 5, 2003, and December 9, 2003. However, the head of the account ledger of Nonindicted 6 Co., Ltd. stated the “loan” as “business promotion expenses” or “business expenses” at first, and it is difficult to view that the above phrase was deleted as the loan interest and the change was made to the “payment interest,” in light of the fact that it was reasonable to view that the victim was directly delivered the loan amount to the seller at the place where the contract of this case was concluded.

(B) As to whether the victim was an employee of Nonindicted Company 2, the Defendant stated that the victim was employed as an employee of Nonindicted Company 2 at the first instance court of the above case, such as the fabrication of the above private document, and that the victim was also submitted a resume of 80 million won. However, the time when the victim was registered as an employee of Nonindicted Company 2 on or around December 3, 2003, the Defendant already borrowed KRW 80 million from the victim on or around November 14, 2003, and the resume received from the victim was written on November 29, 2003, and it is difficult to view the victim’s statement that the victim was merely a vice president of Nonindicted Company 2, and that it was difficult for the victim to have submitted the above resume to find employment with Nonindicted Company 2. The victim’s statement that was written on or around July 14, 200, which was written in the name of Nonindicted Company 2, and that it was difficult for the victim to have made a false statement with Nonindicted Company 15.

(C) In light of the above circumstances and the following, the Defendant, as at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, concluded a partnership agreement with the victim to purchase the instant land and to newly construct a logistics warehouse on the ground, and concluded a sales contract for the instant land by receiving investment of KRW 80 million from the victim, in full view of the fact that the victim is deemed to have consented to enter the purchaser column in the sales contract for the instant buyer.

(2) Defendant’s breach of trust

The defendant purchased the land of this case with the victim and newly constructed a logistics warehouse, and entered into a trade contract on the land of this case for investment of KRW 80 million from the victim, and thus, the defendant has the duty to incorporate the land of this case for the victim who is the partner. Therefore, on or around March 14, 2004, the defendant entered into a new sales contract with the seller around April 14, 2004 to exclude the victim from the new factory establishment permission for the land of this case, and completely denied the relationship between the victim and the seller, and eventually, on June 29, 2005, a series of acts registered in the name of the defendant and the defendant with respect to the land of this case under the name of the defendant and the defendant constitute the crime of breach of trust against the victim. Accordingly, the defendant acquired the property equivalent to KRW 879,00,000,000 from the sales price of the land of this case and caused considerable damage to the victim.

B. Whether the crime of false accusation is established

(1) The following circumstances are acknowledged by the above facts and evidence. ① With respect to the details of the victim’s name in the column of the sales contract, the victim’s name was stated in the column of the sales contract, and the victim’s name was stated in the column of the buyer’s name, and the seal was stated in the column of the sales contract for the buyer’s name. The victim’s name was stated in the “non-indicted 6’s representative director,” and the Defendant’s name was stated in the column of the sales contract for the purchase and sale, and the seal was stated in the copy of the contract for the above purchase and sale, and the Defendant’s name was stated in the “non-indicted 6’s name and seal affixed to the non-indicted 6’s name and seal affixed to the non-indicted 6’s name and seal affixed to the non-indicted 6’s name and seal affixed to the victim’s name and seal affixed to the non-indicted 6’s name and seal affixed to the non-indicted 6’s name and seal affixed to the above non-indicted 7’s employee.

(2) Therefore, the Defendant’s accusation against the victim to the effect that “the victim voluntarily entered the name of the victim in the next entry of Nonindicted 6 Co., Ltd. and one other than Defendant 1” in the buyer column in the instant sales contract constitutes a crime of false accusation.

C. Determination as to whether perjury is established

① As seen above, the Defendant was in a partnership business relationship with the victim in purchasing the instant land, and it is recognized that the victim received KRW 80 million from the victim as well as the amount of investment that was not borrowed, and ② Nonindicted 7, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 2, stated in this court that “the victim received the draft of the same business contract from the victim by facsimile around April 10, 2004, and reported it to the Defendant by telephone.” In full view of the above, the Defendant’s testimony as stated in paragraph (3) of the criminal facts in the judgment can be acknowledged.

The crime of this case was committed in order for the defendant to register the real estate in his name and sell it to the logistics center without excluding the victim who has a business relationship with him, and to accomplish his argument that the victim is not in a business relationship with him, and the victim was present at the court in relation to the case in which the victim filed a complaint, and the crime is heavy. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed, and even though the defendant appears to have sold the land and the building on the ground of this case to 28 billion won, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant as to the defendant, since he did not properly cause damage to the victim.

However, there is no previous conviction other than the defendant who was sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the actual amount of the defendant's investment in the same business of this case seems to be merely 80 million won of down payment, and the defendant deposited 80 million won for the victim, and the actual damage of the victim seems to have not been distributed the expected profit to be earned as a partner. In this case, the fact that it is difficult to calculate the expected profit in cash is considered as favorable to the defendant, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, and environment, and all other circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and environment, shall be determined in one year and six months.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Jae-jin (Presiding Judge)