Defendant 1 and one other

Freeboard lero(s) and groce(s)

Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorney Shin Young-chul

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for 17 years and by imprisonment for 4 years, respectively.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each fraud related to the death insurance money and attempted fraud against Defendant 2 shall be acquitted.

" 2016, 501"

1. The defendants' relation

Defendant 1 was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with labor at Suwon District Court on September 9, 2003 due to a criminal fact (Fraud, etc.) that was used with a credit card in the name of the disabled, the elderly, etc., and Defendant 2 is related to Defendant 1.

2. The Defendants’ co-principal (Fraud accident insurance)

On March 209, the Defendants discovered Nonindicted Party 1, whose intellectual level is elementary school 2 and 3 years and alcohol addiction status, and subscribed to the insurance in the name of Nonindicted Party 1, who is not capable of being insured by themselves, for the following reasons: (a) the Defendants could not recognize the meaning and necessity of the insurance; (b) could not recognize the meaning of the insurance and the ability to pay insurance premiums and prepare insurance contracts; and (c) could not receive personal verification calls from the insurance company with little words and horses; and (d) could not receive them.

Since then, the Defendants opened a bank account in the name of Non-Indicted 1 using the personal information of Non-Indicted 1 and the identification card of Non-Indicted 1, prepared an application for purchase of insurance, and submitted it to the insurance company. After Defendant 2, upon the occurrence of a personal confirmation phone from the insurance company, knew that Non-Indicted 1 had the ability to maintain it by deceiving the insurance company as if he had the ability to buy a normal insurance and receive a telephone from Non-Indicted 1, and paid an insurance premium of about 500,000 won per month from August 18, 2009 to September 16, 2010.

On October 15, 2009, the Defendants deposited Nonindicted 1 in the △△△ Hospital located in Ansan-si ( Address 2 omitted) after Non-Indicted 1 suffered an injury, such as the chilling complex, etc., after he was discharged from the toilet door at his home on October 17, 2009. On November 25, 2009, Non-Indicted 1 was hospitalized in the △△△△△ Hospital located in Ansan-si ( Address 2 omitted), and filed a claim for an accident insurance money with the victim Nonindicted 2 Co., Ltd. on or around November 25, 2009, received KRW 1,280,000 from November 24, 2009 to August 9, 2010 as the insurance money in the name of Non-Indicted 1 was deposited in the name of Non-Indicted 47,315,190 won in total from the seven damaged insurance companies as shown in the attached Table 1.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to attract the victim company to receive property.

3. Defendant 1’s sole criminal conduct

(a) Fraudulent or attempted fraud;

When Nonindicted Party 1 dies due to alcohol addiction, etc., the Defendant had 10 life/damage insurance purchased under the name of Nonindicted Party 1 to receive the death insurance money, and had already been in a relationship with Defendant 2. As such, even though there was no intent to maintain a normal matrimonial relationship, the Defendant reported the marriage with Nonindicted Party 1 on August 19, 2010, and based on this, reported the marriage with Nonindicted Party 1 to the nine insurance companies subscribed under the name of Nonindicted Party 1 as if Nonindicted Party 1 applied for the change of the beneficiary of the death insurance money from September 2010, and changed the beneficiary to the Defendant who is the husband under law.

On January 29, 201, when Nonindicted 1 died at the Gyeonggi-si ( Address 1 omitted) and ○○○○○○’s home on or around January 29, 2011, the Defendant claimed death insurance money to the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 Company on or around April 14, 2011 and received KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant on April 18, 201. From that time to June 13, 201, Nonindicted 1 received KRW 319,000,000 in total from nine insurance companies as shown in the attached Table 2, and around April 26, 201, the Defendant refused to pay KRW 10,00 under the name of the victim Nonindicted Co. 3 Company on or around April 20, 200. However, the Defendant did not have any suspicion of refusing to pay the death insurance money.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim companies listed in 2/1 or 9 attached Table 2/1 or 9, received property, and attempted to receive property by deceiving the victim Nonindicted Co. 3 corporation.

(b) Abandonment;

On August 19, 2010, the Defendant is the husband of the law who reported the marriage with the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (mast, 43 years of age) around August 19, 201.

The victim was hospitalized in the hospital at the time of destination due to the high growth salt, salvosis, and so on, from October 11, 201 to 13 of the same month, immediately after the Defendant’s report of marriage. From November 8 to August 18 of the same year, the victim was hospitalized in the hospital at the time of destination, salvosis, and so on, the disease was aggravated because of the mental capacity of elementary school since it was merely 2 and 3 years before the discharge, and the victim was likely to have died, and the disease was not aggravated due to alcohol addiction, and the victim could no longer drink the above disease.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not look at the victims who need assistance due to disease and alcohol addiction, and even when visiting the house of the victims, he did so from around October 2010 to around October 201. Even when he did so, on January 28, 2011, the Defendant left the victim, such as the victim, while leaving the victim as they were, even though he did not look at the victim who was in need of assistance due to disease and alcohol addiction, and had the victim die from his own house of the ○○○○○○ head (to be presumed to be a deadly, alcohol, liver, salt, and salt). Even on January 28, 2011, the Defendant left the victim, such as the victim, while leaving the victim as they were, led to the death of the victim (or an address 1 omitted), at around 16:00, Jan. 29, 201, and the victim’s house of the Defendant’s home (to be presumed to be a deadly, alcohol, alcohol, liver, and salt).

" 2017Gohap8"

1. Structure of the crime of fraud in the loan of money on a deposit basis for false workers;

In order to stabilize the housing of homeless workers, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport operates a housing lease loan system with the National Housing Fund as a source of funds to lend the employee deposit funds at a rate lower than the market interest rate without securing the said funds.

The crime of fraud of lending the fund for the fund for the fund for the fund for the fund for the loan of false workers is based on the circumstances such as the loan broker’s total responsibilities, the loan broker’s loan-related documents and the loan broker’s loan-related business related to the fund for the loan of workers to the financial institution entrusted with the business of lending the fund for the loan of the fund for the loan of workers, and the submission of the loan broker’s loan-related documents and the loan broker’s loan broker’s loan-related business can easily obtain the loan through formal review. The loan broker’s loan broker’s loan-related business is to recruit the house owner who will play a false broker’s role under the direction of the loan broker’s comprehensive broker’s loan broker’s loan, and to make false employment-related documents such as employment certificate, payment statement, income tax withholding certificate, etc. as if the loan is actually concluded.

2. Defendants’ crimes

On March 2013, the Defendants conspiredd with Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, etc., and Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 7 to recruit the lessor and lessee to enter into a false lease contract; the Defendants’ role of preparing false documents, such as a certificate of employment necessary for the loan of housing lease; Nonindicted 4 recruited the title holder to conduct business registration necessary for the false proof of employment; and to respond to the verification of financial institutions.

According to the public invitation as above, the Defendants and the above accomplices recruited Nonindicted 8, a false lessor, and Nonindicted 9, a false lessee, respectively. On July 24, 2014, around July 2014, at the office of “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Licensed Real Estate Agent for Do,” located in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 4 omitted), Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 10, the mother of Nonindicted 8, to Nonindicted 9, a false lease contract was prepared as if they leased the Eunpyeong-gu ( Address 5 omitted) to Nonindicted 9 KRW 120 million for two years, and around that time, Nonindicted 9 would normally work in the city of Ansan-si ( Address 6 omitted), ○○○○○, and then prepared a false employment certificate, a health insurance qualification certificate, a income tax withholding certificate, etc., and issued it to Nonindicted 9.

그 후 공소외 9는 2014. 8. 4.경 서울 은평구 ◎◎1동에 있는 피해자 ◁◁은행 ◎◎동지점에서 성명을 알 수 없는 대출 담당 직원에게 8,000만 원의 전세자금 대출을 신청하면서 위와 같이 허위로 작성된 다가구주택전세계약서, 재직증명서, 건강보험자격득실확인서, 소득세원천징수확인서 등을 함께 교부하였다. 그러나 사실 공소외 9는 위 임대차 목적물을 임차하여 그 곳에 거주할 생각이 전혀 없었고, 위 ‘▽▽▽’은 공소외 4가 공소외 11의 명의를 빌려 사업자등록을 한 업체로서 공소외 9가 그 곳에서 근무를 하거나 급여를 받은 사실이 전혀 없었으며, 전세자금 대출을 받으면 이를 피고인들을 비롯한 관련된 사람들과 나누어 쓸 생각이었을 뿐 이를 임대차보증금으로 사용할 의사가 전혀 없었다.

이로써 피고인들은 공소외 4, 공소외 5, 공소외 6, 공소외 7 등과 공모하여 위와 같이 피해자를 기망하고 이에 속은 피해자로부터 2014. 8. 8.경 공소외 10 명의의 ◁◁은행 계좌로 근로자 주택전세자금 대출 명목으로 8,000만 원을 교부받은 것을 비롯하여 2013. 5. 3.경부터 2014. 11. 28.경까지 별지 범죄일람표 3에 기재된 것과 같이 위와 같은 방법으로 총 8회에 걸쳐 피해자들로부터 합계 5억 2,500만 원 상당의 근로자 주택전세자금을 교부받았다.

" 2016, 501"

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 13, and Nonindicted 6

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 17, and Nonindicted 17 recorded in the fourth trial record, which are written in the third trial record.

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of each prosecutor's suspect against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol regarding Nonindicted 4

1. A copy of the statement made by the police against the defendant 1 (family member, second time);

1. Each police statement against Nonindicted 17 and Nonindicted 12 (the defendant's defense counsel against Nonindicted 12 is different from the date of preparation and the place of statement made by the police, and the part confirming the authenticity of the statement made at the end of the protocol is a disturbance. However, the date and place of preparation different from the actual one appears to be a clerical error, and the part of the preparation of the protocol does not reach the extent of denying admissibility of evidence, and thus, it is admissible as evidence, since the legality of the preparation of the protocol is recognized as well as it is proven to be genuine by the court statement made by Nonindicted 12. However, the police's written statement against Nonindicted 13 is not proven to be genuine by the court statement made by Nonindicted 13, and it is not admissible as evidence).

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 18, and Nonindicted 16 (including each accompanying document)

1. Each written statement (including each accompanying document) of Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, and Nonindicted 26

1. Each investigation report (No. 17,27, 120, 125, 135, 143, 151, 154, 159, 164, and 168 (including each accompanying document) in the order of evidence);

1. Each written diagnosis and written autopsy on Nonindicted 1

1. A written request to investigate insurance crimes (Nonindicted 3), Nonindicted Company 27 insurance data, Nonindicted Company 28 insurance data, Nonindicted Company 29 insurance data, Nonindicted Company 30 insurance data, Nonindicted Company 31 insurance data, Nonindicted Company 32 insurance data, Nonindicted Company 33 insurance data, Nonindicted Company 34 insurance data, Nonindicted Company 34 insurance data, Nonindicted Company 2 insurance data, and Nonindicted Company 35 insurance data

" 2017Gohap8"

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 11, and part of Nonindicted 4’s legal statement

1. Statement of the witness Nonindicted 8 written in the sixth trial record;

1. Each prosecutor's office and police suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 38, and Nonindicted 9

1. Each police interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 40, and Nonindicted 41

1. Each police protocol against Nonindicted 42 and Nonindicted 36 (the police protocol against Nonindicted 11 is not proven to be genuine by Nonindicted 11’s legal statement, and thus inadmissible as evidence is not admissible)

1. A copy of each police statement made against Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 44, and Nonindicted 45

1. The statement of Nonindicted 37

1. Each investigation report (including each accompanying document) Nos. 1, 23, 25, 33, 38, 39, 40, 44, 49, 50, 51, 53, 58, 59, 65, and 70 in the order of evidence;

1. Application for investigation and reexamination, and statement of self-denunciation;

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

Defendant 1-Defendant 1: each Criminal Code Article 347 (Fraud; Fraud related to the bodily injury insurance money is added to Article 30 of the Criminal Code; Fraud of the bodily injury insurance money is covered by insurance company; choice of imprisonment; criminal law Articles 352, 347 (Attempted Fraud; Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Code; latter part of Article 275(1) of the Criminal Code; Article 271(1) of the Criminal Code (Death or Injury)

Defendant 2: Articles 347 and 30 of the Criminal Code (In all respect of frauds and insurance companies, choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes of Death resulting from Heavy Abandonment)

피고인 2 : 형법 제37조 전단, 제38조 제1항 제2호 , 제50조 (범정이 가장 무거운 2014. 11. 28.자 주식회사 ◁◁은행에 대한 사기죄에 정한 형에 경합범 가중)

1. Defendant 1

(a) "Insurance money" (Fraud) 2016,501;

【Scope of Recommendation】

General Fraud> Type 2 (at least KRW 100, but less than KRW 500,00) : Special Aggravation (at least 2 years to 9 years)

【Special Person under Guard】

Where a crime has been committed repeatedly for a considerable period of time, the method of crime acceptance is very poor.

(b) "Death or injury caused by abandonment" (referring to death or injury caused by abandonment);

【Scope of Recommendation】

Where the result of the death of abandonment and abuse>>> Type 1 (Death Caused by Abandonment and Abuse)>>>>>

【Special Person under Guard】

The motive for the crime that may be criticized;

(c) "2017 Highly 8" (Basse loan fraud);

【Scope of Recommendation】

Form 3 (at least KRW 500 million, less than KRW 5 billion) of the Organizational Fraud Act,

* descriptive criteria: 2-stage increase in type as a result of adding up the same competition;

【Special Person under Guard】

Where the person led the commission of fraud, or led the execution thereof, has committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time.

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: 3 to 19 August 19.

(d) Determination of sentence;

The crime of the 2016 Man-Ma501 case is extremely bad to result in death by using Nonindicted 1, who has low mental capacity for the purpose of acquiring insurance proceeds from the damaged insurance company, and abandoning Nonindicted 1. Moreover, insurance fraud is an offense that undermines the purpose of the insurance system, i.e., reasonable diversification of risks, and imposes a burden on many good subscribers. The sum of the amount of insurance proceeds obtained through the above crime reaches the cost of KRW 350 million. The Defendant is superior to the above crime, and the Defendant is superior to the defense, and there is no effort to agree with Nonindicted 1’s bereaved family members or the insurance company that suffered from the above crime, or to make any effort to pay for damage. The Defendant has been punished for fraud by using credit cards in the name of the past intellectual disabled and the elderly.

On the other hand, the crime of the 2017 Gohap8 was committed by acquiring loans, which are public funds, in a planned and organized manner, by taking advantage of the hub of the housing charter loan system implemented by the State to stabilize the housing of homeless workers. The Defendant, as the total liability for the above crime, led all the crime by producing false documents and ordering accomplices to commit the crime. The amount of damage caused by the above crime reaches KRW 525 million in total. The Defendant did not agree with the financial institution that inflicted damage on the crime. The Defendant did not endeavor to recover damage. The Defendant did not cooperate with the investigative agency and intended to conceal the crime. The Defendant did not cooperate with the investigation agency, and the Defendant tried to conceal the crime. The Defendant had a history of having been punished for suspension of execution once by the same law as the above crime.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and behavior, career, family relationship, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, and all the sentencing circumstances shown in the records and arguments shall be sentenced to the punishment of the defendant.

2. Defendant 2

(a) "2016 Highest 501" (Accidents of accident insurance);

【Scope of Recommendation】

General Fraud> Type 1 (less than KRW 100,00) â……………………………………………§)).

【Special Person under Guard】

Where a crime has been committed repeatedly for a considerable period of time, the method of crime acceptance is very poor.

(b) "2017 Highly 8" (B)

【Scope of Recommendation】

Form 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won), the basic area (at least 2-7 years) of the Act.

* descriptive criteria: 2-stage increase in type as a result of adding up the same competition;

[Special Mitigation (Aggravated Aggravation)]

In the case of repeated crimes for a considerable period of time

* The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: 2 years to 8 October 15, 2000

(c) Determination of sentence;

The crime of the 2016 High 501 case (accident insurance fraud) is highly harmful to society by taking advantage of Nonindicted 1, who had a mental capacity low under the conspiracy with Defendant 1 in an internal-related relationship, by taking advantage of Nonindicted 1, who acquired the insurance proceeds of KRW 40 million. In particular, the Defendant played a key role in the process of committing the above crime, such as taking one person into account the insurance contract in the name of Nonindicted 1 and preparing a claim for the payment of the insurance proceeds. The Defendant did not agree with the insurance company that caused the above crime and did not make any particular effort for the recovery of damage.

On the other hand, the crime of the 2017 Highest 8 case was committed by acquiring loans, which are public funds, in a planned and organized manner, by taking advantage of the hubs of the housing charter loan system implemented by the State to stabilize the housing of homeless workers. The amount of damage caused by the crime reaches KRW 50 million. The Defendant did not agree with the financial institution that caused the crime, and did not endeavor to recover the damage.

However, the degree of the defendant's participation in the case of 2017 Gohap8 is relatively small, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and behavior, career, family relationship, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, and all the sentencing circumstances shown in the records and arguments shall be sentenced to the punishment of the defendant.

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant 1

1) The part concerning the fraud of insurance money with respect to Nonindicted Party 1

The part concerning the defraudation of insurance money with respect to Nonindicted Party 1 (hereinafter “the insurance fraud of this case”) is premised on the premise that Nonindicted Party 1 was unable to lead a social life on his own by lack of intellectual ability. However, Nonindicted Party 1 was a normal person, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Nonindicted Party 1 was lacking intellectual ability.

2) Part on abandonment death

The Defendant faithfully fulfilled his duty as his spouse by having Nonindicted Party 1 hospitalized in a hospital and receive medical treatment from a woman in childbirth, etc., and did not abandon Nonindicted Party 1.

3) Full-time loan fraud part

There is no fact that the Defendant was involved in the crime set forth in Nos. 1, 3, and 5 of the list of offenses set forth in the attached Table 3 of the previous loan fraud.

B. Defendant 2

1) The part of the instant insurance fraud amount

At the request of the defendant 1, the defendant only accepted the phone from the insurance company on behalf of the non-indicted 1, and there was no fact that he participated in the crime.

2) The former loan fraud part of the instant case

There is a fact that the defendant left the office of the defendant 1 and was not the defendant 1, but did not take part in the crime.

2. Determination

A. Defendant 1

1) Regarding the insurance fraud of the instant case (accident insurance money and death insurance money)

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant’s past criminal records [the Defendant was punished for fraud with a credit card issued and used in the name of the physically disabled or the elderly (hereinafter “crime of fraud 2003”)] in light of the following facts and circumstances: (a) the Defendant cannot determine the meaning or necessity of the insurance due to low intellectual ability; and (b) Defendant 2, who was in an internal relationship, purchased each of the instant insurance in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 by using Nonindicted Party 1, who had no intent or ability to maintain purchase of the insurance; and (c) obtained the injury insurance money and death insurance money from the damaged insurance company without knowledge of such fact by obtaining the payment of the injury insurance money and death insurance money as stated in the crime of this case.

가) 공소외 17은 공소외 1의 동생으로 공소외 1과 1993년경(공소외 1이 26세경)까지 만났고, 1998년경까지 연락을 주고받았다. 공소외 17의 진술 내용은 다음과 같다. ① 공소외 1은 착하고 부탁을 잘 들어주는 성격이다. 모르는 사람이라도 자신에게 친절하면 잘 따르고, 무서운 사람에게 겁이 많아 시키는 일은 무엇이든 한다. ② 공소외 1의 가족들은 공소외 1의 지능을 지적장애인이나 자폐까지는 아니어도 초등학교 1~3학년 수준으로 보고 있다(공소외 1의 어머니는 공소외 1을 ‘반평’이라고 불렀다). 공소외 1은 초등학생 수준의 글을 쓸 수 있고 옆에서 불러주는 대로 글을 쓸 수 있지만 혼자 병원에 가서 치료를 받거나 보험을 들 정도의 지능은 없다고 생각한다. ③ 공소외 1은 언어장애가 있어 말의 첫마디를 여러 번 더듬고, 모르는 사람과는 대화가 힘들다. 공소외 1은 말을 잘 하려고 하지 않았다. ④ 공소외 1은 기계를 잘 다루지 못했고, 온수를 트는 방법을 몰라 추운 겨울에도 찬물로 샤워하곤 했다. ⑤ 공소외 1은 알콜중독까지는 아니어도 술을 좋아했고, 20세경 술을 먹고 부모님께 혼난 후 가출했다. ⑥ 공소외 1은 1990년경 결혼해 시댁에서 살면서 1남 1녀를 두었다. 공소외 1은 술을 마시고 아이를 술집에 두고 나오거나 아이들을 버려두고 집을 나가 술을 마시곤 했다. 공소외 1의 시어머니는 공소외 1이 반복적인 가정살림도 잘 하지 못한다고 하소연하기도 했다. 공소외 1은 시댁에서도 술을 먹고 가출해 행방불명되었다.

B) According to Non-Indicted 1’s living record book (No. 6, No. 3, No. 1140 of the evidence record), the nature of Non-Indicted 1’s school creativity was overall but passive. Non-Indicted 1 was deemed to have diminished the academic achievement as the first grade of an elementary school, and Non-Indicted 1 was evaluated to have a lack of basic understanding ability every year with the lowest right in a middle school and high school (even at night). Non-Indicted 1 also showed symptoms in the second grade of a high school.

다) 공소외 17의 진술에 의하면, 공소외 1은 돈에 대한 개념이 없고 누군가 도와주지 않으면 물건 값을 제대로 계산하지 못했다. 또 공소외 1은 고등학교 졸업 후 공장에서 몇 개월 일한 적이 있지만 부림을 당하다가 월급도 제대로 받지 못하고 일을 그만 두었다. 한편, 공소외 1이 2005. 7. 4.경 월 보험료 2만 원의 의료보장보험인 ▷▷▷▷▷▷▷화재보험에 가입한 내역이 있는데(당시 공소외 1의 직업은 ‘♤♤’라는 술집의 종업원으로 기재되어 있음. 증거기록 제6책 제2권 331쪽), 이 보험은 공소외 46 명의의 통장에서 보험료가 자동이체 되다가 2007. 11. 1.경 보험료 납입 실효로 해지되었다. 이 사건 이전에 공소외 1에게 보험금이 지급된 내역은 없다.

라) 다음과 같이 이 사건 보험계약들의 체결, 보험금의 청구 및 지급 등에 있어서 피고인과 피고인 2의 행위가 개입되어 있다. ① 공소외 1은 2009. 8. 18.부터 2009. 10. 1.까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표 1 순번 제1 내지 8번에 기재된 7개 보험회사의 7개 의료보장성보험(이하 ‘이 사건 상해보험들’이라 한다)에, 2010. 8. 1.부터 2010. 9. 16.까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표 2 순번 제8 내지 10번에 기재된 3개 보험회사의 3개 생명보험(사망시 보장되는 생명보험금 합계 5억 원, 이하 ‘이 사건 생명보험들’이라 한다)에 각각 가입하였다. 이와 같이 공소외 1 명의로 가입된 이 사건 보험에는 청약자가 보험가입을 신청하면 보험회사가 청약자에게 확인전화(일명 ‘해피콜’)를 하는 형태로 보험계약을 체결하는 경우가 많은데, 피고인 2는 피고인의 부탁을 받고 마치 본인이 공소외 1인 것처럼 행세하며 공소외 1에게로 오는 해피콜을 모두 받아 보험계약을 체결하였다(피고인, 피고인 2의 각 검찰진술). ② 공소외 1의 보험가입신청서나 보험금지급 청구서에 기재된 전화번호들[(휴대전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 47 명의), (휴대전화번호 2 생략)(공소외 48 명의)]의 개통명의인은 당시 피고인이 사용하고 있던 전화번호들의 개통명의인과 일치한다. ③ 피고인과 피고인 2는 공소외 1의 2009. 10. 15.자 상해사고(이하 ‘이 사건 상해사고’라고 한다)로 인한 보험금을 지급받기 위해 2009. 11. 23. 병원에 입원 중이던 공소외 1과 함께 ♡♡에 방문하여 공소외 1 명의의 계좌(계좌번호 생략)를 신설하였다(피고인 2의 검찰 진술). ④ 공소외 1이 공소외 35 주식회사(이하 ‘공소외 35 회사’라고 한다)에서 가입한 보험은 공소외 35 회사의 보험설계사 공소외 49가 피고인으로부터 공소외 1을 소개받아 보험계약을 체결한 것이다(한편 공소외 34 주식회사와 체결한 보험계약도 공소외 49가 모집인으로 기재되어 있다). 공소외 35 회사는 2010년 3월경에 이 사건 상해사고의 경위에 대해 조사하려고 공소외 1측에 연락해 사고 장소 방문을 요청하였으나 공소외 4(피고인 2의 오빠)가 자신이 공소외 1의 친척이라고 주장하면서 조사를 거부하였다(증거기록 제6책 제3권 713쪽 이하). ⑤ 피고인 2는 이 사건 상해사고로 인한 보험금청구서를 공소외 1을 대신하여 작성하였고, 이를 공소외 27 회사, 공소외 28 주식회사, 공소외 31 주식회사, 공소외 33 주식회사, 공소외 34 주식회사, 공소외 35 회사에 각각 제출하였다(피고인 2의 검찰 진술). 피고인은 공소외 1과 함께 공소외 3 주식회사(이하 ‘공소외 3 회사’라 한다)에 방문하여 공소외 1의 사망사고 발생시 생명보험금 수익자를 피고인으로 변경하였다(증거기록 제6책 제2권 203쪽).

E) In the process of concluding multiple insurance contracts, both Defendant and Defendant 2 did not explain that Defendant 2 was able to obtain for the reasons that Defendant 2 received on behalf of Nonindicted Party 1. Moreover, the Defendant’s statement related to the reason is not consistent (the content is gradually embodied while changing little amount of money) and Defendant 2’s statement are inconsistent as follows.

(1) The Defendant, at the time of receiving an investigation from the insurance company, stated that Nonindicted Party 1 was unaware of the fact that he/she was insured, and that he/she was well aware of the instant injury accident, and made a statement from the investigation stage as follows. ① Prosecution: Nonindicted Party 1 was allowed to make a speech and make a telephone as ordinary people. Nonindicted Party 1 was an insurance that Nonindicted Party 1 directly subscribed to a TV broadcast report, and Nonindicted Party 1 asked Defendant 2 to receive a sea call instead of Defendant 2 because he/she was unable to know that he/she was well aware of the fact that he/she was insured. ② The court: Nonindicted Party 1 was put in the front of the instant accident, such as the mold, and it may be until the end. In the situation where Nonindicted Party 1 was deducted, Nonindicted Party 1 asked Defendant 2 to receive a telephone instead of Defendant 2.

(2) Defendant 2 stated at the prosecutor that Nonindicted Party 1 asked Defendant 2 to accept piracy from an insurance company in lieu of piracy, even if the Defendant 2 was annoyed to do so, at the same time as a normal person.

바) 공소외 1이 이 사건 상해보험들에 가입하여 취득한 보험금은 다음과 같은 이유로 보험금의 부당취득에 해당한다. 그런데 이 사건 상해사고로 인한 보험금 청구서 대부분은 피고인 2가 작성하여 각각의 보험회사에 제출한 것이고, 공소외 1 명의의 ♡♡계좌(계좌번호 생략)로 입금된 보험금들은 모두 지급 당일 현금자동인출기를 통해 현금이나 수표로 인출되었다(증거기록 제6책 제2권 517쪽 이하. 위 ♡♡계좌는 피고인과 피고인 2가 공소외 1과 함께 ♡♡을 방문해 개설한 것이다). 이와 같은 보험금의 비정상적인 인출행위는 공소외 1이 질병으로 입원하여 거동이 힘들었던 2010년 10월경 이후에도 동일하게 계속되었다. 이 사건 상해사고로 인하여 공소외 1의 위 ♡♡계좌에 지급된 보험금의 합계는 5,500만 원이고, 그 이후의 질병으로 인한 입원까지 포함하면 상해/질병 보험금의 합계는 1억 3,400만 원가량에 달하지만, 공소외 1 사망 당시 공소외 1이 가지고 있던 재산은 없었다.

① 이 사건 보험들에 가입할 당시 공소외 1에게는 별다른 재산이 없었고, 고정적인 수입원이나 직업도 없었다. 그럼에도 공소외 1 명의로 가입된 이 사건 보험들의 월 보험료 합계는 약 50만 원에 달한다. ② 이 사건 이전에 공소외 1이 가입한 보험은 1건에 불과했다. 반면, 이 사건 상해보험들(7개)은 2009. 8. 18.부터 2009. 10. 1.까지의 두 달이 채 되지 않은 기간 동안 집중적으로 가입되었고, 공소외 1이 이와 같이 다수의 보험에 가입해야 할 합리적 이유도 찾아볼 수 없다. ③ 이 사건 상해보험들은 보험모집인의 권유 등을 원인으로 가입된 것이 아니라 공소외 1 명의로 자발적으로 가입한 것이다. ④ 이 사건 상해보험들은 저축으로서의 성격이 없이 입원 1일당 각각 3~6만 원의 입원보상금을 지급하는 보험이고, 공소외 1은 이 사건 상해보험들에 가입한 이후 대부분을 여러 병원에 입원한 채 별다른 수입원 없이 생활하였다. ⑤ 공소외 1은 이 사건 상해사고를 사유로 6차례에 걸쳐 재입원 하였고 그 입원기간은 합계 181일에 달한다. 그런데 공소외 1의 위와 같은 6차례 재입원은 모두 퇴원한지 2일 이내에 이루어졌다(퇴원 당일 재입원 4차례, 퇴원한 다음 날 재입원 1차례, 퇴원한 2일 후 재입원 1차례) ⑥ 공소외 1이 이 사건 상해보험들에 가입한지 한 달 만에 이 사건 상해사고가 발생했고, 그 사고 내용은 화장실 문턱에 걸려 넘어져 왼쪽 정강이에 골절을 입었다는 것이다. ⑦ ●●●●●병원 정형외과 전문의 공소외 50은 공소외 1에 대한 엑스레이 사진에서 관찰할 수 있는 분절 골절 및 수평의 골절선이 경골 및 비골에 모두 나타나는 소견은 단순히 화장실에서 넘어져 발생하였을 가능성이 희박하며 단일 외력이 아닌 두 개 이상의 외력(직접적인 타격이나 인위적인 외력)이 가해져서 발생하였을 가능성이 높다는 것이었다. 또 공소외 50은 이 사건 상해사고로 인한 공소외 1의 상해는 단순히 물리치료만 필요한 정도이므로 의무기록이 제출된 공소외 1의 입원기간 106일 중 106일 전부가 입원치료가 필요 없는 기간이었다고 평가하였다(증거기록 제6책 제2권 574쪽 이하). ⑧ ▲▲한방병원의 간호사였던 공소외 13은 공소외 1이 ▲▲한방병원에 입원했던 기간 중(2010. 1. 19.부터 2010. 3. 2.까지) 특별히 다리가 불편해 보이지 않았고, 공소외 1이 알콜중독으로 입원한 것으로 생각하였다는 취지로 진술했다.

사) 공소외 13은 공소외 1이 ▲▲한방병원에 입원했을 당시의 모습을 다음과 같이 진술하였다. 이에 따르면 공소외 1이 과거 가족과 함께 생활하던 때에 비하여 특별히 달라진 점을 발견할 수 없다. ① 공소외 1은 병실에서 몰래 술을 많이 마셨고, 밖에서도 입원하기 전에 같이 술을 마셨던 노숙자(겉모습이 영락없는 노숙자이고 냄새도 많이 났으며 공소외 1은 그를 ‘오빠’라고 불렀다)와 술을 많이 먹었다. 공소외 1이 술을 먹고 병원 근처 주유소에 쓰러져 있는 것을 발견한 경찰이 그를 병원에 데리고 온 적도 있다. 공소외 1은 하루 종일 술에 취해 있는 경우가 많았다. ② 공소외 1은 윗니가 두 개 정도 없었고, 그냥 보기에 뭔가 부족한 사람처럼 보였다. 공소외 1은 정상인처럼 걷지 않았고(공소외 13은 공소외 1이 다리를 다쳤다는 사실을 몰랐다), 말을 시켜도 고개를 끄덕이거나 술을 먹지 말라는 것에 화를 내는 외에는 말은 잘 하지 않았다. ③ 공소외 1은 환자복에 소변을 보는 일이 많았다.

H) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 were in a relationship with the Defendant at the time of the instant case. In such circumstances, Nonindicted 1 reported the marriage to the Defendant, and Nonindicted 1 did not change the beneficiary of the death insurance (total of KRW 610 million) of the instant life insurance, which was purchased before and after the instant accident insurance report, into the Defendant as well as the instant accident insurance, into the Defendant (total of KRW 10,000,000), and most of them were changed to the Defendant (Nonindicted 1 was young at 43 years at the time, and two children and mother were the heir). Meanwhile, the Defendant and Nonindicted 1 asserted that the Defendant and Nonindicted 1 decided to change the beneficiary of the death insurance, but the beneficiary of the death insurance, which the Defendant subscribed, did not change to Nonindicted 1).

① 공소외 6은 피고인의 2003년 사기죄와 이 사건 전세자금대출사기 범행의 공범이다. 공소외 6은 2003년경 피고인 2를 피고인의 내연녀로 알게 되었다고 진술했다(공소외 6의 검찰 진술). ② 공소외 12는 피고인이 2007년 사기죄에서 사용한 자동차와 관련하여 피고인에게 자동차등록 명의를 빌려주었다. 당시 공소외 12는 피고인과 피고인 2를 함께 만났었고, 피고인 2가 피고인을 ‘자기야’라고 불렀다고 진술했다(공소외 12의 경찰 진술). ③ 피고인 2는 보험 사기범행에서 피고인의 부탁으로 공소외 1인 척 행사하며 피해 보험회사들로부터의 해피콜을 대신 받았고, 이 사건 상해보험금의 보험금지급 청구서를 작성하였다. 피고인 2는 피고인과 함께 자신들이 공소외 1의 동생이라고 하면서 공소외 1이 입원한 병원에 면회를 가기도 했고 ♡♡에 공소외 1 명의의 계좌를 개설하러 가는 등 피고인과 함께 행동하였다. ④ 피고인은 공소외 1과 혼인신고까지 한 사이나 공소외 1의 생일, 혼인신고일 등 공소외 1과 관련한 기본적인 사항에 대해서는 잘 기억하지 못하고 있다[피고인은 2010년 12월경부터 2011년 1월경까지 피해 보험회사들에 공소외 1의 입원으로 인한 보험금을 청구하였고, 공소외 1 사망 후에는 사망보험금을 청구하면서 수차례나 직접 공소외 1의 생년월일 등 인적사항을 기재하였다(각 보험금청구서, 제6책 제4권 1341쪽 이하)]. 피고인은 공소외 1과 혼인신고를 하고도 공소외 1과 동거하지 않았다. ⑤ 피고인과 피고인 2는 2012년경 함께 PC방을 운영하였다(공소외 4에 대한 검찰 2회 피의자신문조서). ⑥ 피고인 2는 2016년에 체포되어 경찰조사를 받으면서 피고인과 오빠인 공소외 4, 피고인 2가 7~8년 간 한 집에서 동거해 왔다고 진술하였는데 맞느냐는 검사의 질문에 대하여 피고인과 계속 같이 있었던 것이 아니라 지방에 갈 때마다 피고인, 공소외 4 등과 함께 숙소에서 살았다는 뜻이라고 진술하였다(피고인 2에 대한 검찰 2회 피의자신문조서).

I) After Non-Indicted 1 died, the Defendant claimed that Non-Indicted 3 pay KRW 200 million of the death benefit, and Non-Indicted 14 of the Insurance Crime Investigation Team of Non-Indicted 3, which caused Non-Indicted 1’s death, suspended the payment of the insurance benefit. The Defendant called to Non-Indicted 14 to the effect that “Non-Indicted 14 would give KRW 30 million out of the insurance benefit if he would pay KRW 150 million.” Such speech by the Defendant is difficult to be deemed to be a normal beneficiary. Meanwhile, Non-Indicted 14 stated that the Defendant’s act is an insurance fraud, and that Non-Indicted 14, in cooperation with the police, was “Iman who will pay the insurance benefit” to the Defendant, but the Defendant was able to have fled.

2) As to the part of abandonment death

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant abandoned Nonindicted Party 1 and caused his death.

A) On October 11, 2010, Non-Indicted 1 was diagnosed with the crythythy of Tolusium in Dolsan, and was hospitalized from October 11, 201 to October 13, 2010 after surgery (Evidence No. 6 Book No. 2, No. 170 of the Record). Non-Indicted 1 was hospitalized with the 10thythy, 201, Non-Indicted 16’s crythythyal, 16thyal, 207, Non-Indicted 16’s crythyal, 201, 10 to Nov. 18, 2010, Non-Indicted 1 was diagnosed with the crythyalthy, 2010 to Nov. 18, 2010, and Non-Indicted 25’s crythyal, 16thyal, 2010.

B) Examining the detailed contents of Nonindicted Party 1’s medical table, there was a record that Nonindicted Party 1 was inconvenienceed in the Dong from October 2010, and that Nonindicted Party 1 was surged on the bottled floor (Article 6, 3, 911 of the Evidence Records). On November 8, 2010, the body part of Nonindicted Party 1 sharply decreased from 50 km to 40 km. From November 9, 2011, Nonindicted Party 1’s multiple steps were observed in various parts of the outbreaks of Nonindicted Party 1, and around December 2010, it appears that Nonindicted Party 1 was difficult to walk.

C) According to Non-Indicted 51’s medical specialist, the disease of Non-Indicted 1 as seen earlier (hereinafter “the instant disease”) is presumed to have a direct cause for the occurrence of a wide drinking and inappropriate nutritional disorder. In addition, Non-Indicted 1 was accompanied by a urology disease between alcohol, but may be accompanied by a fatal Ambassador merger when drinking continues without proper nutrition in the same circumstance. In this context, there was a possibility of death due to a small amount of alcohol intake (Evidence 3rd 78 et al. of the evidence record No. 6).

D) On August 19, 2010, the Defendant reported a marriage with Nonindicted Party 1. At that time, the Defendant additionally subscribed to the instant life insurance in which the sum of the death insurance proceeds in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 reaches KRW 500 million in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 (from August 1, 2010 to September 16, 2010). In addition, from August 31, 2010 to September 8, 2010, the beneficiary of the nine insurance out of the instant 10 insurance was changed to the Defendant.

E) The Defendant made a statement at the insurance investigation and prosecutorial office as follows: ① from October 2010, the Defendant was suffering from drinking alcohol by Nonindicted Party 1, and she was suffering from drinking alcohol and drinking urine. ② Nonindicted Party 1 was suffering from drinking alcohol and drinking her food, etc. ② Nonindicted Party 1, and was hospitalized in the hospital with a show show. ③ Nonindicted Party 1 said that Nonindicted Party 1 could die with a continuously drinking alcohol. ④ Nonindicted Party 1 was divingd without the speech before her death, and the Defendant found her fright after drinking her to know about Nonindicted Party 1’s shock. ⑤ Nonindicted Party 1 was aware of Nonindicted Party 1’s shock condition, ⑤ Nonindicted Party 1 was hospitalized in the Gu administration, but Nonindicted Party 1 made a consistent statement to the effect that it was difficult for the Defendant to say that Nonindicted Party 1 was hospitalized (the Defendant’s fright at the bar, but it was also difficult to say that Nonindicted Party 1 was hospitalized in the Gu administration.

F) At the time of Non-Indicted 1’s death, Non-Indicted 1 was able to flow down diapers in a room in front of the entrance and windows, etc. At the time of his death, Non-Indicted 1 was locked. At the time of his death, Non-Indicted 1, there was a safe share price (Evidence No. 6, No. 2, No. 385 of the Evidence Record) in the door, such as bovine ferry, tobacco butts, which were left against the main and the main owners of fluories (7).

G) The Defendant asserts that he/she fulfilled his/her duty to assist Nonindicted Party 1. However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant fulfilled his/her duty to assist Nonindicted Party 1. ① Even though the Defendant was well aware that Nonindicted Party 1 suffered from chronic alcohol diseases, he/she continued to drink Nonindicted Party 1. ② On December 24, 2010, the Defendant did not receive any specific treatment against Nonindicted Party 1 after Nonindicted Party 1 was discharged from the hospital at the time of the time when he/she was discharged from the hospital at the time of the time of the instant accident. This is compared to Nonindicted Party 1’s continuous hospitalization for 181 days or for a long period of time. ③ Even if Nonindicted Party 1 was discovered that Nonindicted Party 1 was in a shock, the Defendant did not take measures such as preparing for Nonindicted Party 1’s injury to the hospital or for the case of Nonindicted Party 1’s injury.

3) As to the loan fraud part

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was involved as an accomplice in the crime of fund loan fraud (the part related to Nonindicted 8 related to temporary rental) listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 3, and 5 in the separate sheet No. 3.

가) 이 사건 전세자금대출사기의 공범인 공소외 4는 검찰에서 다음과 같이 진술하였다. ① 공소외 4는 처음에는 피고인이 허위서류를 만든다는 사실은 알았지만 구체적인 용도는 잘 몰랐고, 피고인의 지시에 따라 허위의 사업자명의인을 구하거나 서류를 전달하는 심부름을 하였다. ② 피고인은 이 사건에서 총책이자 서류위조책의 역할을 하였다. 공소외 4는 피고인이 만든 허위 서류를 공소외 6에게 전달하였고, 공소외 6이 그 서류를 가장임차인에게 전달하여 은행에 대출을 신청하도록 하였다. 피고인이 공소외 6에게 직접 허위서류를 건네기도 하였다. ③ 대출이 성사되면 가장임차인에게 50%, 집주인에게 15%를 줬고, 나머지는 피고인과 공소외 6이 분배해 가졌다. 피고인은 공소외 4에게는 건당 10~20만 원을 주었다. ④ 피고인이 주로 ‘■■■■’ 내지 ‘▽▽▽’ 사무실에 있었고, 공소외 4는 1주일에 한 번 꼴로 사무실을 방문하였다. ⑤ 공소외 4는 공소외 52(별지 범죄일람표 3 순번 제1번의 가장임차인)를 잘 모르는데, 피고인이 공소외 6에게 허위서류를 직접 건네주는 경우 공소외 4가 가장임차인을 모를 수 있다. 또 공소외 4는 ‘▽▽▽’ 사무실을 방문한 공소외 9(별지 범죄일람표 3 순번 제5번의 가장임차인)를 본 적이 있다.

Meanwhile, in this court, Nonindicted 4 stated that the facts were led by Nonindicted 4 to commit all the crimes, and that the documents forged by the Defendant are only 2-3 cases. Accordingly, Nonindicted 4 reversed his statement again to the effect that “ Nonindicted 4, although Nonindicted 4 did not have any false document related to Nonindicted 8, the remainder was Nonindicted 4 and the remainder was the Defendant.” This legal statement made by Nonindicted 4 is not consistent, and it is difficult to believe that it was favorable to the Defendant’s inducement. In addition, Nonindicted 4 made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged that “the Defendant had been aware of all 8 items listed in the annexed list 3 and the annexed list 8 items.”

B) Nonindicted 6, the accomplice of the former loan loan fraud of this case, made a statement as follows. ① Nonindicted 6, the Defendant 5 around springed Nonindicted 2013, and began to commit the crime of the former loan loan fraud. Nonindicted 6 was aware of the Defendant from this point of view, but, by introducing Nonindicted 5, took part in the crime at the Defendant’s office. ② In the crime above, the Defendant was in charge of document forgery, Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 6, and delivered documents made by the Defendant to Nonindicted 6. Nonindicted 5 was in charge of the solicitation of documents, and Nonindicted 4 was sent to Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 6 was in contact with the Defendant’s loan office. ③ Nonindicted 6 was infinited with Nonindicted 5’s demand, and Nonindicted 3 was infinited with Nonindicted 5’s head of Tong at Nonindicted 5’s request, but the Defendant was paid the fee that Nonindicted 5 received from the last lessee, and the Defendant received from Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 65’s head of the Tong.

다) 공소외 37은 대출에 필요한 서류를 떼기 위해 동사무소에 갔을 때 피고인과 공소외 6이 동행했고, 피고인과 공소외 6이 서류와 관련하여 서로 대화하는 모습을 보았다고 진술했다. 또 공소외 37은 ■■■■ 사무실에서도 피고인과 공소외 6이 서류와 관련하여 대화하는 모습을 보았다고 진술했다.

라) 피고인은 가장임대인 공소외 8과 관련한 부분은 공소외 4가 허위서류를 만든 것이라고 주장한다. 그러나 앞서 본 위 범행의 공범인 공소외 4, 공소외 6의 일치된 진술에 의하면, 위 범행은 공범들이 개개의 건을 독립적으로 수행하는 것이 아니라 허위서류의 제작에서부터 대출금의 분배까지 공범들 전체가 서로 협력하여 이루어지는 구조이고, 피고인이 위 범행을 전반적으로 계획하고 주도한 총책이었음이 인정된다. 또 허위 재직증명서를 만들기 위해서는 가장임차인을 피고인이 실질적으로 운영하는 ‘■■■■’ 또는 ‘▽▽▽’에 종업원으로 등록하고, 수개월 동안 가장임차인 명의의 통장으로 월급을 지급하여야 하는데, 이 사건 범행에 있어 허위 사업자인 공소외 36(■■■■)과 공소외 11(▽▽▽) 명의의 통장은 피고인이 관리하고 있었다(공소외 6에 대한 검찰 피의자신문조서).

B. Defendant 2

1) As to the part of the instant insurance fraud

Comprehensively taking account of all the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant’s participation in the instant accident insurance money as an accomplice can be sufficiently acknowledged.

가) 피고인은 앞서 본 것처럼 이 사건 상해보험금을 편취하는 데 있어 다음과 같이 광범위하게 피고인 1과 실행행위를 분담하였다. ① 피고인은 피고인 1의 부탁을 받고 마치 본인이 공소외 1인 것처럼 행세하며 공소외 1에게로 오는 해피콜을 모두 받아 보험계약을 체결하였다. ② 피고인은 이 사건 상해사고로 인한 보험금을 지급받기 위해 공소외 1과 함께 ♡♡에 방문하여 공소외 1 명의의 계좌를 신설하였다. ③ 피고인은 이 사건 상해사고로 인한 보험금청구서를 공소외 1을 대신하여 작성하였고, 이를 공소외 27 회사, 공소외 28 주식회사, 공소외 31 주식회사, 공소외 33 주식회사, 공소외 34 주식회사, 공소외 35 회사에 각각 제출하였다.

B) The intrinsic and important role of the Defendant to subscribe to each insurance contract, and to prepare a claim for insurance money is the act of defrauding the instant accident insurance money. Considering the degree of the Defendant’s participation, activeness, and the participation period, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant would receive the instant accident insurance money at least in a dolusent manner. Furthermore, the Defendant was living together with Defendant 1, and the Defendant did not have any particular source of revenue, so it is consistent with the empirical rule to deem that the Defendant used the instant accident insurance money that Defendant 1 obtained.

2) As to the former loan fraud of the instant case

Considering the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the relationship with the Defendant and other accomplices (the Defendant’s friendly 4) as well as the degree and duration of the Defendant’s participation in the loan loan, the Defendant was aware at least that he conspireded to commit the act of fraud in the loan loan of this case. It is reasonable to view that the Defendant participated as an accomplice in the act of fraud in the loan of this case in the form of maintaining the function of the loan office and performing the individual instructions of Defendant 1, a total liability.

가) 공소외 36은 공소외 4의 소개로 이 사건 전세자금대출사기에 사용된 ‘■■■■’의 사업자명의를 피고인 1에게 빌려주었다. 공소외 36은 다음과 같이 진술하였다. ① 공소외 36은 2012년 12월경 공소외 4로부터 ■■■■ 사업자등록 명의를 빌려달라는 요청을 받고 안산세무서에 갈 때 피고인이 피고인 1과 동행하였다. ② ■■■■ 사무실에는 책상이 2개 있는데 사무실에 찾아갈 때마다 피고인도 사무실에 있었고, 피고인 1과 피고인은 서로를 ‘자기’ 또는 ‘여보’라고 호칭했다. ③ 공소외 36이 공소외 4와 일을 보러 가는 장소마다 피고인이 피고인 1과 함께 있었고, 피고인은 피고인 1, 공소외 4와 항상 셋이서 차로 동행하였다. ④ 공소외 36이 피고인 1 등을 안산 물항리 낚시터 부근 커피숍에서 만났을 때 피고인은 피고인 1, 공소외 4와 서로 서류봉투를 주고받으면서 사업 얘기를 하는 것으로 보였다.

나) 공범인 공소외 6의 진술은 다음과 같다. ① 공소외 6이 2013년 2월경 공소외 5의 소개로 찾아간 ■■■■ 사무실에서 피고인 1과 피고인을 만났다. ② 피고인은 항상 피고인 1과 함께 대출사무실에 있었고(대출사무실에는 컴퓨터가 2대 있었다), 공소외 6은 피고인이 피고인 1과 공소외 4를 보조하는 역할을 한다고 생각했다. ③ 공소외 6과 피고인 1이 일을 하러 다니는 데 피고인이 따라온 적도 있다.

다) 공소외 11은 공소외 4의 소개로 이 사건 전세자금대출사기에 사용된 ‘▽▽▽’의 사업자명의를 피고인 1에게 빌려주었다. 공소외 11은 이 법정에서 다음과 같이 진술하였다. ① 공소외 11은 2014년 2월경 자신이 일하는 ‘◆다방’에서 동료 종업원인 공소외 53으로부터 삼촌(피고인 1)과 외숙모(피고인)를 소개받았다. 피고인과 피고인 1은 공소외 11에게 대출사무실을 하는 데 명의를 빌려달라고 요청했다. ② 피고인은 공소외 11과 함께 동사무소에 가서 사업자등록을 하기 위해 필요한 서류를 뗐다. 공소외 11은 글을 쓸 줄 모르는데, 피고인이 적어주는 내용을 그대로 따라 신청서에 기재했다. ③ 피고인은 공소외 11과 함께 사업자 명의 통장을 만들러 같이 갔다. 피고인은 공소외 11에게 ’통장에 돈을 넣었다 뺏다 반복해서 실적을 만들면 대출이 나온다‘고 설명했다. 공소외 11은 통장을 만들어 피고인에게 건네주었다.

라) 피고인은 항시 ■■■■와 ▽▽▽의 사무실에서 피고인 1과 있었고, 피고인 1을 따라 가장임차인들을 만나거나 서류를 떼러 가는 자리에도 동행했다. 전세자금대출 신청에 필요한 허위서류를 만드는 데에 있어 사업자등록은 필수적이므로, 피고인이 공소외 11과 접촉하며 함께 세무서에 가서 ‘▽▽▽’의 사업자등록을 하고 공소외 11 명의의 통장을 만든 행위는 전세자금대출 사기에 있어서 본질적이고도 중요한 역할이다. 또 피고인이 공소외 11을 만나 ▽▽▽의 사업자등록 명의를 빌린 시점은 공소외 36이 ■■■■의 사업자등록을 폐지한 시기와 맞닿아 있으므로 ▽▽▽의 사업자등록은 위 범행을 계속해 가는데 필수적인 부분이었다. 또 피고인과 피고인 1의 관계, 피고인이 당시 별다른 수입원이 없었음을 고려하면 피고인 또한 피고인 1이 받은 이익을 함께 소비하였다고 봄이 경험칙에 부함한다.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of each fraud related to the death insurance money and attempted fraud against Defendant 2

The Defendant, together with Defendant 1, conspiredd to commit fraud related to the injury insurance money as indicated in the crime No. 2 of the case, as indicated in the crime No. 2016Gahap501, and conspired to divide the death insurance money in the name of Non-Indicted 1, and where Non-Indicted 1 dies due to alcohol addiction, etc., Defendant 1 was already affiliated with the Defendant, and Defendant 1 reported a marriage with Non-Indicted 1 on August 19, 2010, and based thereon, reported that Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 1 were married to the nine insurance companies subscribed under the name of Non-Indicted 1 from around September 2010 to apply for the change of the beneficiary of the death insurance money, and the beneficiary was changed to his husband as the Defendant under the law.

Defendant 1 along with Defendant 1, when Non-Party 1 died at the Gyeonggi-si ( Address 1 omitted) and ○○○○○○’s home on January 29, 2011 (the presumption that death benefit was private, alcohol, liver infection, and he was paid KRW 10,00,00 to Defendant 1’s account on April 14, 201 and deposited KRW 10,000 in the name of Defendant 1 on April 18, 201. From that time to June 13 of the same year, the Defendant refused to pay KRW 319,00,000 in total nine times from the nine damaged insurance companies as shown in Table 2 of the Crimes Day to the day of June 13 of the same year, the Defendant was paid to Defendant 1’s account under the name of Defendant 1 as the death benefit, and on April 26, 2011, the Defendant and Non-Party 3 did not request the above death benefit under the name of Defendant 1.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with Defendant 1 to receive property by deceiving the victim company listed in No. 2 No. 1 or No. 9 of the List of Crimes, and attempted to receive property by deceiving the victim non-indicted 3 corporation.

2. Summary of the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion

The defendant, upon the request of the defendant 1, only accepted piracy from some insurance companies on behalf of some insurance companies, and there was no participation in the crime of fraud or attempted fraud in the death insurance proceeds of this case.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant shall be determined (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737 Decided February 24, 2006).

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the Defendant conspired with Defendant 1 to purchase the instant accident insurance (Attached Table 2 Nos. 1 through 7 of the List of Crimes) and acquired the amount of the said accident insurance, and the Defendant received the amount of the said accident insurance upon Defendant 1’s request, and the Defendant recognized the fact that he received the piracy of the life insurance Nos. 8 and 10 of the attached Table Nos. 2 and 8 and 10. However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant conspiredd with Defendant 1 to divide the death insurance money in cases where Nonindicted 1 died due to alcohol addiction at the time of the purchase of each insurance policy listed in the attached Table 2 of the crime list of crimes, or that the Defendant participated in the claim process of the death insurance money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

1) The Defendant and Defendant 1 denies the public recruitment relationship related to this part of the facts charged, and there is no direct evidence to prove the intention of the internal deliberation.

2) The time when Nonindicted Party 1 subscribed to the instant accident insurance is from August 2009 to October. However, the time when Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 1 reported the marriage is around August 2010, which was one year after the date when the marriage was reported, and the time when the name of the beneficiary of the instant accident insurance changed to Defendant 1 is different from the time when the instant accident insurance was subscribed to the instant accident insurance on September 2010. In addition, there is also a possibility that Defendant 1 and the Defendant conspired to acquire only the injury insurance money at the time of the subscription to the instant accident insurance. In addition, there is no evidence to prove that Nonindicted Party 1’s health was inferior at the time of the subscription to the instant accident insurance, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant was aware that Nonindicted Party 1 acquired the said death insurance money even if there was no negligence on the part of the Defendant.

3) In the case of insurance entered in No. 2 No. 9 of the Attached Table 2, there is no particular evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was involved in the process of joining the insurance contract or the process of claiming death insurance money, not by telephone.

4) In the case of the insurance described in Nos. 2 Nos. 8 and 10 of the annexed Table 2, the Defendant will have subscribed to the insurance by means of a telephone for Nonindicted Party 1. However, at the time, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 1 have yet to file a marriage report, and this insurance does not cover only the death accident due to the security insurance. The Defendant may think that the insurance was further covered by the instant accident insurance.

5) On or after August 2010 when Defendant 1 and Defendant reported marriage, there is no record that the Defendant prepared a written claim for the payment of death benefit on behalf of Nonindicted 1. Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant participated in the process of changing the beneficiary of the death insurance of the instant accident insurance into Defendant 1 on or around September 2010.

4. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged 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

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Skyl Hong (Presiding Judge)

1) Since the sentencing guidelines are not set for the crime of attempted fraud, only the lower limit of the recommended sentencing guidelines is set.