Defendant 1 and two others

Kim Jong-chul (prosecution) and public trial (public trial)

Law Firm Han-mun et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of four years and six months, by imprisonment for a term of two years and by imprisonment for a term of one year, respectively.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 3 shall be suspended.

1. Defendant 1, 2

Defendant 1 is a real estate and tax-related expert who completed a tax graduate school in △△△-gu and completed real estate education from around 1994, and was operated by establishing and operating a private teaching institute business division, online education business division, real estate business division, real estate business division, real estate investment research institute, etc. in Suwon-si (hereinafter address 4 omitted) around 2007. Defendant 2 is a person who served as an executive director of the real estate business division in the above non-indicted 5 corporation.

From December 208, the Defendants entered into a contract with the owner of a building to purchase a new loan or a loan that is not well-known in the area of Incheon and Gyeonggi-do at a prompt price (hereinafter referred to as the "exclusive purchase"), and then sold the building to the third purchaser by increasing the purchase price per household, and then then sold the building again to the third purchaser by paying the intermediate payment and the balance to the owner of the building as a loan that is borrowed as security, the third purchaser exempted the imposition of tax and offered a public offering for the resale profits by paying the intermediate payment and the balance to the owner.

Accordingly, in order to seek third parties, Defendant 1 recruited 200 licensed real estate agents through the EBS, real estate TV, etc. website of “Nonindicted 5 Co., Ltd.” and “Nonindicted 22 Co., Ltd.” through the public offering presentation session, etc. to “Nonindicted 5 Co., Ltd.” and “Nonindicted 22 Co., Ltd., Ltd.,” and recruited 200 licensed real estate agents by requesting brokerage, and manage them as members of Nonindicted Co. 5, and publish the fact of the purchase of buildings and the payment status of brokerage fees, etc. on the website in real-time, and put them on the competition of third parties attraction. Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Co. 5 Co., Ltd., and Nonindicted Co. 23 and directors, etc., 24 managed the said licensed real estate agents by region and number. Moreover, their private teaching institute participants should also be given the names of “small 1, real estate investment clubs, etc.” and, if they wish to purchase and purchase their profits from their investment in the future, they would be 3,000.

In addition, Defendant 2 was in charge of identifying whether Defendant 1 is able to sell, preparing a sale price list, managing employees of the real estate business department, managing members of Nonindicted Co. 5, such as real estate agents, and preparing a contract with the buyers of the above building.

(a) Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate;

On December 22, 2008, the Defendants purchased the above loan from Nonindicted 4, who purchased the above loan from Nonindicted 3 to KRW 850,000,00,000 from the actual owner of the 9 household located (name 17 omitted) in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter address 1 omitted) in the office of real estate in the territory of the Nam-gu, Incheon. On December 2, 2008, the Defendants entered into a contract with Nonindicted 4, who purchased the above loan from Nonindicted 3, to KRW 850,00,00,000 again, to a third party for completing the registration of ownership transfer immediately to the third party for each household, and on December 22, 2008, sold No. 401 of the above loan from the office of Nonindicted 5 Co. 3, in KRW 12,200,000.

On or around December 30, 208, the Defendants received the purchase price for the loan No. 401 from Nonindicted 6 and immediately paid the owner Nonindicted 3 with the purchase price for the loan, and completed the registration of ownership transfer from Nonindicted 3 (the name of Nonindicted 7) to Nonindicted 6 without filing an application for the registration of ownership transfer within 60 days, even though the performance of the consideration for the contract concluded with Nonindicted 4 was completed.

In addition, the Defendants conspired, from December 30, 2008 to June 15, 2010, to avoid imposing taxes on the buildings of 194 households as described in the attached Table I, as above, or to obtain profits from price fluctuations between different market values, the Defendants did not file an application for transfer of ownership of the first concluded contract with the intention to resell the buildings of 194 households, as described in the attached Table I from December 30 to June 15, 201.

(b) Making false entries in the original notarial deed and uttering of the original notarial deed;

The Defendants, as described in the above paragraph (a) of the same Article, purchased real estate with small-value investments from ordinary people who do not have financial capacity to sell it smoothly. In order to prepare a sales contract (tentatively named sales contract) stating the purchase price higher than the actual market price with the third purchaser, and submit it to the registry office in the court and enter the false transaction price in the register, the Defendants decided that the above real estate will be received as much as possible as financial loans as it is based on them. On April 2009, the Defendants conspired with Defendant 3, along with Defendant 40,000 won for each household, by making the real estate security value entered higher than the actual sale price in the real estate register.

Accordingly, on July 28, 2009, the Defendants filed an application for ownership transfer registration with the registry office of the Incheon District Court on the Nam-gu Incheon District Court (hereinafter address 1 omitted) 202 with the registry office of the Incheon District Court on July 28, 2009, and submitted the old office sales contract for the seal of approval prepared falsely as if the actual transaction value was 12 million won, even though the actual transaction value was 12 million won, and submitted the old office sales contract for the seal of approval prepared falsely as if the actual transaction value was 140 million won as a cause for registration, and made the false registration

In addition, the Defendants conspired with Defendant 3, from January 22, 2009 to June 15, 2010, filed a false report with respect to a total of 112 households building as shown in Appendix II, and made the public official enter the false facts in the real estate registration register, which is the original copy of the authentic deed, in the same manner, and exercised it immediately.

(c) Violation of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act.

(i)The non-registered brokerage business;

On May 2009, the Defendants, at the (name 1 omitted of a building) site office located in Sinsi-si (hereinafter address 2 omitted), requested brokerage to Nonindicted 1, who did not obtain a certificate of qualification of real estate agent or register the establishment of a real estate brokerage office, under the condition that the third purchaser of the unregistered resale that the Defendants handled, shall pay KRW 3 million per household in the name of the brokerage commission, and accepted it by Nonindicted 1.

Accordingly, around May 30, 2009, Nonindicted Party 1 arranged the Defendants for Nonindicted Party 25 to purchase the above (name 1 omitted) No. 501, and the Defendants paid KRW 2,868,000 to Nonindicted Party 1 as a brokerage commission.

In addition, the Defendants, in collusion with Nonindicted 1, etc., carried on the brokerage business without registering the establishment of a real estate brokerage office, as described in the attached Table III Nos. 1-25, 35-48 and 62-65 from May 30, 2009 to May 3, 2010.

b. Violation of prohibited acts, such as Dor broker

around August 2009, at the office of ○○○○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Defendants requested brokerage on the condition that the real estate agent Nonindicted 2 and his brokerage assistant, who registered the establishment of the above real estate brokerage office, will act as a broker and pay KRW 3 million per household in the name of the principal brokerage commission.

Accordingly, around October 15, 2009, Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 19 arranged the Defendants for the third purchaser No. 201 of the above 201 of the loan that the Defendants requested to act as a broker at the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government (hereinafter address 3 omitted) Nam-gu (hereinafter the name of the building 6 omitted). The Defendants paid KRW 2,868,00 to Non-Indicted 19’s account as the intermediary fee.

In addition, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 2, 19, etc. on October 15, 2009 to April 14, 2010, and as indicated in [Attachment Table III] Nos. 26-31 and 46-58, the Defendants instigated real estate speculation, such as mediating the sale of real estate for which no registration of ownership preservation or registration of transfer has been made for the purpose of violating the relevant statutes, such as tax evasion, etc., and thereby, violated the prohibited acts of brokers, etc.

(d) Violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name;

From November 208, the Defendants were willing to easily dispose of the leased buildings newly built or purchased by the Defendants in such a way as to make up about 10% of the principal amount invested by disposing of and selling them to Nonindicted Co. 5 within three months to six months from the registration of title trust in the name of one person after jointly purchasing the buildings handled by the Defendants to the students hearing Defendant 1’s lectures.

On November 27, 2008, at the office of the above non-indicted 5 corporation, the defendants sold (name 24 omitted) Nos. 1-102, 1-2, 26, and 9 of "(name 24 omitted)" located in Nam-gu, Incheon (hereinafter address 5 omitted) to the non-indicted 26 and 9, and let them jointly own the shares of investment, and the registration thereof is made in the name of non-indicted 26, while the registration thereof is made in the name of non-indicted 26. On March 11, 2009, the defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of non-indicted 26.

In addition, in collusion with Nonindicted 26, 6, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, the Defendants registered under the name of the title trustee under the title trust agreement on seven occasions, such as the attached list IV.

2. Defendant 3

The Defendant is a person who had worked as an office in the office of a certified judicial scrivener in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon, from July 2008 to July 2010.

(a) Making false entries in the authentic deed and uttering of the original authentic deed;

On April 2009, the Defendant received a proposal on the condition that the Defendant would receive 40,000 won per household as allowances, by making the Defendant enter the value higher than the actual sales price in the registry of a building sold by Defendant 1, and received a loan from Defendant 1, on the condition that the Defendant would receive 40,000 won per household as allowances.

Accordingly, around April 30, 2009, the defendant filed an application for ownership transfer registration with respect to (name 19 omitted) 201, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter address 6 omitted) sold by Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 32 by Defendant 1 with the registry office of the Incheon District Court (name 19 omitted) and filed a false registration of the sales price for the above real estate in the register, even though the actual transaction price was 125 million won, as if the actual transaction price was 145 million won, as if the actual transaction price was a cause for 145 million won.

In addition, the Defendant conspired with Defendant 1, from April 30, 2009 to June 15, 2010, filed a false report to the public official in the same manner with respect to a total of 97 households building, such as attached Table II Nos. 13-20, 24-112, and had the public official enter the false facts in the real estate registration book, which is the original copy of the authentic deed, into the real estate registration register, and exercised it at the same time.

(b) Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate;

Around July 23, 2009, the Defendant received request from Nonindicted 33 and Nonindicted 34 to accept an application for the interim omission registration in the name of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 34 from the name of the building owner in the name of Nonindicted 33, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter address 7 omitted) (name 5 omitted) (name 5 omitted), which he purchased through the building owner from Defendant 1 around July 23, 2009. At that time, the Defendant received the application from the registry of the Incheon District Court for the transfer of ownership from Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 34, and received the loan from Nonindicted 34 from the bank as security, and immediately paid the above owner to Nonindicted 33 of the building owner with Defendant 1, and completed the registration of transfer from Nonindicted 33 without filing an application for the transfer of ownership under the name of Nonindicted 34 within 60 days, even though the performance of the first concluded contract with Defendant 1 was completed.

In addition, the Defendant conspired with Defendant 1, from July 23, 2009 to June 15, 2010, did not file an application for the registration of transfer of ownership of a contract that was concluded first after the resale of a total of 129 households in the aforementioned manner, as stated in the [Attachment I] No. 66-194, respectively, in collusion with Defendant 1.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement made by Nonindicted 36, 3, 37, 28, 6, 38, 27, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 16, 44, 45, 9, 46, 47, 12, 48, 18, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 56, 47, 58, 13, 17, 15, 59, 60, 23, 24, and 14

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 30, 61, 62, 29, 26, 26, 8, 31, 63, 64, 65, 66, 34, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 20, 85, 86, 87, 88, and 11;

1. Each sales contract, each lease contract, each sale price list, each stamp contract, each certificate of completion of each real estate transaction contract, each joint investment agreement, each registration certificate, each registration certificate and a certified copy of each real estate register;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1 and 2: Article 8 subparag. 1, Article 2(3) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Violation of the obligation to apply for the registration of ownership transfer); Articles 228(1), 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 229, 228(1), and 30 (Exercise of Original Copy of Notarial Deed); Articles 48 subparag. 1, 9(1) of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act; Articles 30 (U.S. Operation of Brokerage Business); Articles 48 subparag. 3, 33 subparag. 7 of the Business Affairs of Each Licensed Real Estate Agent and Report of Real Estate Transactions; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 7(2) and Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 (Crime of Encouragement of Real Estate Speculative Acts); Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 (1) of the Act on Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name; Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 3: Articles 8 subparag. 1 and 2(3) of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the duty to apply for the registration of ownership transfer); Articles 228(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the duty to apply for the registration of ownership transfer); Articles 229, 228(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the duty to apply for the registration of ownership transfer)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 3: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The defendants and defense counsel's assertion

① The Defendants’ act of acquiring a loan from a building owner and selling it to a third party purchaser is a “purchase-type sale agency” widely used in the real estate transaction system, and thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed liable to complete the registration of ownership transfer under their own name.

(2) If the reported amount is recorded in the register as it is, the Housing Act, the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act, etc., it may not be false (Defendant 2's assertion of defense counsel).

③ The Defendants’ payment of real estate placement commission is not a brokerage commission, but it is reasonable to deem that the said Defendants paid real estate placement commission as an assistant to the Defendants.

2. Determination:

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the Defendants conducted real estate transactions in the following manner:

(1) As a general manager, Defendant 1, as the person responsible for assisting Defendant 1 and managing other employees or members, opened a course related to real estate and tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes while operating the “Nonindicted 5 Stock Company,” and recruited members.

Shed Defendant 1 and 2 (hereinafter “Defendant 1, etc.”) concluded a contract with the owner of the building to the former generation by finding a 10-generation loan in and out of the outside of 10 households, which has not yet been sold, with the establishment of the Incheon only, and concluded a contract with the owner of the building. A part of the price is paid as a down payment, and the remainder is paid by Defendant 1, etc. from the third buyer whenever each household is sold to each household, and agreed that the third buyer shall be paid from the owner of the building to the third buyer.

Defendant 1, etc. made the sales price table and the promotional materials for tenants on the loan building secured as described in the preceding paragraph, and recommended members or brokers of Nonindicted Co. 5 to purchase as follows:

1. This kind of loan is an area expected to be developed in the future, and at the same time, its value of investment is high.

(2) If a contract for a business with a higher price than the actual sale price is used, a bank loan may be obtained more than the actual sale price, and if the security money borrowed from the loan is added, it may be actually purchased in small amount.

(3) If a contract for business is written, it is easy to sell at a later price, and there is no transfer income tax or transfer income tax thereon.

④ The responsibility of Nonindicted Co. 5 is responsible for Nonindicted Co. 5, and the profits from the sale of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending of the lending.

Applicant Defendant 1, etc. entered into a contract for sales in lots with the third party purchaser who was recommended to make an investment by the said Defendants. The contract was made in the name of the building owner and the third party purchaser; arranged the bank loan through Defendant 3; completed the registration of ownership transfer from the building owner to the third party purchaser; on the other hand, the third party purchaser as a lessor on behalf of the third party purchaser and applied the monthly rent to part of the purchase amount as the lease deposit and appropriated it to the interest on the bank loan.

(v) Defendant 1 et al. created a joint investment group to the persons who are responsible for the initial investments even in Emado, and purchased the loan, and recommended one of them to use it as one of them. In this context, Nonindicted Co. 5 would compensate for the total amount of the principal before the transfer of ownership due to the failure to perform the construction works.

⑹ 피고인 1 등은 제3매수인을 소개하여 거래를 성사시킨 사람에게는 소개비로 건당 300만 원을 지급하였다.

B. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants’ transaction act constitutes a sales agency

(1) In determining whether a contract is a sales contract or a delegation contract, it must be determined with emphasis on its substance regardless of its name or formal language and text.

Shebly, the execution agency should be carried out by the owner's account as another person's business, and the legal effect of the Defendants' act should belong to the owner. In other words, the profits and losses and risks arising from the sale of the loan belongs to the owner, the owner exercises the right to decide the sale price or the terms of sale, and the defendants who sell the sale by proxy should acquire the fees in proportion to the sales performance.

In the case of the Defendants, the Defendants, after acquiring the building from the owner of the building, decided solely on the terms and conditions of the sale of the building from the owner of the building, and the owner could not sell part of the building separately after concluding the contract with the Defendants. In addition, the Defendants agreed that the Defendants should perform the contract and pay the purchase price to the owner of the building regardless of whether the Defendants sold all the households of the Bara (the Defendants prepared the “sales contract” with the owner of the building, as well as the case of the case of the “sale agency contract” (the name of the building omitted) (the name of the building omitted) in which the Defendants prepared the “sale agency contract” with the owner of the building, regardless of whether the Defendants sold the building or not). The Defendants were responsible for the payment of the purchase price by promising the bank loan to sell the Ba in the future.

In light of the contents of the above transactions, the defendants acquired the "right to dispose of loan" from the building owner ultimately, so it shall not be deemed as being entrusted with the sale of loan, and it shall be deemed that the period and method of the payment of the purchase price are somewhat different from the general real estate sales contract, or that the defendants did not intend to own or reside for a long period of time, it shall not be the essential part of the sales contract, and it shall not be a reason to deny its nature. In addition, the defendants asserted that the contract to register the transfer of ownership directly from the building owner to the third purchaser is a sale agency contract. However, the prohibition of the provisions on the application for the registration of the transfer of ownership under the Act on the Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate is a transaction for the purpose of gaining profits from the market price without the intention of actual residence or use or profit, and therefore the defendants' act is just the act.

(v) Nonindicted 44, 45, 12, and 23 stated in this Court that the Defendants were acting as a sales agent rather than buying and selling loans. However, the aforementioned persons are those who are familiar with the so-called “purchase-type sales agency” type, as alleged by the Defendants, and were well aware of the Defendants’ transaction behavior, and thus, they should be deemed to have committed an illegal act in collusion with the Defendants.

C. Determination on other arguments

② Since the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of a notarial deed is “an offense of making a false report to enter or record false facts,” if a false report was made and entered details other than facts in the authentic copy of a notarial deed as stated in the contents of the false report, the above crime is established. ③ If the Defendants’ act is not a sale agent, but a sale agent is not a sale agent, and if the purchaser was paid a case based on the case as seen above, it shall be deemed that the payment of remuneration for the brokerage is made, and thus, the Defendants

3. Grounds for sentencing;

In Korea, real estate is not limited to one goods, and even if it is somewhat limited to the external performance of private autonomy, the sociality and public nature of real estate have been emphasized through various special laws.

The Defendants committed the instant crime against the Defendants, such as violation of an application for registration, application for fraudulent registration, title trust, and violation of statutory fees, was committed against the illegal, unlawful, and evasion of the law related to real estate transaction. In light of the legislative intent of the above Act, the Defendants’ act is very anti-social and potential for criticism by directly regulating the application for false or fraudulent registration used as a means of real estate speculation and the acts of evading various applicable laws and acts to restrain real estate speculation, and thereby establishing a sound real estate transaction order.

Although Defendant 1 is in a position to provide correct information as a real estate law expert and tax law expert and to guide a lawful and fair transaction culture, Defendant 1 established a real estate specialized company and led the crime of this case in a systematic and large scale, and introduced real estate to people as investment objects, thereby allowing them to participate in illegal acts without any awareness of violating the law.

Although Defendant 2 has reduced his responsibility as an employee, Defendant 2 actively participated in the overall act, such as the selection of loans for several years, the recruitment of third-party buyers, the education of employees and management, etc., and the responsibility is very important.

Defendant 3’s taking advantage of Defendant 1’s illegal act does not have much profit to Defendant 1, but it appears that Defendant 3 did not lead each of the crimes of this case.

Considering the above two points, the punishment as set forth in the Disposition shall be determined.

[Attachment]

Judges Ori-hee