Defendant 1 and three others

Lee Jin-vi

Attorney Hah Ho-su et al.

1. Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years;

The 139 days under detention prior to the rendering of an appeal against Defendant 1 shall be included in the above sentence.

2. Defendant 4 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months;

The three days under detention prior to the imposition of an appeal against the defendant 4 shall be included in the above sentence.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 4 shall be suspended.

3. Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

The number of days under detention prior to the rendering of a judgment against the defendant 2 shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 2 shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

4. Defendant 3 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

140 days of detention prior to the rendering of this judgment against Defendant 3 shall be included in the above sentence.

10 million won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 3.

5. Defendant 1 and 4- September 18, 2002 among the facts charged in the instant case are not guilty.

Defendant 1 was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul District Court on May 13, 199, and completed the execution of the sentence on September 8, 199, among the prison in Yeongdeungpo-gu, on which the execution of the sentence was completed, on or around June 8, 2001, completed the registration of purchase transfer of 60 Dong Ga-si apartment (number omitted), and on June 18, 2001, he was appointed as the chairperson and appointed as the head of the said committee. Defendant 4 is the planning director of the said promotion committee, Defendant 2 is the adviser of the said promotion committee, Defendant 3 is the adviser of the said promotion committee, and Defendant 3 is the person who was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment for securities forgery, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court on March 19, 202 and completed the execution of the sentence on October 17, 2002, and is the adviser of the said promotion committee.

The duties of the removal business operators, Si construction and designers related to reconstruction are stipulated as the resolution by the general meeting under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. To select the company, the company's ability and construction amount shall be fairly evaluated by means of competitive bidding, etc., and the company shall undergo the resolution by the general meeting of the association members. In addition, five reconstruction promotion committees have already been established since 1997 in the apartment complex under reconstruction and mutual competition with the Defendants, and Non-Indicted 8 has been elected as the head of the association general meeting of the association on May 24, 2003, and the reconstruction promotion committee at the pre-establishment stage was authorized by the Songpa-gu Office to enter into a contract for the selection of the reconstruction company related to the implementation of reconstruction.

1. Defendant 1 and 4 conspired:

around October 29, 2001, the Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office for the Reconstruction Apartment Building 301, which was completed by Defendant 1, as Defendant 1 would become the head of the association, Nonindicted 3, the representative of Nonindicted 9, who was the victim Nonindicted 3, prepared a basic plan for the design to conclude the reconstruction design contract, demanded to pay 500,000 won per month for the operation expenses of the association.” The victim Nonindicted 3, who deceivings the victim Nonindicted 3 by stating that “When the association is not authorized, it shall be returned by adding the market interest rate to the market interest rate.” On October 29, 2001, it received 50,000 won from the victim Nonindicted 3 to the bank account (number omitted) in the name of Defendant 4 on April 14, 2003, and acquired 20,500,000 won in total through the same account under the same name as the attached crime list, from around April 14, 2003.

2. Defendant 1 in collusion with Nonindicted 12:

On January 17, 2003, at the office of the rebuilding promotion committee, Nonindicted 6, the representative of Nonindicted 11 architect's office, "on the loan of KRW 100 million as a performance bond, if the rebuilding contract is rescinded, and if the contract is not performed, it shall be repaid within one year," and the above Nonindicted 12, "on the loan of KRW 50 million to the chairperson who borrowed KRW 50 million as a result of the legal terms and conditions of the Acts and subordinate statutes, and "on the loan of KRW 50 million to the chairperson, who will have divided the profit if the width makes a design and makes a profit in the form of a joint business," the victim Nonindicted 6 and the victim Nonindicted 6 have prepared a building design contract, and deceiving the victim, who has been received KRW 50 million from the victim Nonindicted 6 and received it, and the victim shall receive it.

3. In collusion with Defendant 1, 2, or 3:

A. around October 24, 2003, at the office of the Songpa-gu Seoul Promotion Committee for Reconstruction located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Nonindicted 1 made investments in KRW 1 billion, when it is possible to authorize the establishment of the association by securing at least 4,000 of the 6,600 members of the association that will be the president of the association, and at least 4,000 members of the association, Defendant 1 would be the president of the association. The written consent for the establishment of the association would also be able to make a joint implementation contract for the reconstruction. The joint implementation contract for the reconstruction project with the victim Nonindicted 1 was prepared by the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to notarized the said contract, and deceiving the victim Nonindicted 1, by receiving KRW 200 million from the victim Nonindicted 1 to the new bank account (number omitted) in the same day, and by receiving KRW 1,150 million in total from the victim Nonindicted 1 to the same account on the 31.1.5 billion won per the same month.

B. For the purpose of exercising the right to receive money from Nonindicted 1 for investment purposes, such as the foregoing paragraph (a) above:

Around October 24, 2003, when entering into a joint implementation contract with the above non-indicted 1 (hereinafter referred to as "A") in the office of the reconstruction promotion committee located in the above A4 site, "1. Business name" shall be entered into, and "2. Site location: 479, 479-1, 3. Housing site area: 398,007 square meters at the time of authorization for the implementation of the project: 5. Total floor area at the time of authorization for the implementation of the project: 7,104 households and ancillary welfare facilities; 1.2.2. The name of the association shall be prepared by entering into an agreement between the non-indicted 1 (hereinafter referred to as "B") and the non-indicted 13 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "B"), which is the executor of the project, and preparing two copies of the agreement with the non-indicted 13 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the non-indicted 1, 2004."

C. On February 24, 2005, at the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Law Firm Seo-gu, 119-5, Non-indicted 2, the representative of Non-indicted 23 corporation, at the Seo-gu Office of Law Firm Seo-gu, Mapo-gu, 119-5, the victim Non-indicted 2, “to prepare a written contract to delegate all the right to implement the project for the reconstruction of the village-based apartment, and to request KRW 500 million as the down payment to be notarized.” The victim Non-indicted 2 and the "re-building execution contract" was prepared and notarized, and then the victim deceives the victim Non-indicted 2 by notarized it, and the victim shall receive KRW 500 million in total from Non-indicted 2 about February 25, 2005.

D. On February 24, 2005, the above non-indicted 2 entered into a reconstruction execution contract with the above non-indicted 2 at the above sub-indicted 2's general law office around February 24, 2005, and entered into the reconstruction execution contract into as "Defendant 1" at the bottom of the site of the contract as "Defendant 1, the president of the association of the village-dong apartment reconstruction association," and written one copy of the "renovation execution contract", which is a private document concerning the rights and obligations by gathering the qualification of the president of the association of the village-dong apartment reconstruction association by affixing his seal on his name.

4. Defendant 1:

(a)the bank has no intention or ability to pay off money normally even after borrowing money from others because there is no other property or revenue, other than the bank has co-ownership share of 60, 60, 60, 500, 500, 600, 600, 600, 000.

(1) On December 12, 2001, at the office of the reconstruction promotion committee located in the above tin village, the victim non-indicted 4, who is the representative of Non-indicted 10 building, deceiving the victim non-indicted 4 by stating that "on the loan of 30 million won, within 4 months," and that the victim's non-indicted 4 was obtained from the victim non-indicted 4 and acquired it by fraud;

(2) On May 31, 2002, the office of the Re-building Promotion Committee located in the Haak-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-based on the following: “The above victim Nonindicted 3 borrowed the above victim KRW 50 million to Nonindicted 10 architect, making a design, and making a full payment.” The victim deceivings the victim by stating that he borrowed KRW 50 million within six months of the monthly interest, and he borrowed KRW 50 million from the victim’s bank account (number omitted) with KRW 30 million from the victim Nonindicted 3 on May 31, 2002; the victim shall receive KRW 10 million from the same account on September 19 of the same year to receive KRW 10 million;

(3) On January 20, 2003, the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Yandong stated that “a local government is elected as the head of the Simsi apartment reconstruction association and it is necessary to return the Gu gift to the residents. If a local government lends KRW 50 million to the residents, the money will be repaid within six months and will be paid for all the rights, such as the right to execute reconstruction later,” and that he deceiving Nonindicted 5 of the victim, and he shall receive KRW 50 million in cash from Nonindicted 5 of the victim, and the victim shall receive KRW 50 million in cash.

(4) On February 2, 2004, the victim non-indicted 5 in the Scong hotel coffee shop located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, told the victim non-indicted 5 to the effect that “Non-indicted 8 has illegally been elected as the head of the association and has brought a lawsuit to the association, and thus, the head of the association will be free from the formation of the association. It is necessary to lend only KRW 20 million as it is necessary to hold that the meeting expenses of the Scong Young Apartment apartment will be paid within six months.” The victim's 20 million won was received from the victim non-indicted 5, and the victim acquired it by fraud;

(5) On February 16, 2004, at the hotel coffee shop in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Nonindicted 5: (a) stated, “Isscam apartment scam apartment scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scamscam scamscamscams in an auction; (b) on the ground that Iscam scam scamscamscam scamscamscamscams scamscamscams scamscams scamscams. scamscams scamscam s

(6) Around March 8, 2004, at the hotel coffee shop, Nonindicted 5 filed a lawsuit seeking invalidation of rebuilding resolution with the victim Nonindicted 5, stating that “ Nonindicted 8’s head of the cooperative was elected by making a fake instrument in which he/she was elected. It is necessary to appoint a lawyer, thereby lending KRW 30 million within six months. It is necessary to pay the attorney’s fees, thereby deceiving Nonindicted 5 of the victim, and that he/she is defrauded by receiving KRW 30 million from the victim Nonindicted 5 to the said new bank account under Defendant 1’s name;

B. The facts at the office of the Re-building Promotion Committee on March 2005 include: (a) the victim non-indicted 8 personally collects or useful money received from the contractor; and (b) there was no threat to the management and disposal without the consent form; (c) the whole x (d) the association head of the apartment reconstruction association for the purpose of slandering Non-indicted 8; (d) the association head of the association for the apartment x (e.g., eating) x (e., the title) x (e., eating) x (e., the end of 2004 x (e., January 2005 x 0 billion won x (e.g., the order of 0 billion won x (e., the size of the association for the apartment x the aggregate of the association members x the name of the association?) the association and the head of the association should open a written consent form for the management and disposal of the property of the non-indicted 8 to whom the contract was rejected at the general meeting on June 26.

5. Defendant 3:

A person, other than an attorney-at-law, should not receive money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits under the pretext of solicitation or good offices with respect to cases or affairs handled by a public official, or promise to offer or offer them to a third party;

On July 28, 2004, at the non-indicted 22's non-indicted 22, the victim non-indicted 22, who was killed in the special department of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office, in the non-indicted 22 near the village hotel located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, requested the victim non-indicted 22 to write down the case. The victim non-indicted 22 stated that "the non-indicted 24 chief public prosecutor, who is in charge of internal family affairs, will put the case out of the list of the subject of investigation." On July 29, 2004, he received KRW 3 million with the new bank account (number omitted) of the defendant 3 and KRW 7 million with the same account around August 2, 2004, and received KRW 10 million in total from the same account.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 18, and 25

1. Investigation protocol of Nonindicted 15 by the prosecution

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the suspect against Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 26, written statements

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 26, and 27

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31

1. Part of the statement made by the police against Nonindicted 12

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 18

1. Written prosecutions (written statements made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 18, and the record of the trial)

1. A criminal investigation report (not more than half right, No. 1184 pages of investigation records);

1. Investigation report (Defendant 1, Nonindicted 26, the confirmation of real estate held by the suspect, and the second page No. 1749 of the investigation records);

1. A criminal investigation report (report on the draft details, such as a written consent at the inaugural general meeting of the association, and the second page, no more than 1808 of the investigation records);

1. Documentary evidence, such as a copy of the contract for joint implementation of the village-based apartment reconstruction project, a copy of the content certificate, a copy of each receipt, a copy of the certificate of authorization for establishment of the housing association, a copy of each judgment, an advertisement, a copy of the design contract of a building, a copy of each loan certificate, etc., a copy of the document evidencing evidence, such as a copy of the contract for design of the building, a copy of the contract for removal, a design of the building, and other evidentiary documents, a written agreement for lease of money (not more than 1st, not more than 31st, not more than 38 pages, 41, 43, 77 pages, not more than 85 pages, not more than 96 pages, not more than 250 pages, not more than 296 pages, 514 pages, not more

1. Copy of a loan certificate, a copy of a certificate, a re-building improvement project for a village-based apartment, a certificate of account transfer (agricultural Cooperatives), a deposit without passbook, a copy of account books, etc. (not more than 681, 695, not more than 706 pages, not more than 756 pages, and not more than 1313 pages of investigation records);

1. Adjustment of account data (Defendant 2, 3, and 4, and No. 1, title 623 of investigation records);

1. One finance-related data (No. 4 of investigation records);

1. Each reference to criminal records (the reference to criminal records, No. 1417, No. 1422 of the investigation records);

1. Defendants’ legal actions against each fraud

The defendants argued that each fraud [including the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] did not cause the victims to mistake that the president of the reconstruction association was the president of the reconstruction association, or that the victims had the ability to pay the money received from the victims, and that the victims did not acquire the money by means of voluntary lending of money in order to obtain the right to benefit from the reconstruction association where the reconstruction association was promoted by the defendants.

2. Determination:

A. Therefore, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., victims have experience in reconstruction, even if not, they can know about the progress of reconstruction through large scale construction. Furthermore, even though Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that the reconstruction promotion committee was not the president of the reconstruction association, it would be difficult to conclude that Defendants 1 and 8 did not actively demand the reconstruction promotion committee to provide the right to interest related to the reconstruction establishment of the reconstruction association in consideration of the situation of several reconstruction promotion committee and the trend of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the reconstruction promotion committee established by the reconstruction association established by Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 8, and that they did not provide the rights to interest related to the reconstruction establishment of the reconstruction association in the future. In light of the fact that the victims failed to obtain the authorization of the association, it is difficult to conclude that Defendants 1 and 1 were aware that the president of the association was the head of the reconstruction association, or that Defendant 1 was unaware of the right to the reconstruction association and the reconstruction association did not actively demand the reconstruction association’s return of the principal after the completion of the reconstruction association.

B. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, Defendant 1 borrowed money from each victim under the same condition that the victims would have given the above victims the right of reconstruction design or reconstruction execution (including the right of reconstruction) in return for the above victims' loan, and ② Defendant 1 entered into a contract with Nonindicted 15 on November 15, 2002 to give the removal of the funds to the victims' first and second sections out of the total removal works, and Defendant 1 would not have been aware of the fact that the victims would have been aware of the fact that the victims would have been using the funds in return for the above removal of the funds, and Defendant 1 would not have been aware of the fact that the victims would have been using the funds in return for the above removal of the funds, and Defendant 2 would have been aware of the fact that the victims would have been using the funds in return for the above removal of the funds, and Defendant 1 would have not been aware of the fact that the rebuilding promotion committee had been using the funds in return for the above removal of the funds.

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

○ Defendant 1

Article 347 (1) of each Criminal Code [Article 30, Article 30, Paragraph (1), and Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code as to each fraud under Paragraph (2) of the same Article], each of the provisions of Paragraph (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347 (1), and 30 of the Criminal Code [including the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)], Article 232, Article 30 of each Criminal Code (including the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)], Article 30 of each Criminal Code, Article 232, Article 30 (Preparation of Each Master Document, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 307 (2) of the Criminal Code (Selection of Imprisonment

○ Defendant 4

Articles 347(1) and 30(a) of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant 2

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act [including the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 232 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Article 232 and Article 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment

○ Defendant 3

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act [including the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)], Articles 232 and 30 of each Criminal Act (Article 232 and 30 (Preparation of Each Certificates of Qualification, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (Article 11 of the

1. Aggravation of repeated crimes;

○ Defendant 1: Article 35 of each Criminal Act for each of the crimes of fraud provided for in paragraphs 1, 4-A (1) and 4-2 of the judgment

○ Defendant 3: Each Criminal Code Article 35 [Provided, That the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Code shall apply to the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)]

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

○○ Defendant 1, 2, and 3: The former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2, and 50 of each Criminal Act [each punishment shall be imposed and the punishment shall be aggravated for each concurrent crime resulting from a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of Article 3-3(3) of the same Act, which is the most severe judgment, within the scope of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act].

1. Discretionary mitigation;

○○ Defendant 1, 2, and 3: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da15488, Apr. 2, 201)

1. Calculation of days of detention;

○ Defendants: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

○○ Defendant 4 and 2: each of the following circumstances shall be taken into account: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act after the amendment of July 29, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the following circumstances favorable to the above Defendants”)

1. Additional collection:

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 and 4 provide that the affairs of selection of the removal business entity, Si construction and designer related to reconstruction shall be decided by the general meeting under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. To select a business, the relevant business entity shall be fairly evaluated by means of competitive bidding, etc., and the process of going through the resolution at the general meeting of the association members is not only required, but also, in the case of the ice-si apartment which is promoting reconstruction, five reconstruction promotion committees have already been established since 197, and the Defendants compete with each other, and Nonindicted 8 was elected as the head of the association at the inaugural general meeting of the association on May 24, 2003. On June 12, 2003, the reconstruction promotion committee was authorized by the Songpa-gu Office to establish the reconstruction association. Notwithstanding the absence of the authority of the selection contract related to the implementation of reconstruction, around September 18, 2002, in order to select a business, it shall be 00 million won and the expenses of the victims of the reconstruction association will be paid to the victims.

2. The gist of the defendant 1 and 4's lawsuit

The above Defendants asserted that they merely borrowed funds with a loan certificate by suggesting the victim to first approach and lend the operating funds, and that they did not agree to allow the occupants to perform the registration business after the establishment of the association, or that they did not acquire them by means of a voluntary loan to obtain convenience in the process of receiving the registration business related to reconstruction in the event that a reconstruction association is established by the victim who was promoted by the defendant.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts that Defendant 1, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 32, and Nonindicted 7’s statement were made to the above investigation agency, Nonindicted 1, and the copy of each check (the first right to the investigation record) were stated in Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, who was asked to return the principal and interest of the non-indicted 4 to the non-indicted 5’s office at the time of the establishment of the association. The non-indicted 7, who was in charge of the non-indicted 1, with the head of the office at the non-indicted 32’s office, did not appear to have been registered at the time of the establishment of the association. The non-indicted 1, 201, which was the first right to the non-indicted 4 and the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 7, who was ordered by the non-indicted 30 and the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 32, who was ordered to participate in the establishment of the association.

B. In light of the above facts, in mind of the possibility that the above Defendants could not establish a reconstruction association, Nonindicted 32 and Nonindicted 7 consider the possibility that they would not be interested in the repayment of the above Defendants, and on the premise that they would be able to receive loans because they are not insolvent because they own apartment houses with no interest in the repayment of the above Defendants, the right to interest in the reconstruction-related projects and deliver the money of this case. The Defendants’ intent to register the reconstruction-related business seems to be the object of expression, which is the condition that the reconstruction association, which was promoted by the above Defendants would suspend the establishment of the reconstruction association, should be regarded as the object of expression. Thus, since the reconstruction association promoted by the above Defendants had not obtained the establishment authorization, it is difficult to conclude that the above Defendants' intent was confirmed by objective facts at least, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above Defendants agreed to provide the same interest to the third parties against the intent expressed by Nonindicted 32 and Nonindicted 7, and that they caused the above Defendants’ lending of the said promise by mistake and mistake.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant 1 and 4 are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant 1

The victims of the instant case appear to have been negligent to some extent in the occurrence of the instant crime, and agreed with the victim Nonindicted 2 and 32, and the victim Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 18, the vice president of Nonindicted 10, who were the vice president of Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 10, were not subject to the punishment of Defendant 1, and the victim Nonindicted 3, who stated that Defendant 1 was released and was willing to pay damages, may be deemed to constitute an element of sentencing favorable to Defendant 1.

In addition, since Defendant 1 terminated the execution of the final imprisonment on September 8, 199, it is reasonable to apply the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act before the amendment under the proviso of Article 2 of the Addenda of the Criminal Act after the amendment by Act No. 7623 of July 29, 2005 to the requirements for the disqualification for the suspension of execution. As such, it is favorable for Defendant 1 to apply the above provision of the Act.

However, Defendant 1 acquired money from many victims with a right to interest related to reconstruction construction for the purpose of acquiring the preparation fund for the establishment of a reconstruction association, and the intent of the establishment of a reconstruction association seems to have taken into account the benefits that Defendant 1 can obtain at the time of establishment of a reconstruction association, and not only the sum of the amount obtained, but also the sum of the amount obtained by the victim Nonindicted 1 and 6, and the fact that no agreement has been reached with the victim Nonindicted 1 and 6, and that it seems that no agreement has been reached with the victim while denying his own crime, and it appears that it would be contrary to the law in the course of the argument of the

2. Defendant 4, 2, and 3

The above Defendants shall not only have taken part in Defendant 1’s criminal act and acquired the amount of damage of this case, but also have to comply with the corresponding punishment because they do not reflect on the denial of their criminal act.

However, considering the fact that the victims were negligent to some extent in the occurrence of the crime of this case, the defrauded amount to Defendant 4 is relatively small, and around April 2003, the above promotion committee did not commit any more crime, and the victim Nonindicted 3 stated that Defendant 1 was released and was willing to act and pay damages, and thus, it can be seen to the effect that Defendant 4, the accomplice, the victim did not have any criminal record of having been punished by imprisonment without prison labor or heavier before the crime of this case, and the victim Nonindicted 2 was first punished by Defendant 2, and the victim Nonindicted 5 was not punished by Defendant 1, the victim Nonindicted 5 was also punished by Defendant 2, and the victim Nonindicted 5 was not punished by Defendant 1, the victim Nonindicted 2, and the victim Nonindicted 22 and Nonindicted 5 agreed with Defendant 3, and the victim Nonindicted 3 was not punished by Defendant 3, and all other elements of the sentencing of this case as indicated in the order of this case.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim full-time (Presiding Judge)

In case of being unable to sign and seal by a judge full-time maternity leave