Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants and Prosecutor

1. Institution of prosecution: Preliminary and eight persons; 2. Public trial: Lee Jae-hoon;

Attorneys Kim Sang-soo et al.

Applicant for Compensation (Non-Indicted 13 of the Supreme Court Decision)

1. Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da711, 2008Kahap229, 942, 209 Gohap166, 236, 601 (combined), 774 (Joint), 911 (Joint), 2010Kahap88 (Joint), 363 (Joint), 417 (Joint), 2010No2144)/2. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da1306 decided July 27, 201 (Joint), and the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Mo2149 decided July 27, 201 (Joint), and the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201No2309 decided March 30, 201 (Joint) and the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015No4541 decided May 16, 2015 (Joint).

1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) (Defendant 2 and 3)

All of the judgment of convictions in the first, second, and third judgment of the court below (including the part of innocences against Defendant 2 in the judgment of the court below of second instance) shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for Defendant 2, and by imprisonment for six months with prison labor for the remainder of crimes against Nonindicted 8 as indicated in the judgment of the Supreme Court (Defendant 2 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), and by imprisonment for three years and six months, respectively.

A penalty of KRW 600 million from Defendant 1 shall be additionally collected.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, Defendant 2 was acquitted on December 22, 2009 and December 23, 2009 on the part of the victim’s applicant for compensation.

Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the prosecutor's appeal on the part of innocence of Defendant 1 among the judgment of the court below of first instance is dismissed.

Ⅰ. The part of the first instance judgment

1. Each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim Nonindicted Co. 19 and the victim Nonindicted Co. 20 (Fraud)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

1) The contract for the joint implementation of the project concluded with the above victims is that the defendant can purchase the victims of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gangseo-dong 1093-7, 76, 80, 1135, and 8,803, which the Korean Broadcasting System owned by the Korea Saemaul Undong 1093-7, 76, 80, 1135 (hereinafter “88 sports center site”) and the victims can purchase the building site, and the victims can purchase the building site and then divide the amount of the profits into their shares. The defendant does not sell the 88 sports center site on behalf of the Korea Saemaul Movement Association to the victims, so whether the defendant was authorized to dispose of the 88 sports center site from the Korea Saemaul Movement Association and whether the defendant was actually in office as the head of the (hereinafter omitted) is irrelevant to the conclusion of the joint implementation contract.

2) In fact, the Saemaul Movement Association needs to sell 88 gymnasium sites in light of the financial situation, and agreed with the Korean Broadcasting System, and thus, the Defendant could have the victims purchase 88 gymnasium sites. However, the Defendant was only able to have the victims purchase the 88 gymnasium site due to the lack of funds from the victims, and the business did not disappear. Although Nonindicted 21’s written statement (Evidence No. 27-1 and 30 submitted by the Defendant) support these circumstances, the lower court did not reflect

3) Therefore, the Defendant cannot be recognized as having committed fraud.

B. Determination

In light of the contents of the contract for the execution of the joint project concluded by the defendant with the victims, the contract for the execution of the joint project is not based on the premise that the defendant has the right to sell the site for 88 gymnasiums or that the defendant has been delegated with the right to sell it. However, the summary of this part of the charge is not a crime of fraud because the defendant has no right to sell it to the defendant or has not been entrusted with his/her right to sell it, but it is not a crime of fraud since the defendant could not allow the victims to purchase the site for 88 gymnasiums, and the defendant concluded a contract for the execution of the joint project and acquired money

Therefore, it is likely that the defendant could be found guilty of this part of the facts charged at the time of the conclusion of the joint project implementation contract, depending on the situation where the defendant could have the victims purchase the 88 gymnas site, and whether the defendant was deceiving the victims by speaking and actions contrary to such situation.

First of all, we examine the situation at the time of the execution of the joint project. The following circumstances are examined. ① The defendant was dismissed from office as the auditor of the Saemaul Movement Association on July 1, 2004, and was commissioned as the head of the Saemaul Movement Association (hereinafter omitted) on August 20, 2004. The defendant was dismissed on September 23, 2004 on the ground that he did not enter into the joint project on September 20, 2004. ② The Saemaul Movement Association concluded the joint project with the defendant on October 30, 2004 that it was difficult for the defendant to enter the Korea Saemaul Movement Association to resolve the situation. The defendant did not request the victims to enter into the joint project with the president on July 1, 2004 and did not return the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won. ③ The defendant did not enter the joint project with the defendant on October 2228, 20004.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, while entering into a joint project implementation contract with the victims, shows a letter of appointment that the defendant was commissioned to the head of the Saemaul Movement Association (hereinafter omitted), let the victims purchase the site of 88 gymnasium by officially announced land price, concluded a joint project implementation contract with the Korea Broadcasting System (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Broadcasting System") with the content that the facilities of the holder of superficies will complete the agreement within two months, and requested the victim non-indicted 19 corporation to notify the progress of the project. After entering into the contract, as the victim non-indicted 19 corporation requested to request the notice of the situation of the project, the defendant did not affix the official seal of the Korea Saemaul Movement Association to the above victim, and prepared a letter of commitment to pay the compensation under Article 9 (1) of the Act on August 16, 2005 to the non-indicted 19 corporation as the cost of the project execution of the defendant's joint project.

In full view of the above circumstances at the time of the contract with the victims as seen earlier and their horses and actions, the Defendant, knowing the fact that it is not possible to cause the victims to purchase the 88 gymnasium site, can be recognized as having concluded a joint project execution contract and acquired money as a performance bond by suggesting the victims to believe that the Defendant could exercise influence over the purchase of the 88 gymnasium site and purchase it.

Even after the defendant dismissed the head of the group (hereinafter omitted) and received a letter of promotion of resolution from the Saemaul Movement Federation on October 30, 2004, the defendant argued that he would continue to implement the sale of the site for the 88 gymnasium from Nonindicted 21, the president, and that the consultation with the Korea Broadcasting System had been continued before that date, and that each statement of Nonindicted 21 is supported by the defendant. However, considering that the sale of the site for the 88 gymnasium is not a decision by the chairperson by himself, but the defendant is well aware of these circumstances, it is insufficient to reverse the above decision solely on the above grounds.

The court below's decision to the same purport is justified, and thus rejected this part of the defendant's assertion.

2. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim non-indicted 2 (Fraud)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

1) Non-Indicted 2’s request that the income tax imposed on the non-declaration of income will be less than 2 billion won, entering into a lawyer appointment contract in a regular manner and receive money therefrom, and does not receive money as an illegal solicitation unrelated to the attorney’s business.

2) In the process, there was no fact that the Defendant expressed a high-ranking floor.

3) Therefore, it does not constitute the deception of money by deceiving a victim by taking advantage of the high-ranking level without intent or ability to reduce the amount of tax.

B. Determination

1) In light of the public nature of the attorney-at-law and the universality of the scope of duties, Article 111 of the Attorney-at-law Act cannot be deemed to be a provision that is subject to punishment for lawful solicitation or intermediation performed by the attorney-at-law in accordance with the purport of delegation. In the case of an attorney-at-law who is requested a legal case in a regular manner, it is difficult to regard the attorney-at-law as a normal activity as a legal professional of the so-called public nature, such as entertainment for resolution of the case, offering bribe, etc., on the ground that it is difficult to view the attorney-at-law as a normal activity as a legal professional of the public nature, such as transfer of the client's solicitation to a public official or promise to receive money or valuables, etc. under the pretext of receiving or promising the client's solicitation to a public official on behalf of the client, etc., a violation of Article 111 of the Attorney-at

2) On March 207, Nonindicted Party 2 found the Defendant at first, and around the time when Nonindicted Party 2 started an investigation into Nonindicted Party 2 with a suspicion of tax evasion at the tax office (under the inquiry reply to Nonindicted Party 23’s law office, Nonindicted Party 2 was accused on August 23, 2007 and prosecuted in 2008), it can be said that Nonindicted Party 2’s investigation into facts based on the basic data that the Defendant would have received request from the relevant tax office, and that Nonindicted Party 2 would not make any defective disposition based on the said legal opinion at the time. However, according to the fact-finding statement of the lower court (the Defendant’s statement of Nonindicted Party 2 was not consistent with the first day, the name of the high-rise, and the date of the appointment of the counsel, the Defendant appears to have received money from Nonindicted Party 200 million won on the sole basis of the fact-finding statement that the Defendant would have received money from Nonindicted Party 2’s attorney at the first time, and that it would not be consistent with this part of the facts charged.

3) Meanwhile, in full view of the fact that the Defendant appears to have not committed any act except for introducing Nonindicted 25 tax accountants in return for money, and the Defendant appears not to have been in the position to resolve Nonindicted 2’s tax issues through a high-ranking class, and not to have attempted to make a solicitation, it may be recognized that the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to reduce Nonindicted 2’s tax amount to two billion won or less through the connection of the high-ranking class.

4) The lower court is justifiable to the same purport, and thus, rejected the Defendant’s above assertion.

3. The part concerning the embezzlement against the victim non-indicted 7 (2008 Gohap942)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

Of KRW 300 million borrowed from Nonindicted 8, etc., KRW 200 million is the starting money, and KRW 100 million was used by Nonindicted 7 on the condition that the victim Nonindicted 7 set up a security on his own real estate. Since it was revealed that the said real estate had no value as a security, Nonindicted 8, etc. lent it to the Defendant, the Defendant did not have the status of keeping the said KRW 300 million for the victim Nonindicted 7.

B. Determination

1) First of all, we examine the part concerning the KRW 200 million claimed as the starting fee.

Although Nonindicted 7 stated as a retainer fee at the police, it has been consistently stated from the prosecution to the court of the court below to the effect that there was no friendity in the retainer, and that KRW 200 million was to be used as the litigation cost, the attorney’s fee agreement does not specify the retainer fee, and rather, it is stated that KRW 200 million was paid in the future as the litigation cost, and Nonindicted 7’s note that it was written by Nonindicted 7 is only stated as “10% of the defense cost, additional 40% of the compensation, 60% of the compensation, 60% of the loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan, but it cannot be deemed as the retainer fee loan loan loan loan from Nonindicted 8, etc., and the Defendant did not receive KRW 300 million from Nonindicted 70 million for a few months.

2) Next, we examine the part of KRW 100 million.

Although the Defendant alleged that Nonindicted 7 was to use KRW 100 million for Nonindicted 7’s repayment on the condition that he would offer his own land as security, in light of the content of the monetary loan agreement (to borrow KRW 300 million to Nonindicted 8 and 26, but to return KRW 1.5 billion to Nonindicted 8 and 26, and to make a promise to sell and purchase land at KRW 5,000 in the time of the delay in repayment, it is difficult to accept the above assertion (In addition, the written statement prepared by Nonindicted 8, 26 and Defendant 2, as alleged by the Defendant, indicated that the above KRW 100 million was available on the condition that Nonindicted 7 would make a provisional registration as security, but it is difficult to believe in light of the content of the said monetary loan agreement). Therefore, the Defendant is in the status of having been in custody of Nonindicted 7’s repayment as a creditor.

3) The lower court is justifiable to the same purport, and thus, rejected the Defendant’s above assertion.

4. Part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim Nonindicted 27 (Representative Director of Nonindicted Co. 9) (Fraud)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

1) The main content of the delegation agreement that Nonindicted Co. 28 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 28”) entered into with Nonindicted Co. 28 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 28”) is to allow Nonindicted Co. 28 to purchase the Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “○○○○ site”) by Nonindicted Co. 9 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 31”). Nonindicted Co. 28 was that there was a dispute over ownership between Nonindicted Co. 29 and Nonindicted Co. 30, but it was an agreement between Nonindicted Co. 29 and Nonindicted Co. 30, but it was to sell the ○○ site. However, the right to sell the ○○ site was not necessary to implement the delegation agreement, and Defendant 2, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 31 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 31”) held the right to recommend a purchaser, and thus, Defendant 2, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 31, 27 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 9”) was able to purchase Nonindicted Co. 9’s site.

2) The Defendant is not the subject of a contract for purchase delegation with Nonindicted Company 9, but is an attorney-at-law of legal adviser for Nonindicted Company 31, and only plays a role in preparing a draft contract and delivering intent between the parties. Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for the accomplice in fraud.

B. Defendant 2 and 3's assertion of mistake of facts

1) The Defendants determined that the sales plan for the ○○ site was final and conclusive, and that Nonindicted 31 did not have the authority to dispose of, but rather, that Nonindicted 29-3 billion won at the expense of KRW 20-3 billion, the Defendant could purchase the ○○ site if he was aware of the senior floor of Nonindicted 29-3 billion, and entered into a purchase delegation agreement with Nonindicted Company 9 by explaining it as it was on the side of Nonindicted Company 9. In fact, the Defendants could have purchased the ○○ site in the same manner, and thus, did not deceiving

2) The Defendants did not say that the victim was delegated with the sale of ○○○ site by Nonindicted Party 29 Nonindicted Party 29 and Nonindicted Party 30. Moreover, the Defendants did not explain the terms of the agreement on October 20, 2007 and the agreement on August 1, 2007, which was the date of the delegation of purchase.

3) Defendant 2 received KRW 300 million out of KRW 1 billion from Nonindicted Company 9. However, Defendant 2 was used only for the purpose necessary for Nonindicted Party 29 Non-Indicted Party 29 and Non-Indicted Party 30 Non-Indicted Party 30, and did not use it for personal purpose.

C. Determination

1) As to Defendant 1’s assertion

A) Concerning the possibility of purchasing ○○ site

The core of this part of the facts charged is that even though the Defendants could not allow them to purchase the site of ○○○○, the Defendants concluded a delegation contract for purchase by deceiving Nonindicted 27 and acquired money in return for the said contract through the same words and actions as indicated in the facts charged. Therefore, it is examined as follows: (a) whether the purchase of ○○○ site was possible or not; and (b) whether Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 belong to the victim.

The possibility of purchasing ○○ site can be divided into objective and subjective aspects. The former is related to the situation of Non-Indicted 29 Non-Indicted 30, the ownership dispute at the time, and Non-Indicted 30, the latter is related to the ability or authority related to the purchase by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, including Defendant 1.

First of all, we examine objective aspects of the ○○ site. At the time, Non-Indicted Party 29 and Non-Indicted Party 30 were in dispute over the ○○ site. The two end groups agreed on several occasions to jointly develop and reverse the ○○ site, but they did not reach an agreement until specific methods such as the method of raising funds. On March 17, 2008, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2005Na25368) argued that there was a plan to sell the ○○○ site between two ends, but the Defendant asserted that there was a large agreement between two ends, and did not reach an agreement on how to sell the ○○ site, and it was difficult for Non-Indicted Party 2 to conclude that the ○○○ site would have been sold in accordance with the above ○○○○ site. According to the legal statement made by Non-Indicted Party 32 at this Court, according to the fact that the ○○ site was purchased in lieu of the above ○○○ site.

Next, the following subjective aspects are examined. In light of the above, it is not possible to present a detailed method of purchase on how the dispute arises with respect to the ○○ site, the agreement dated August 1, 2007 and the agreement dated October 2, 2007, which presented as the basis thereof, can be interpreted as having the right to purchase the ○○ site. In addition, it is not possible to interpret that both Defendant 1, 2, and 34 have the right to purchase the ○○ site. In addition, in full view of the fact that both Nonindicted 3, 34, who is the person preparing the above agreement, are denying the preparation itself, and the above agreement is being destroyed by Defendant 2. In addition, it is not deemed that Defendant 2, including Defendant 1, and Defendant 3 did not have any authority or ability to allow the purchase of the ○○ site.

In such a situation, Defendant 1, while negotiating with the victim regarding the delegation agreement for purchase, delegated only the defendant with the authority to sell at Nonindicted Corporation 31, and entered into a contract between both ends, and the date of mediation is agreed on that date, and thus there is no problem in the contract at all (Article 6’s legal statement, Defendant 1’s statement at the court below, Defendant 6’s statement cannot be believed to be unilaterally favorable to Nonindicted Company 9, but the credibility may be acknowledged when considering the consistency and concreteness of Nonindicted 6’s statement, and Defendant 3 presented both the above agreements and agreements to the victim, which have the authority to purchase the ○○○○ site, in light of the following: (a) Defendant 1 and other Defendants 2 and 3, including Defendant 1, had no ability to purchase the ○○ site; and (b) Defendant 1 could be recognized that they acquired money by deceiving the victim as if they had such ability due to the said speech and behavior.

B) Degree of Defendant 1’s participation

In full view of the fact that Defendant 1 consulted with Nonindicted Company 9’s related parties in the process of concluding a contract prior to Defendant 2 and 3, Defendant 1 said that it is possible to purchase the contract on the date of signing a contract, and Defendant 1 jointly and severally guaranteed the Nonindicted Company 28 in connection with the purchase delegation contract, Defendant 1 cannot be said to have gone through a simple legal advisory role, and rather, Defendant 1 could have led to the instant crime.

C) The lower court is justifiable to the same purport, and thus, rejected the above assertion.

2) As to Defendant 2 and 3’s assertion

A) Considering such objective circumstances as seen earlier, it is merely a subjective idea of the said Defendants that it is possible to purchase the parts of the two groups with the expense of KRW 20-3 billion to the actual athletes of the two groups, but does not seem to have been possible to purchase them by such a method.

B) The above Defendants do not appear to have presented the above agreement and the agreement on the day of the contract. Although there is a somewhat difference between Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 27 in relation to the date of presentation of the above documents, it is consistent with the point that Defendant 3 presented a copy of the above documents on the day following the contract, at least on the day following the contract. Since this document was requested by Nonindicted 6 as a basis for delegation of the right to purchase, it does not change into a means of deception even if the contract was presented on the following day. In addition, as long as the above Defendants presented the above agreement and the agreement that form the basis for delegation of the right to purchase, it cannot be said that they did not have received delegation of the right to purchase.

C) Defendant 2 alleged that the Defendant 2 did not use KRW 300 million for personal purposes, but it cannot be a circumstance that determines the establishment of the crime because it is merely an circumstance after the establishment of the crime.

D) Therefore, we cannot accept the above Defendants’ assertion.

5. The part concerning the fraud of the victim Nonindicted 35 (Representative Director of Nonindicted 10 Co., Ltd.) (the part concerning the fraud)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

1) In order to raise funds for the repayment of the obligation owed by Defendant 3 to Nonindicted Co. 10 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 10”), Defendant 3 borrowed bills from Nonindicted Co. 3, the president of Nonindicted Co. 10, thereby aiding the Defendant at a discount. As such, Defendant is not liable for the payment of bills.

2) At the time, the Defendant had the obligation to pay KRW 1.5 billion, but the obligation was not less than KRW 10 billion and was engaged in the act as an attorney-at-law, and thus, the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay.

B. Determination

According to the court below's statements by non-indicted 3 and defendant 3, the defendant 1 may recognize the fact that the defendant 1 borrowed 150 million won from the non-indicted 10 corporation on condition that the defendant 3's debt is repaid. Further, in full view of the fact that the defendant 1 prepared a loan certificate and a written statement of payment for KRW 85 million, including the remainder of KRW 75 million excluding the amount already returned to the non-indicted 10 corporation chairperson non-indicted 3 and interest thereon, the defendant 1 may fully recognize the fact that he borrowed the above promissory note under the above conditions.

In addition, in full view of the fact that at the time Defendant 1 assumed the obligation amounting to KRW 1.5 billion, Defendant 1 did not have any other evidence to prove that there was a claim amounting to KRW 10 billion as asserted by Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 did not pay the money equivalent to the above amount of the bill up to the present day, Defendant 1 can be recognized as having no intention or ability at the time.

The court below is justified to the same purport, and thus rejected the above argument.

6. Part of the occupational embezzlement against the victim non-indicted 11, etc. (209Gohap774)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

Until December 7, 2008, the time when the victims filed the suit of this case, which was delegated by the victims, was sent at the time of the strike, and there was an understanding from the victims on the use of money prior to that time. However, on November 3, 2008, the prior date of the suit, the victims did not return money by cancelling the delegation contract and appointing another attorney-at-law. Thus, the crime of embezzlement cannot be established.

B. Determination

In full view of the fact that, even after six months have passed since the victims paid money as deposit money, the victims urged Defendant 1 to file a lawsuit, and that if Nonindicted 36 was a condition to file a lawsuit from the original court to December 17, 2008, the court below stated that there was no reason to pay the money on April 2008, the victims did not have any reason to understand that they should use the money voluntarily even if they had paid eight months or remaining before the date of filing a lawsuit, and that the victims’ termination of delegation contract on November 3, 2008 cannot be deemed to have caused the failure of Defendant 1 to file a lawsuit in violation of the agreement even though the time of filing a lawsuit was imminent, it cannot be accepted.

7. Each part of the fraud against the victim non-indicted 12 (2010 Gohap88)

A. Defendant 3's assertion of mistake of facts

1) The fraudulent part of August 27, 2007 (related to the Scream Business)

A) At the time, the victim Nonindicted 12 was aware that the business was not carried out because the victim Nonindicted 12 was frequently posted to the office of Nonindicted 37 Co., Ltd., and therefore, the victim cannot be said to have belonged to the end of the Defendant.

B) Although the lower court recognized that the Defendant had deceivingd the victim by taking over the shares of Nonindicted Co. 37 from the first office in excess of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 37, the lower court determined that the transfer of the shares of the corporation and the transfer of the office was different from the transfer of the shares of the corporation, and that the lower court did not have the authority to transfer the office to

2) Fraudulent part of September 14, 2007 (related to purchase of ○○ Site)

A) In light of the fact that the Defendant came to know about the ○○ site upon the victim Nonindicted 12’s request, it would be against the empirical rule that the Defendant deceiving Nonindicted 12.

B) In light of the statement made by Nonindicted 38 and the fact that the dispute over the ○○○ site between Nonindicted 39 and Nonindicted 30 is easily recognizable by the registry, Nonindicted 12 cannot be said to have known the situation of the ○○ site.

C) Nonindicted 12 immediately discarded development investment agreements concluded on August 2, 2007 with the Defendant and the Defendant on August 2, 2007. Thus, Nonindicted 12 did not have any reason to pay money to the Defendant as in the facts charged.

3) Fraudulent part of April 10, 2008 (related to referral of selection of a contractor)

A) The statement that the Defendant, at the time of receiving money from Nonindicted 12 at the investigative agency, stated that Nonindicted 39 was detained by the Chairperson Nonindicted 40 of Nonindicted 39 Company, was due to mistake, and Nonindicted 40 was detained on December 12, 2008, and thus, the facts charged itself was erroneous.

B) As Nonindicted 12 first asked Nonindicted 39 Co. 12 to take charge of construction, it is merely that the Defendant was unable to take charge of construction due to the lack of feasibility in Nonindicted 39 Co. 39 as a result of Nonindicted 41’s request, and the Defendant was identified through Nonindicted 41, and the Defendant did not take charge of the construction from the beginning by deceiving Nonindicted 12.

B. Determination

1) The fraudulent part of August 27, 2007 (related to the Scream Business)

While Defendant 3’s statement is not consistent with the process of preparing a certificate of transfer, Nonindicted 12 made a statement to the effect that Defendant 3’s business share is transferred from the first office to the effect that Defendant 3’s business share is reduced as a screen run by the investigative agency, and Defendant 3’s assertion would result in Nonindicted 12’s giving money to Defendant 3 in order to take over an office for the business even though Nonindicted 12 had been aware that the business had not yet been carried out, barring any other special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 12 was unaware of the fact that the business had already been carried out due to the screen run by Nonindicted 12, barring any other special circumstances. In full view of the above, this part of the facts charged can be fully recognized.

The court below is justified to the same purport, and thus rejected the above argument.

2) Fraudulent part of September 14, 2007 (related to purchase of ○○ Site)

As seen earlier, it is not impossible for Defendant 3 to deceive Defendant 3 on the ground that: (a) there was no possibility for purchasing ○○ site as seen earlier; (b) there was no authority or ability to allow Defendant 3 to purchase the said site; (c) Defendant 3 has to conduct personnel management for the purchase of ○○ site to Nonindicted 12; (d) it is difficult for Defendant 3 to purchase money for the purchase of ○○ site; and (c) Nonindicted 12 first requested to inquire about ○○ site; or (d) he was aware that ○○ site was in a lawsuit; and (e) Nonindicted 12 paid money as stated in the facts charged to Defendant 3 was not directly related to the development investment agreement concluded on August 2, 2007 between Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 12. In light of the foregoing, the foregoing assertion by Defendant 3 cannot be accepted.

3) Fraudulent part of April 10, 2008 (related to referral of selection of a contractor)

According to the statement of △ News submitted by Defendant 3 on December 12, 2008, since the Chairperson, Nonindicted 40, the Chairperson, Nonindicted 39, and Nonindicted 40, on December 12, 2008, can be recognized as detained on December 12, 2008, it appears that there was an error in this part of the facts charged that around August 2007 (the facts charged are stated on August 2007, and Nonindicted 12 also made a statement corresponding thereto. Meanwhile, Nonindicted 12 appears to have made a statement to the effect that the time when the police and the court of original instance requested the brokerage of the contractor was about April 2008, and that Nonindicted 12 remitted money, considering that it was about April 1, 2008 and April 10, 2008, at the time when the request for brokerage of the contractor was already detained on April 4, 2008).

However, at the time of receiving money from the police, Defendant 3 stated that Nonindicted 40 was in custody at the time of receiving money from Nonindicted 12, and the prosecution knew that Nonindicted 40 was detained on December 12, 2007 before receiving money from Nonindicted 12. At the time, Nonindicted 40 was arrested, and Nonindicted 41 was unable to contact with Nonindicted 40 at the time. The prosecutor’s statement was made in the process of responding to Nonindicted 41 if Defendant 3 was well aware of Nonindicted 40.

Considering these circumstances, Defendant 3’s statement related to detention may be deemed to fall under any one of the cases where the statement made by Nonindicted 40 was without her friendship or was not directly contacted with Nonindicted 40 to the extent that he/she was unaware of the fact, or was not in contact with Nonindicted 40. As long as he/she could be selected as a contractor or as a contractor, he/she may in any case be urged that there was no relationship with Nonindicted 40. In addition, Defendant 3 sent KRW 20 million out of KRW 50,000 received from Nonindicted 12 to Nonindicted 41, and used KRW 30,000 for another purpose, and was returned from Nonindicted 41 to Nonindicted 12 without notifying Nonindicted 12. In full view of this, Defendant 3 could be sufficiently recognized that there was no intention or ability to arrange Nonindicted 12 to arrange for a corporation as a contractor. Accordingly, Defendant 3’s above assertion is rejected.

8. The part on fraud against the victim Nonindicted 8 (2010 Gohap363)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

1) The subway screen business was jointly promoted by Nonindicted 42, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, and the Defendant introduced Nonindicted 8 as an investor of the establishment fund in the process of assisting Nonindicted 37 Stock Company to be entrusted with the business of establishing Nonindicted 37 Stock Company, and did not attract or participate in the deception against Nonindicted 8.

2) Defendant’s use of KRW 100 million was subject to the consent of Defendant 2, 3, and Nonindicted 8, and the Defendant’s acquisition of part of the shares of Nonindicted 37 corporation in the name of Nonindicted 43 was merely the pretext of contributing to the consultation on the establishment of the corporation.

B. Defendant 2 and 3's assertion of mistake of facts

1) Since the subway screen business was led by Nonindicted 42, the Defendants were in charge of raising funds, the Defendants were not aware of the progress of the business, in particular, that there was no reservation at the time.

2) While Nonindicted 8 made a statement that he had been deceiving 10 Nonindicted 8 as if it had already been promised to receive orders, it is difficult to believe the above Nonindicted 8’s statement in light of the fact that it was before the incorporation of a legal entity.

3) In particular, Defendant 3 was not present at the place of lending money from Nonindicted 8, and therefore there was no business explanation from Nonindicted 8. This is supported by the fact that Defendant 3’s name is not included in the loan certificate, and that Nonindicted 8 did not file a complaint against Defendant 3.

C. Determination

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

① Non-Indicted 8’s statement is consistent, and Non-Indicted 8 stated that the part that the Defendants want to give a subcontract during the screen-based business is an advertising business, and that the screen-based business includes the advertisement business using the medium that is screen-based, and that the statement is acceptable.

② Although the Defendants were introduced to play a role in raising funds for the screen fish business run by Nonindicted 42, the Defendants actively participated in the screen fish business, such as the Daejeon Technical Team and the attraction of investment funds through Nonindicted 8, and eventually completed the registration of incorporation of Nonindicted 37 Stock Company by excluding Nonindicted 42, and the degree of the Defendants’ involvement in the business is deemed to go beyond the simple role of investment.

③ Nonindicted Co. 37 was established only at around April 11, 2007, and around February 9, 2007, it was not possible to make up 10 out of the screen, and Nonindicted Co. 37 did not meet the qualification requirements for the application for a project through screen, and Nonindicted Co. 44, who was responsible for the representative of Nonindicted Co. 37, did not confirm that the notice was made online; and as such, the Defendants were deemed to have participated in the business through screen, and at the time when the Defendants received money from Nonindicted Co. 8, it appears that the Defendants were aware of the degree of the progress of the business by screen.

④ Defendant 1’s office entered into a monetary loan agreement with Nonindicted 8, and Defendant 1 received not only KRW 100 million in the name of Nonindicted 43, which was the child, but also distributed Nonindicted 37’s shares in the name of Nonindicted 43.

⑤ Defendant 2 introduced Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 42, and talked to the purport that Defendant 2 will return KRW 1 billion to Nonindicted 8’s business is definite as screened.

④ Around January 2007, Defendant 3 had already presented and explained the documents related to the business to Nonindicted 8, and appeared to have participated in Defendant 2 and Defendant 1’s act at the latest on the date of a monetary loan agreement.

7) Defendant 3 made a statement that Nonindicted 8 did not have any address to talk about the problem of money because of the lack of any space between Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 2 and 3. However, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 8’s receipt of the above documents from Defendant 3 and the explanation about the screen fish business, it is difficult to believe Defendant 3’s statement.

2) The judgment of this Court

On the grounds that Nonindicted 8 did not file a complaint against Defendant 3 on the grounds that Nonindicted 8 did not file a complaint with Defendant 3 in the court below’s decision, it appears that Nonindicted 8 stated that the court below did not file a complaint against Defendant 3 in the court below’s decision that the one person would have expected to pay damages by viewing the remaining days, or that the one person would have tried to file a separate complaint if he was aware of an agreement or that he would have tried to file a separate complaint, notwithstanding the above Defendants’ assertion, this part of the facts charged can be fully

9. The non-acceptance part of Defendant 3 (2010, 417)

A. Prosecution's assertion of mistake of facts

In full view of the fact that Nonindicted 45 on February 4, 2009, which was the date of the preparation of a statement of cash payment, made on February 4, 2009, Nonindicted 45 made a statement of telephone call Nos. 1 omitted) used by Defendant 3 using Defendant 3’s office telephone, Nonindicted 45 made a telephone call with the above number No. 46, but it is difficult to easily believe that Nonindicted 46 and Nonindicted 47 made a call as a matter of telephone fee without any delay at the time of the preparation of the statement of cash payment, and the fact that the contents of the statement of confirmation of Nonindicted 47, which was the important basis for the decision of the court below, do not coincide with the entries in the statement of cash payment, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of

B. Determination

At the time of the preparation of a written statement of cash payment, Defendant 3 sent to Nonindicted 12 the statement that Defendant 3 sent to Nonindicted 46 the phone number with Nonindicted 31’s office phone, the contents of Nonindicted 45’s statement that Defendant 3 sent to Nonindicted 46 due to the telephone charge, the contents of Nonindicted 45’s statement that Nonindicted 46 sent to Nonindicted 46, which was the phone fee, are not unreasonable; it is difficult to accept the statement that Nonindicted 45, who was in charge of accounting affairs for a considerable period of time, affixed a seal on the cash payment note, which is the disposal document, without confirming the nominal holder; and the content certification that Defendant 3 failed to pay as the cash payment note under Defendant 3’s name, was sent to Nonindicted 3, and Defendant 3 easily understood that Defendant 2 sent it, but it is difficult to understand that Defendant 3 consented to the preparation of a written statement of cash payment.

However, in contrast to the fact that Defendant 3’s seal is affixed on two occasions, Nonindicted 12 made a relatively clear statement on this situation, while Nonindicted 45 made a statement on this situation, Nonindicted 12’s statement is unclear, and Nonindicted 12 made up the document stating interest of 10% per annum, reflecting the result of consultation with Nonindicted 47, and then revised the document stating interest of 48% per annum. The contents of the statement are inconsistent with the above Nonindicted 47’s fact confirmation, Nonindicted 12 did not make a statement on the receipt of cash payment statement stating interest of 48% per annum; in light of the fact that Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 3 did not make a statement on the preparation of cash payment statement containing interest of 48% per annum, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant 3 consented to the preparation of this case’s cash payment statement containing interest of 48% per annum, and there is no reasonable doubt that Defendant 3 did not have any other evidence to prove that there was no other evidence to prove that there was a lack of evidence.

The court below is justified to the same purport, and thus rejected the prosecutor's above assertion.

10. Claim on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant 2)

The sentence of the lower court (Defendant 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 years and additional collection of 600 million won, imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months, and imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months) is too unreasonable.

Ⅱ The second instance judgment

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 2

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) The funds of Nonindicted 31 was managed by Defendant 3, and Defendant 2 was never involved in it. Accordingly, Defendant 3 was unaware of the fact that Defendant 3 borrowed money from the victim’s applicant for compensation.

B) In particular, Defendant 2 did not receive 5 million won from the applicant for compensation on December 5, 2008, as stated in the crime No. 1-A of the lower judgment.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 3

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) The part concerning the crime No. 1-A of the lower judgment

The claimant for compensation for the victim did not deceiving the applicant for compensation by lending funds after sufficiently reviewing the materials to Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 was only aware that the applicant did not enter the money in the account of Nonindicted 48 only after the filing of the complaint by the applicant for compensation.

B) Facts of the lower judgment’s crime No. 1-b.

Although Defendant 3 made efforts to obtain a loan by taking as security the house of Pyeongtaek-dong, the fact that Nonindicted 49, a housing manager, did not return to the United States after departure from the Republic of Korea, and the loan was not sexually lost, and was not deceiving the applicant for compensation from the beginning.

C) Facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment

Since a balance certificate was issued from Nonindicted 50, and the amount was remitted to Nonindicted 50, and the Defendants received money, the Defendants cannot be deemed as deceiving the victims.

D) Facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment

Nonindicted Co. 31 had entered into an advertising agency contract with Nonindicted Co. 51 prior to this case, but only borrowed funds by talking about such circumstance to the applicant for compensation after the expiration of the period, and did not deceiving the victim.

E) Defendant 2 of the lower judgment

Defendant 2's request to the victim for compensation by lending funds necessary for Defendant 2's request for release on bail, and there is no fact about KRW 180 billion of welfare fund.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c) Prosecutors;

1) Mistake of facts (not guilty part against Defendant 2)

In full view of the fact that Defendant 2 received money from the victim’s applicant for compensation, Defendant 2 received advertising expenses by entering into a continuous contract and using it with the applicant for compensation. The Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 3 to obtain money from the applicant for compensation, and Defendant 2 should be deemed to have participated in the use of money in light of the relationship between Defendant 3 and Defendant 2, the lower court found Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the facts charged against Defendant 2, but acquitted the applicant for compensation.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The lower court’s sentence against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant 2’s assertion of mistake of fact

1) The part concerning Defendant 3’s assertion that there was no conspiracy or conspiracy to commit the crime

In full view of the following criminal facts, Defendant 3 and Defendant 2’s relationship (the auditor and chief director of Nonindicted Company 28 established by Defendant 3, and the head of Defendant 3 resides together with Defendant 3’s residence), and Defendant 2’s funds, etc. are used together with Defendant 3. In full view of the following criminal facts, Defendant 2 may be recognized to have committed the crime under subparagraph 1-A, b, c, of the attached criminal facts against the victim’s applicant for compensation through public offering with Defendant 3 in advance or impliedly or at least through Defendant 3, and thus, Defendant 2’s assertion on this part is rejected.

① As to the crime No. 1-A of the lower judgment’s crime No. 1-A, Defendant 2 consistently stated to the effect that the applicant for compensation had consistently stated with Defendant 3 to obtain funding, the prosecutor’s statement made by Defendant 3 is consistent with this, and Defendant 3 also presented to Defendant 2 the balance certificate issued by Nonindicted 48 in the lower court court to Defendant 2 and stated that Defendant 2 was aware of it. Defendant 2’s loan certificate and corporate identification certificate were issued to the applicant for compensation for KRW 565 million in the name of Nonindicted 31 corporation, the president of which was the Defendant 2.

② In relation to the crime No. 1-B. of the lower judgment, the applicant stated in the investigative agency that Defendant 2 had good goods in the Pyeongtaekdong and that it was possible to grant a loan, and that the applicant made a conclusive belief. It appears that KRW 30,000 of the money of the applicant for compensation was remitted to the account in the name of △△△△△ opened as well as Defendant 2 and was disbursed as operating expenses.

③ In relation to the crime No. 1-C. of the judgment of the court below, the applicant stated in the investigative agency that Defendant 2 had made a considerable amount of money, and that Defendant 2 said that Defendant 2 was said to be such a day in the court of the court below, and Nonindicted 50, who received money from the applicant for compensation, remitted KRW 10 million to the account in the name of △△△△△△ after five days.

2) The part of the assertion that no one received five million won from the applicant for compensation on December 5, 2008

In full view of the agreement between the applicant for compensation and Nonindicted 52 at the court of the original trial on December 5, 2008, Defendant 2 stated that the applicant for compensation paid KRW 5 million in cash at the restaurant on December 5, 2008 at the court of the original instance, Defendant 2 issued to the applicant for compensation a loan certificate of KRW 565 million in the name of Nonindicted 31 Corporation, the board of directors, and a corporate identification certificate, and Defendant 3’s statement in this court is not inconsistent with the above facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 received KRW 5 million as above.

B. As to Defendant 3’s assertion of mistake of fact

1) The part concerning the crime No. 1-A of the lower judgment

In full view of the documents presented by Defendant 3 to the applicant, there was a transaction of passbook passbook with Nonindicted 48, which was forged, Defendant 3 failed to provide clear explanation as to the process of obtaining such passbook or any relationship with Nonindicted 48, and Defendant 3 appears to have not been confirmed as to whether the said money was actually deposited, and the money received from the applicant for compensation was used as operating expenses of Nonindicted 31 corporation or remitted to Defendant 3’s partner. In full view of the above, this part of the facts charged can be fully recognized.

2) Facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment

In light of the fact that Defendant 3 fails to clearly explain the personal information of Nonindicted 49 and his relation, etc., Defendant 3 appears to have no means to confirm the existence of a house or the possibility of a secured loan, and Defendant 3 uses the money received from the applicant for compensation as the operating expenses of Nonindicted 31 corporation, etc., this part of the facts charged can be fully recognized.

3) Facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment

In light of the fact that only the certificate of balance of KRW 60 billion can take over KRW 20 billion, the question is whether the applicant for compensation can take over KRW 50 billion, and Nonindicted 50, who received money from the applicant for compensation, appears to have remitted KRW 10,000 to the account in the name of △△△△, and used it by Defendant 3 or Defendant 2, etc., this part of the facts charged can be fully recognized.

4) The part of the judgment below's crime No. 1-D.

In light of the fact that there is no room to discuss the re-contract with Nonindicted Co. 51; KRW 10,00,00 among the 20,000 won received from the applicant for compensation, it was used for personal debt repayment for Defendant 3’s creditor’s transfer to Nonindicted Co. 53; KRW 10,000,000 was used for the remaining personal expenses; and Nonindicted Co. 54 entered into an advertising agency contract with Defendant 3 for two years with Defendant 3; and Nonindicted Co. 54 requested that the company operated by the court be able to re-consign the contract with Defendant 3 at the time of the expiration of the period, but requested that it would have been able to re-consign the contract; and stated that it was not sexually false

5) Facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment

In light of the fact that an applicant for compensation has consistently stated that Defendant 3 mentioned the welfare fund from the investigative agency to the court of the original trial, and that there was no special reason to lend the security deposit for release on bail for Defendant 2 in the absence of conditions such as the use of welfare fund, etc., this part of the facts charged can be fully recognized.

C. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion of mistake

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below found Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the charges on Defendant 2 on the ground that Defendant 2 received advertising fees from Nonindicted Co. 51 even before it was clear that this work is an enterprise and even before it was used. However, this appears to be merely to the effect that, if a re-contract was concluded under the past contractual relationship, it would not be possible to receive agency fees, etc., and there is no circumstance to deem that Defendant 3 conspired with Defendant 2 before receiving money from the applicant for compensation; Defendant 20 million won was remitted to the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 53, Defendant 3’s creditor, and Defendant 2 did not have any evidence to deem that he knew of, or was involved in, such circumstance; and Defendant 2 did not have any circumstance to deem that the remaining KRW 10 million was directly delivered to Defendant 3, and Defendant 2 was involved in it.

2) The judgment of this Court

In light of the above circumstances cited by the lower court, Nonindicted 54’s legal statement in this court to the effect that Nonindicted Company 28 paid a certain monthly amount as consideration for soliciting advertising contracts, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged against Defendant 2.

The court below is justified to the same purport, and thus rejected the prosecutor's allegation in this part.

Ⅲ. The third part of the judgment below

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim non-indicted 4 (Fraud)

(1) As to admissibility of evidence

① Some of the statements made by Nonindicted 4, 18, and 17 in the original trial are admissible as hearsay evidence by the prosecutor’s leading interrogation, and the accusation itself is not admissible as evidence. ② Of the police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 17 and the police interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 of the police interrogation protocol against Defendant 1, Nonindicted 17 is admissible as long as Nonindicted 17 was investigated as the defendant and the defendant was investigated as a suspect, and as long as it was proved that some of the statements made by Nonindicted 18, 17, and 4 in the police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 17 are not written as the statement made by the investigative agency in the original trial of Nonindicted 18, and ④ The statement made by Nonindicted 4 that Nonindicted 17 and 18 among the statements made by the original trial of the lower court is inadmissible as hearsay statement, and the above evidence cannot be used as evidence for conviction, and the lower court’s judgment that it is improper to use it as evidence of guilt without distinguishing it as evidence.

(2) Claim concerning the background of establishment of the right to collateral security

In addition, it is necessary to recognize a claim suit such as cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to approximately 110,00,00 square meters (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) against the victim by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, not to lend money under the name of the defendant, but to make an investment of KRW 600 million by the victim's finding the defendant and making an investment in the above land. In this case, among the above land, the transfer of 3,000 square meters among the land that the defendant would receive as a contingent fee was changed, and the defendant did not deceiving the victim.

B) The part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim Nonindicted Co. 14 (Fraud)

(1) As to admissibility of evidence

Although Nonindicted 16’s statement in the lower court that has no admissibility of evidence (the part concerning Nonindicted 16’s statement due to the prosecutor’s leading question) and Nonindicted 16’s prosecutor’s statement (the prosecutor’s protocol was not the prosecutor, but the prosecutor’s protocol was prepared, and Nonindicted 16’s statement in the lower court was denied), the lower court that considered it as evidence of guilt is unlawful.

(2) Claim concerning the details of the sales contract and the use of the down payment

Nonindicted Co. 14 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 14”) determined the possibility of winning the instant lawsuit by itself and entered into a sales contract for part of the land for which the Defendant would have received as a successful remuneration (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) among the said land. The usage of the instant sales contract deposit includes not only the cost of litigation in a narrow sense, such as stamp, but also the cost of making the instant lawsuit clear, and thus, there was no fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Inspection (the part on fraud, August 8, 2005, 2010, 1506)

In light of the fact that Nonindicted 17 stated in the court of original judgment that the Defendant was presumed to have expressed that he was aware of the name of the Defendant’s funds in the trial division, and that the immediately preceding Defendant, by deceiving Nonindicted 4, the victim Nonindicted 4 to need litigation costs and used Nonindicted 600 million won as collateral for Nonindicted 4’s property. Considering the fact that even if the Defendant did not directly mention that the Defendant was the funds in the trial division, it can be deemed that the Defendant was the continuous state of Nonindicted 4’s mistake due to the immediately preceding deception, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, but acquitted the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts

1) The part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim non-indicted 4 (Fraud)

A) The assertion regarding admissibility of evidence

(1) In the case of Nonindicted 4, 18, and 17, the prosecutor’s inquiry is merely for the confirmation of the fact that Nonindicted 4, 17 was based on the statements made at the investigative agency, and it is not deemed to have been directed by the prosecutor to make a statement. In addition, if Nonindicted 18, etc. are different from facts or are to be added, additional answers are made in connection with the question, and the defendant is guaranteed the opportunity to cross-examine, etc., the above statement cannot be said to have been false, distorted, or likely

In addition, as long as the authenticity of the petition is recognized by the person who prepared the petition, the petition is admissible as evidence, and only the issue of credibility remains.

② In the case of Nonindicted 17, insofar as it was not prosecuted as the Defendant’s accomplice, the admissibility of evidence is not denied solely on the ground that the Defendant is a joint defendant’s suspect interrogation protocol.

③ In a case, the purport of Nonindicted 18’s legal statement pointed out by the Defendant is that the present memory is not present, and it is not the fact that the investigative agency made such a statement.

④ In the case of Non-Indicted 4’s statement in the court below, which was pointed out by the Defendant, is not admissible as a hearsay statement, but it is possible to fully recognize this part of the facts charged, and such errors of the court below are not affected by the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B) Claim on the background of establishment of the right to collateral security

The victim and the non-indicted 4 and the non-indicted 17 and the non-indicted 18 consistently visited the defendant, and the defendant visited the above 60 million won. The defendant stated that he would transfer 3,000 won of the land which he would have obtained as security the real estate to the 600 million won of the loan, and that he would have given the right to collateral security to the 3,000 won of the land which he would have received as security, and there is no special circumstance to suspect credibility, such as the contents of the statement, without contradiction between the defendant and the 60 million won of the above 3,000 won of the loan, it is difficult to explain that the defendant was the debtor of the above 60 million won of the loan or the 600 million won of the above 60 million won of the loan, in light of the fact that the defendant would not have been aware that the 600 million won of the loan was used as security for the above 600 million won of the loan contract prepared by the defendant (the victim would have promised to pay the above 6000 billion won of the loan.

Since the court below is justified in the same purport, it does not accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

2) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim Nonindicted Co. 14 (Fraud)

A) The assertion regarding admissibility of evidence

Of Non-Indicted 16’s legal statement in the lower court, the part in which the Defendant is named cannot be deemed to be the statement through the leading question of the public prosecutor (the prosecutor’s inquiry is for the purpose of confirming the fact that Non-Indicted 16 was based on the contents stated by the public prosecutor, and does not seem to have been intended to induce the public prosecutor to make a statement. In addition, if Non-Indicted 16 differs from the facts or makes an additional answer in relation thereto, and if the defendant is guaranteed the opportunity for cross-examination, the above part in the statement cannot be deemed to be false, distorted, or likely to be distorted by the leading question

In the case of Non-Indicted 16’s written statement by the prosecution, it is true that Non-Indicted 16 made a statement that the investigator was investigated in the court of original instance. However, it is not clear whether the purpose of this statement was investigated by the investigator rather than the prosecutor in whole, or the purport that the investigator was investigated in part of the specific statement part, and even if the above written statement is excluded from the evidence, it cannot be said that there was an error by the judgment of the court below since the whole of the written statement by Non-Indicted 16’s written statement by the court of original instance and other evidence can be sufficiently recognized if the above written statement is excluded from the evidence.

In addition, regarding Nonindicted 16’s legal statement of the lower court that denies the identity of Nonindicted 16’s statement, the part of the Defendant’s land category is that Nonindicted 16 did not accurately memory, rather than that of Nonindicted 16 made such a statement at the prosecutor’s office. As such, it seems that it is difficult to deny the admissibility of evidence solely on such circumstance.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B) Claim concerning the details of the sales contract and the use of the down payment

This part of the facts charged is not only that the defendant deceivings the victim about the possibility of winning the lawsuit of this case, but also that the defendant did not intend to use the contract of this case as costs related to the lawsuit, emphasizing the possibility of winning the lawsuit of this case and received the money therefrom. Furthermore, the defendant deceivings the victim in relation to the absence of the intent or ability to transfer ownership to the land subject to the contract of this case according to the agreement. Accordingly, even if the victim concluded the contract of this case based on his own judgment on the possibility of winning the lawsuit of this case as the defendant's assertion, it is not sufficient to deny the defendant's deception stated in this part of the facts charged, but it is necessary to examine whether the defendant had no intent or ability to use the money

The non-indicted 16 consistently stated that the contract deposit of this case was used as litigation expenses only. The contract deposit of this case is stipulated to be used only as litigation expenses until the ownership of the land subject to the contract of this case is transferred in the name of the defendant and his heir. Nevertheless, the defendant used most of the money received from the victim for the project expenses related to the non-indicted 110 association, which is irrelevant to the litigation expenses of this case (the defendant stated in the contract of this case includes not only a narrow sense of litigation expenses, such as stamp, but also the cost of the lawsuit of this case. However, in light of the circumstances and contents of the contract of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not receive the money of this case from the victim, even if he did not know that he did not receive the money of this case from the victim, the defendant did not receive the money of this case. The defendant did not know that he did not receive the money of this case from the victim at the time of the contract of this case. The defendant did not receive the money of this case from the victim at the time of the contract of this case.

The court below's decision to the same purport is justified, and thus rejected this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on the grounds that Nonindicted 4 or Nonindicted 18 did not directly listen to the speech that the Defendant would have made money under any pretext, and that Nonindicted 17, which told the Defendant that it was necessary to make money from August 7, 2005, did not explicitly expressly speak that the Defendant would have made money to the full bench at the time. However, the lower court made a statement to the purport that he would have made it by expressing that he would have made it by itself, and that Nonindicted 4 did not directly pay money to the Defendant, but delivered money to the Defendant through Nonindicted 17.

2) The judgment of this Court

In light of the above circumstances, the court below's above determination is legitimate, and the prosecutor's allegation in this part is not accepted, since it is justified in light of the above fact that Defendant 1 received money under the pretext of the fact that Defendant 1 had no intention or ability to use it as funds to the full bench, and that the core of this part of the facts charged was deceiving the user of money.

IV. Discretionary determination

1. Consolidated proceedings;

The first instance court rendered a separate judgment against the Defendants as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gohap711, 2008Gohap229, 942, 209Gohap166, 236, 601 (combined), 774, 911 (Consolidated), 2010Gohap88, 363, 417 (Consolidated), 201Gohap89, 3 of the same court with respect to the Defendants 2 and 3 as the same court of first instance, and the lower court rendered a separate judgment against the Defendants 1 as the same court of first instance, and the Defendants filed a final appeal against the Defendants 3 and 2 of the judgment of the lower court with respect to each of the above judgment, the prosecutor of the first instance court acquitted them as to the Defendants 1, 3 and 3 of the judgment of the lower court.

This court decided to concurrently examine the above appeal case, and the first, second, and third of the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a single punishment within the scope of punishment aggravated by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (However, some of the crimes against Defendant 3 among the judgment of the court of first instance should not be sentenced separately because they do not constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act). In this regard, the conviction part against the Defendants among the judgment of the court of first instance, the second, and the third of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained as they are.

2. Contributory legal principles concerning concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (the guilty part against Defendant 3 in the judgment of the court of first instance)

According to the records of this case, Defendant 3 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months for a crime of fraud in Gyeyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on July 9, 2009, and three years of suspended execution, and the judgment was finalized on May 27, 2010, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months for a crime of fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on December 1, 2005 and two years of suspended execution, and the judgment was finalized on June 1, 2007.

Therefore, among the crimes against Defendant 3 in the judgment of the court of first instance, the crime of fraud against Nonindicted 8 (2010Dahap363, the date and time of the crime, February 13, 2007) against the victim Nonindicted 8 (2010Dahap363, the crime committed on June 1, 2007) is not in a concurrent relationship with the remaining crimes due to the final judgment of June 1, 2007, and is in a concurrent relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive on June 1, 2007, and is in a concurrent relationship with the crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, with the judgment of June 1, 2007, by providing a separate sentence after considering equity in the case where the judgment is to be judged concurrently, and examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment, the guilty part against Defendant 3 of the judgment of first instance, which omitted

V. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal as to the acquittal portion among the judgment of the court below of first and third grade is without merit, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the conviction portion among the judgment of the court of first, second, and third (including the acquittal portion as to Defendant 2 among the judgment of the court of second instance) is based on the above ex officio reversal, and therefore, it is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants and the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence admitted by the court of first instance is as follows: “Defendant 3 was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on December 1, 2005 by fraud, etc. at Seoul Central District Court: (a) on June 1, 2007, the judgment was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution on October 9, 2009; and (b) on the other hand, the judgment was finalized on May 27, 2010; (c) “Non-Indicted 2” and “Non-Indicted 3” and “Non-Indicted 1, 37,538,670,” and “Non-Indicted 1, 470,000, the summary of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (d) Non-Indicted 4 and Non-Indicted 1, 700,000,000 won [the Non-Indicted 1, 770,000 won [the Non-Indicted 1, 370,007.”].

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

【Crimes of the First Instance】

A. Defendant 1

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fraud against Non-Indicted 19, Non-Indicted 20, and Non-Indicted 2), Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act), Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the embezzlement against Non-Indicted 10), Article 356 and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fraud against Non-Indicted 10), Article 356 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347 (1), and 30 (the fraud against Non-Indicted 27), Articles 347 (1) and 30 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 30 (8) of the Criminal Act.

B. Defendant 2

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fraud of Nonindicted 27), Article 347(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fraud of Nonindicted 8) (the fraud of Nonindicted 8)

C. Defendant 3

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the fraud against Nonindicted 27), Article 347(1) (the fraud against Nonindicted 12) of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1) and 30 (the fraud against Nonindicted 8) of the Criminal Act

[Criminal Facts of the judgment of the court below]

A. Defendant 3

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including each fraud in attached Form 1-A), Article 347 (1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (attached Form 1-b, Article 1-3 of the Criminal Act), Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (attached Form 1-d, Article 1-4 of the Criminal Act, and Article 347 (2) of the Criminal Act)

B. 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 each fraud in attached Form 1-A), Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (attached Form 1-b, c)

[Criminal Facts of the judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (each fraudulent point)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act / [The punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Non-Indicted 2, and the punishment imposed on

1. Selection of punishment;

Election of each imprisonment with prison labor for embezzlement, each crime of fraud, each crime of occupational embezzlement

The maximum term of punishment for each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) shall be 15 years of imprisonment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 3: The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of each Criminal Act (a crime of fraud against Nonindicted 8, between the names of fraud, etc. finalized on June 1, 2007, and between the crimes other than fraud against Nonindicted 8, and between the crimes of fraud finalized on May 27, 2010)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Non-Indicted 14 Stock Companies with the largest punishment and punishment]

B. Defendant 2, 3

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Code (Provided, That with respect to Defendant 3, the punishment shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Nonindicted 27 with the largest punishment of the crimes except for fraud against Nonindicted 8)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 1: Articles 116 and 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Defendant 1

Along with the fact that the defendant was an exemplary legal person, the defendant was committed each of the crimes of this case by using the fact that the victims believe the defendant's speech and behavior easily due to such status, which led to a large amount of the victims, the total amount of the damage amount of 6.6 billion won and the damage amount of some victims are not recovered, and the victim does not seem to reflect his or her crime, which is disadvantageous to the defendant, the defendant did not have a criminal record, the defendant agreed with non-indicted 20, 27, 8 of the victim, and the non-indicted 14 corporation did not want the punishment against the defendant, and the defendant did not want the punishment against the defendant, the circumstances should be considered as favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant did not want the punishment against the defendant, and the fact that the health of the elderly is not good, and other various sentencing conditions such as character, behavior, family environment

2. Defendant 2

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was aware of the victim’s desire to commit each of the instant crimes by using the victim’s belief easily; (b) the majority of the victims and the total amount of damage was expressed to 1.8 billion won; (c) certain victims were not recovered; and (d) Defendant 1 or Defendant 3 was responsible even if the Defendant was recognized as taking part in the commission of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant was disadvantageous to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant did not have a criminal record; (d) the victim Nonindicted 8 and Defendant 3 were agreed solely with the victim; (d) the victim Nonindicted 27 were recovered; (e) the victim’s damage was recovered in full; and (e) the degree of the Defendant’s participation in each of the instant crimes was relatively minor; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment

3. Defendant 3

In light of the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, the victim non-indicted 8 and the victim non-indicted 27 agree smoothly with the victim, the damage is entirely recovered, the damage of some victims is not recovered, the defendant appears not to have been divided into the truth, the most of the crimes of this case was committed during the suspension period of execution due to fraud in 2005, etc., and the defendant committed several times due to fraud and the like crimes, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant, the damage of the victim non-indicted 8 and the victim non-indicted 27 must be considered as favorable to the defendant, and the fact that it is necessary to consider equity with the case where the judgment becomes final and conclusive at the same time as the crime of fraud, and that it is necessary to consider the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, etc.

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 conspired, and around December 22, 2009, Defendant 3 concluded an advertising order contract with the victim in Seoul Gwangjin-gu (hereinafter omitted), and Defendant 3 concluded a contract with Nonindicted Company 28 and concluded it again. However, in order to conclude a contract, Defendant 2 concluded a contract with the employee in charge of the charge, the amount of KRW 20 million is required to be paid to the employee in charge of the charge. Defendant 2 concluded a contract with the purport that “I would pay the existing amount of money by receiving the annual advertising cost in lump sum,” and Defendant 2 received and used the advertisement fee from the side to the company.”

However, there was no room for the Defendants to enter into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 51, and there was no intention or ability to pay the already received money to the victims because they consumed Defendant 3’s personal repayment of debt, or they planned to use the money as operating expenses of Nonindicted Co. 28 and so on.

Nevertheless, on December 22, 2009, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim and let the victim remit the amount of KRW 10 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of Nonindicted 53, designated by the Defendant on December 22, 2009, and received KRW 10 million on December 23, 2009.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to deception the victim, and obtained a total of KRW 20 million, thereby deceiving the victim.

2. Determination

As seen in Section 2.2.c., the above facts charged that the defendants conspired to deception the victim and deception the money constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. As to Defendant 2, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and as long as the defendant 3 is found guilty of the crime of fraud in relation to this crime, the defendant 3 shall not be acquitted in the text.

Judges Ansan-jin (Presiding Judge)

1) As seen below, with respect to paragraph (1) of the crime of the judgment of the court of second instance, this court shall add the name of the crime recognized in the name of the crime to the above crime by reflecting the fact that the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the crime of fraud are individually established according to the facts charged and the name or method of deception, unlike

2) On the grounds delineated below, the judgment of the first instance is reversed and the punishment is again determined. As such, the allegation of unfair sentencing on the judgment of the first instance is not separately determined. Moreover, the allegation of unfair sentencing on the judgment of the second and third instances is not separately determined on the same grounds.

3) As seen earlier, Nonindicted 12 stated as around August 2007 as stated in the facts charged. However, Nonindicted 12 appears to have stated that the time when Nonindicted 12 requested the mediation of the construction work by the police and the court of original instance is about April 1, 2008, and Nonindicted 12’s remittance of money is about April 1, 2008 and April 10, 2008, considering that the time when Nonindicted 12 requested the mediation of the construction work was about April 1, 2008, it appears that the time when the request for the mediation of the construction work was made on April 2008, and that it was not likely to undermine Defendant 3’s right of defense. Accordingly, it is recognized by the revision on April 4, 2008.

4) As seen earlier, even if Non-Indicted 40 was detained on December 12, 2008 or excluded therefrom, it may be found guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thus, the above part of the facts charged are deleted and the facts charged are corrected.

5) In the case of fraud, in which the money is acquired through deception several times against the same victim, if the criminal intent is single and the method of the crime is the same, only the comprehensive crime of fraud is established, but if the criminal's identity and continuity are not recognized or the method of the crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do1751, Jun. 25, 2004; 99Do4862, Feb. 11, 2000). The lower court deemed Article 2(1) of the lower judgment as a single comprehensive crime, but it appears that the date and time of each crime was committed against the same victim at considerable intervals, and it appears that the singleness of the criminal intent of the same victim is not recognized or that the method of the crime is not identical, the crime by each paragraph shall be deemed as a single concurrent crime. However, as seen earlier, the lower court did not reverse the relationship between the crime and the attached Form 1.

(6) The act of the victim directly connected to the deception as stated in this part of the facts charged is the creation of a right to collateral security on his own land and building. In this case, the acquisition by the defendant is a property profit equivalent to the maximum debt amount, and thus, the amount of subrogated payment should not be evaluated as a pecuniary profit. If it is deemed that the defendant acquired a pecuniary profit by subrogation, the defendant's deception, which is a direct cause to the act of subrogated by the victim, should be stated. However, in order to evaluate the amount of subrogated payment as a pecuniary profit, the facts charged are not indicated. Therefore, this court did not stipulate the facts charged. Accordingly, the court made a disposal by the victim of deception, such as the facts charged, of establishing a right to collateral security on his own property, and accordingly, revised the facts charged by the defendant to obtain a pecuniary profit equivalent to the amount of the maximum debt amount, but it cannot