(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.8.25. 선고 2017고합181 판결

Defendant U is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years, by imprisonment for five years, and by imprisonment for four years and six months, respectively.

Reasons

Criminal facts

1. Defendants' violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

The defendant U is a director of AT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AT"), who actually operated the above company, and the defendant A is a person who actually operated E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "E"), who actually operated the steel distribution business, etc., and the defendant BR is a person who actually worked as a vice head of the victim BX Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "victim Co., Ltd.") who conducts steel distribution business.

Defendant U, A, and BH (hereinafter “BY”) were unsold for a long period of time in all households other than three households from among the 76 households of Chungcheongbuk-gun BY (hereinafter “Y”), which were implemented by AT around October 201, and thus, it was impossible to repay the principal and interest of various obligations, such as loans of approximately 30-4 billion and bonds, etc., Defendant U, A, and BH entered into cash by means of acquiring steel as security and selling them by dumping, and Defendant U entered into the price of the sales as “the so-called “security value”, and Defendant A and BH entered into two categories: (a) the sales closing or profit, etc.; and (b) the sales proceeds or profit, etc.

Accordingly, Defendant A and B have offered BY as security from around that time to steel suppliers such as scNST and scisco, etc., and sold them after being supplied with steel, and a promissory note issued and issued for payment for the above suppliers without paying the price for the above suppliers has been in default or at auction for the real estate offered as security.

Meanwhile, in spring around 2012, Defendant U, A, and B promised to be supplied with steel from the victim company as collateral with Defendant BY, which was in charge of the transaction with E and steel, and the transaction with the victim company was interrupted due to the outstanding amount of approximately KRW 860 million by Defendant E, which was operated by Defendant A around May of the same year, the transaction with the victim company was suspended due to the outstanding amount of approximately KRW 860 million. Defendant U issued a promissory note in the name of AT for the payment of the price to the victim company, and issued the sales price to the victim company through BH for the payment of the purchase price to the victim company. Defendant U offered real estate unsold in lots, such as BY, or commercial buildings and land, which are not easy to dispose of due to senior rights, and paid the price to the victim company through BH, etc. with priority in the value of the maximum debt amount equivalent to the sales price at the time of the steel sale, and Defendant 1-200% of the sales price at the price of the goods sold to the victim company.

Accordingly, Defendant U, A, and B, around May 24, 2012, offered 5 loans, including BY 102 Dong 102 102, as collateral, to the victim company. Defendant BR around that time, at the victim company’s office, sold steel as collateral and supplied steel on credit to the head of the business division and the representative director at the company’s office, and then immediately settled the price of steel. Defendant BR was authorized to supply steel to the victim company after having the victim company set up a collateral security right for BY 5 loans each maximum debt amount of KRW 100 million with each maximum debt amount.

However, in fact, when Defendant A supplied real estate, such as the above BY as collateral and supplied steel as collateral to the victim company, Defendant A was aware that the sales proceeds were paid in preference to cash and used in paying its debt, etc., and then, BY had been unsold in lots for a long time in the manner that a promissory note was issued to the victim company to pay the steel price without paying the steel price, or auction on the real estate provided as collateral. BH was thought to have acquired steel from many business partners, including the victim company by using the collateral provided by Defendant U, etc., and then sold it through Defendant A, and then acquired it as its profits after deducting the value of U’s collateral. Defendant A introduced Defendant BR, who is an employee of the steel supplier, provided the steel company with steel and provided it with steel for the payment of the amount equivalent to KRW 860,000,000,000 for the victim company, and had no intention to purchase the amount at a discount of 47% of the sales price and sales price from the victim company.

Defendant U and A, in collusion with BH, CA, and CB, conspiredd with the victim company, and received a total of 6 real estate security as stated in attached Form Nos. 1 from around June 2013 to July 2013, the victim company received a total of 8,685,52,396 won as stated in attached Form Nos. 8,685,396 won, including EGI COL, and received steel equivalent to the total of 135,019kg from the victim company, including EGI COL, and 160,706,2222.

Defendant BR, in collusion with Defendant U, A, etc., was supplied with steel equivalent to KRW 3,948, 195, 427 as stated in the separate sheet of crime Nos. 1 6 through 10 in the above crime.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

Around November 27, 2012, the Defendant and the CA established a CF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CF”) by acquiring steel from the victim company, such as U, A, and BH, and selling the steel by acquiring the steel in the above way.

Since that time, the CA provides the owners of commercial buildings and land, etc. who are not easy to purchase and sell real estate as collateral, with "to purchase and sell the real estate from the sales proceeds thereof" and provide the contract deposit as collateral to the victim company. On the other hand, with respect to the credit debt incurred in the supply of steel from the victim company, the CA shall purchase and deliver the bill of lading to the victim company. CG, which is a collateral offering method, shall offer real estate owned by a third party to the victim company as collateral like the CA. The 2nd operates D (hereinafter referred to as "D") with his father at a discount of 4 to 27% above the unit price and market price of the victim company's supply of the steel supplied by the CA and CG, and the defendant sold the steel supplied from the victim company to his business partner at a discount of 4 to 27% above the unit price and market price of the company's supply to the victim company, and even if the victim company will automatically destroy the sales contract by using the real estate as collateral, it shall be jointly prepared the CA and the sales agreement with the victim company without delay.

Accordingly, around December 5, 2012, the Defendant and the CA, CG, and Z provided land as collateral to the victim company, including CH, around December 5, 2012, and the Defendant around that time, at the victim company’s office, distributed steel immediately in the event that the head of the business division and the representative director secured real estate provided by the CF as collateral and supplied steel on credit with the purpose of dumping by using the establishment of CF and the security of real estate, etc.

However, the facts are that the defendant and the CA provided the above real estate as security to the victim company and used the steel as acquisition fund for another company by receiving a payment for the sales proceeds, making a cash loan to the victim company, and then, it was thought that the CA did not pay the steel price to the victim company, or the CA did not pay the intermediate payment and the balance, thereby causing damage to the victim company by making the cancellation of the victim company's right to collateral security. CG knew knew the plan of the defendant and the CA, and thought that it would receive the fees by offering collateral. The Z considered that it would receive 3% of the premium from selling the steel supplied to the CF and would receive 4 to 27% of the supply unit price and market price. The defendant, the CA, the CG, and the Z did not have any intention or ability to pay the fees even if the steel was supplied by the victim company and sold the steel.

In collusion with the CA, CG, and Z, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim company as above, was supplied with steel 479,300 km, such as EGI COL, and 505,784,84,840 won in total from around January 2013, the Defendant provided four real estate security as shown in the separate crime list (security) in attached Form 2 from around that time to July 2013, and acquired and acquired steel worth 2,695,347,644 won in total as shown in the separate crime list 2.

3. Defendant U’s accusation

As stated in paragraph (1) above, the Defendant: (a) received steel from a large number of companies, such as the above BX, and sold them into dumping; and (b) was anticipated to be in default due to the lack of funds to pay promissory notes issued in the name of AT; (c) was false as if the promissory notes were distributed by altering the face value of AB; and (d) was notified by BH of the resident registration number of CI used as the name of BH, and subsequently filed a false complaint with A and BH to avoid liability for the failure to pay promissory notes, etc., as if they were damaged by the steel transaction.

(a) Non-Appellant on April 18, 2013

On April 18, 2013, the defendant prepared a false complaint against A in a certified judicial scrivener office where it is impossible to know the trade name in the Busan Geum-gu, Busan, for the purpose of having A punished criminal punishment.

The statement of the complaint states that "A, a defendant, issued and received 50,000,000 Promissory Notes (the number: CJ, the date of payment: April 18, 2013) of U U on December 30, 2012, and then changed the issue price to 450,000,000 won for the purpose of exercising the right of consent or preparation without any authority to do so, and distributed the issue price to the end holder and ordered him to make payment at the place of payment."

However, in the process that the Defendant and BH and A traded steel with the above BX, BH had no record of altering the said Promissory Notes as it was used as the payment means for steel against the above BX after preparing a loan confirmation document with a face value of KRW 450,000,000 for a bill borrowed from the Defendant.

As such, in collusion with BH, the Defendant submitted the above complaint to the police officer in charge who is unable to know his name at the Busan Geum-gu's public service center of the Geum-gu Police Station on the same day.

(b) Non-Appellant on May 9, 2013

On May 9, 2013, at a certified judicial scrivener office where it is impossible to know the trade name in Busan Franchi, the defendant prepared a false complaint against A for the purpose of having A punished criminal punishment.

The statement of the complaint states that "A, the defendant, issued and received 50,000,000 Promissory Notes (the number: CK and the due date: April 18, 2013) of U U, the complainant on December 30, 2012, 200, and changed the issue price to 450,000,000 won for the purpose of exercising it even if no consent or authority has been given, and distributed the issue price to the end holder and had him make payment at the place of payment."

However, while the Defendant and BH and A engaged in steel transactions with the above BX, BH did not have altered the above Promissory Notes to enter KRW 450,000,000 with a face value of KRW 450,000 with a loan certificate for the above KRW 450,000 with a face value of KRW 450,000 with the Defendant and then used it as a payment means for steel payment against the above BX.

As such, in collusion with BH, the Defendant submitted the above complaint to the police officer in charge who is unable to know his name at the public service center of the Busan Geum-gu Police Station on the same day.

On October 10, 2013, the defendant prepared a false complaint against CI for the purpose of having CI receive criminal punishment at a certified judicial scrivener office where it is impossible to know the trade name in the Busan Geum-gu.

On October 10, 2013, the defendant stated that "CN" is "CN" because CI, a defendant, would purchase real estate owned by AT by the complainant at the end of the end of 2012, provided a total of 4 billion real estate in BL, CL, etc., and lent a bill for the settlement of the price of goods. However, CI, the defendant, who is the defendant, obtained approximately KRW 3 billion by means of the auction of real estate provided by the complainant by failing to pay the price of goods in S, CM, BX, etc., and the defendant was present at the investigation station of the Busan Geum-gu Police Station in Busan and the office of one economic team and received a statement for supplementation of the complaint.

However, in fact, CI had been used by BH, and real estate security, promissory notes, and cash were provided to BH in the course of performing steel transactions with the above BX, etc., and the above CICN was provided by the Defendant to BH for false accusation, and the above CICN did not cause damage to the Defendant due to the Defendant’s failure to use the real estate security and promissory notes provided by the Defendant or to pay the price to steel companies, such as the above S.

Summary of Evidence

[Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness CO, CE, CD, and CP, witness U, A, BR, Q, Q, BH, CA,CC, and CB (for co-defendants except for the pertinent witness)

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of Defendant BR concerning the suspect;

1. The protocol of interrogation of the police as to the CR, each protocol of interrogation of the police as to the defendant BR (as to the defendant BR)

1. Each police statement about Q,CC, and R;

1. Written reply verifying the content of R, written report on internal investigation (the confirmation of the operator of the project and accompanied by a record of the content of U dialogue), public notice of approval for modification of the housing construction project plan, record, recording, criminal investigation report (Attachment of a CD) and meeting details, inquiry into the status of interview with prisoners, and each record (No. 158 No. 5) [No. 158 No. 158];

[Defendants asserted probative value of each recording book (No. 158) to the effect that BH and Q were made on the basis of false conversations with the intent of receiving money from Defendant U.S., and C Q also stated in this court that “B was unable to obtain a deposit of KRW 28 million from Defendant U.S. and that “B would have recorded one’s speech in the future from BH,” and that “the recording of the contents of BH and telephone conversations from time to time was recorded.” However, according to B’s legal statement, it does not coincide with C Q’s above legal statement because (i) he was unaware of one’s own recording, and (ii) he was unaware of the overall progress and plan of the instant crime, etc., and (iii) Q Q did not appear to have been able to have been able to obtain a false recording of these facts from Defendant U.S. to the extent that Q et al. was not al.’s 1’s statement to the effect that Q would not have been able to obtain a false recording of these facts.

1. Each appraisal statement, all the registered matters (No. 27 through 36, 38, and 39), copies of the distribution schedule (No. 37), the transaction statement, each registration statement, all the registered matters (No. 37), the transaction statement, each registration statement (E, BZ, and AT), BZ bill, each registration statement, the details of bills and notes paid, each copy of the promissory note (No. 12), the transaction statement, the deposit details, the past transaction statement, the electronic tax invoice (No. 15), the transaction statement, the transaction statement, the electronic tax invoice (No. 166), the transaction statement, the electronic tax invoice, etc., the normal transaction statement, the transaction statement, the financial data (CS, CT), the transaction information, etc. of the companies related to BX-related transactions, the transaction ledger (E, BZ, and CF);

1. A copy of the judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2015Gohap477), or a copy of the judgment (Seoul High Court 2016-93 Consolidation);

【Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)】

1. Defendant BR’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of witness CE, CP, CD, witness CA partial statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of Defendant BR concerning the suspect;

1. A copy of each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant BR, and a police suspect interrogation protocol against CG;

1. Full certificate of each registered matter (No. 4,20), internal investigation report (CF real estate appraisal report, sales contract, and certified copy of the registry), appraisal report, each of the registered matters (No. 42 through 45) and the full certificate of each registered matter (netly attached to the appraisal report, sales contract, and certified copy of the registry), the internal investigation report (in the BX, the current status of counterpart sales claim, settlement details, and tax invoices) and the details of bills, notes paid, the details of bills, promissory notes paid, copies of promissory notes (7 copies), past transaction records (6 forms), CF transaction records, electronic tax invoices (7 forms), transaction statements (48 forms), internal investigation reports (for those acquired through fraudulent transaction with BR D), and electronic tax invoices, transaction statements, electronic tax invoices, electronic tax invoices, investigation reports (attached to the head of the BX future ledger), and customer of the credit sales ledger (E, Z, and CF);

1. A copy of the transaction statement, report on the actual inspection of real estate security field, each certified copy of the plan for the settlement of disputes, and each real estate sales contract (No. 21 and 22).

【False Accusation】

1. Defendant U’s partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness BH and A;

1. A copy of the statement made by the police against the defendant U (No. 53);

1. A complaint filed on April 18, 2013, a complaint filed on May 9, 2013, and a complaint filed on October 10, 2013;

1. Recording notes (No. 158 No. 158);

1. A copy of the invoice of each case (No. 51, 52 No. 51, No. 52), a copy of the investigation report (to hear statements from the counter party of the suspect CI), a copy of the investigation report (to confirm the counter party suspect), a copy of the investigation report (to confirm the non-compliance with the investigation of the complainant), a copy of the investigation report ( to request

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to written confirmation of borrowing of promissory notes between H and U;

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

A. Defendant U: Article 3(1)1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same) and Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Fraud; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 156 and 30 of the Criminal Act (with regard to non-existence of imprisonment and choice of imprisonment)

B. Defendant A: Article 3(1)1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (generally, choice of limited imprisonment)

(c) Defendant BR: Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including each of the items of crime No. 1 and (2) at the time of sale);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant U: The punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is the largest penalty, and the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Defendant BR: the 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 crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), which is heavier than the punishment)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Judgment on the part of Article 1 of the Criminal Act

A. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

Not only did the Defendants conspired to commit the instant crime with BH, etc. but also did not intend to commit the crime by fraud.

○ The amount of damage in this part of the facts charged is not actually supplied by the victim company with steel products (in order for the victim company to take over purchase obligations equivalent to KRW 860,000,000 of the E) but merely includes the portion of false tax invoices issued by the victim company and the portion of dividends paid by the victim company to the real estate already paid or offered as payment (including the settlement amount of bills) from the Z, and thus, all of the above parts must be deducted from the amount of damage. In particular, with respect to the defendant A, the portion of supplying steel products to other company than the Z must be deducted from the amount of damage.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) Legal principles relating to fraud

A) The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. Since dolusence as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime is established, the crime of fraud is established even by dolus negligence. It refers to a case where dolus negligence is declared as uncertain and acceptable as it is stated that the possibility of occurrence of the crime is uncertain. The perception of the possibility of occurrence of the crime in order to have a willful negligence, as well as the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime. Furthermore, whether the actor permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime must not depend on the statement of the offender, but on the basis of specific circumstances such as the form of the act committed outside and the situation of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009).

B) In particular, even if a person who is supplied with goods in a goods transaction without a systematic project plan for raising business funds conducts a business in an unreasonable way beyond the scope of a reasonable payment capacity, or is supplied with goods due to the aggravation of credit in the continuous transaction relationship, it shall be deemed that the criminal intent of acquiring the goods can be recognized if he/she is supplied with the goods, despite the possibility of hiding such fact in a doubtful situation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3719, Sept. 9, 2005; 2006Do2840, Aug. 25, 2006). In addition, if a person who is supplied goods in a goods transaction relation notifies the other party of the method of preparing the price of goods if he/she had failed to supply the goods to the other party, he/she was supplied with the goods contrary to the truth by notifying the other party of the method of preparing the price of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3754, Nov. 27, 2014).

C) On the other hand, in a case of fraud involving the taking-off of property, if there is a delivery of property by deception, it itself constitutes a crime of fraud by infringing on the victim's property, and even if considerable consideration has been paid or no damage has occurred to the victim as a whole, it does not affect the establishment of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do203, Mar. 24, 1995).

2) Legal principles concerning co-principals

A) In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with two or more offenses, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime by committing a crime. If such conspiracy is conducted in a successive or implicit manner, the conspiracy is established if the intent is combined with the intent to realize the crime. A person who does not directly participate in the act of implementation is liable for the other accomplices’ acts as co-principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013).

B) Furthermore, the joint commission of a crime through the conspiracy is possible without the premise that all accomplices realize the elements of a crime by themselves, and it is also possible to cooperate with the accomplices who implement the act of realization to strengthen the situation of the act. Whether it constitutes such a matter ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding about the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, intent to control the crime, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2905, Apr. 26, 2012).

C. Determination on the premise - In light of the following circumstances that can be seen through the evidence submitted to the court that the non-conforming structure of the first transaction of this case was revealed, the first transaction of this case is being carried out in an unreasonable way beyond the scope of reasonable payment capacity under a flexible concept without a systematic project plan concerning the raising of business funds. However, it seems that the victim company was provided with steel continuously and continuously hiding such fact.

1) Structure of the first transaction of this case

A) On June 5, 2012, BZ, which was actually operated by the steel supply structure BH, began to be supplied with steel products equivalent to KRW 161 million from the victim company, and thereafter supplied steel products equivalent to KRW 8.6 billion by April 17, 2013 (excluding the portion of false tax invoices issued). BZ supplied most of the steel products supplied from the victim company to E operated by the Defendant Company, and E re-processed and sold them to the steel wholesale retail company.

B) Method of settling the amount of steel supply

(1) The Z provided a security to the victim company as shown in attached Table 1 of the Crimes List (Security) and took the method of credit transaction en bloc paid on the last day of the following month upon receipt of steel products. From July 2012 to September 2012, when the first transaction was commenced, the amount of KRW 480 million was paid in cash, and the amount was mainly paid as a promissory note issued by AT from September 2012 to May 2013. As a result, the sum of the steel supply amount of KRW 8.6 billion in cash (including KRW 15 billion in total) and KRW 70 million in bills, and most of the amount was paid as KRW 45 billion in bills (excluding a note replaced by KRW 450 million in total) and the amount was paid as KRW 470 million in bills. Meanwhile, the part of the bill issued to AT was not actually paid as the part of the bill.

(2) At the time of the supply of steel from the Z without providing separate collateral to the Z, the Z paid in cash all the part excluding certain fees out of the cost of resale of steel at the time of the supply.

C) In short, in the first transaction of this case, steel was supplied in the order of the Victim Company ? BZ ? intermediate sales (mainly E) - steel products were supplied in the order of the Steel Do and retail. The steel supply price was a promissory note issued by AT to the Victim Company, and E was a settlement in cash to B.

2) Non-conformity of the first transaction of this case

A) Around February 2012, B was a new plant established with the capital of KRW 50 million, and was the only business that was supplied with steel by the victim company, etc. and resells it without undergoing any production or processing. In addition, according to the statement of financial position of B, B was in the complete capital erosion with no asset as of December 31, 2012 and with the current debt of KRW 6.6 billion.

In addition, in the first transaction process of this case, the Z provided the victim company with the real property equivalent to the maximum debt amount of 3.9 billion won as a collateral, such as the attached list 1 in order to secure the claim for steel supply to the victim company in the first transaction process of this case, but the real value of the real property was considerably lower than the maximum debt amount of 3.9 billion won due to senior security, etc. (the money which the CU, etc. acquired the claim for collateral, etc., ultimately by exercising the right to collateral security, etc. established with respect to the real property in question

B) Since its establishment, BH did not establish a real and detailed financing plan for the operation of BZ except for the method of receiving collateral from Defendant U, etc., and it appears that there was no experience in the distribution of steel (eGI COL, especially steel products supplied from the victim company) prior to the instant case (BH’s statement, most of the products supplied with the said EGI COL due to lack of distribution experience).

C) According to the structure of the first transaction of this case and the financial situation of BZ, financing plan, etc., the only source practically capable of settling the credit payment of the victim company against the victim company would eventually be paid the price that can be gained by the resale of the steel supplied by the victim company. In fact, the source that the victim company received from BL, etc. was actually the resale price of the steel as above. Nevertheless, BH paid approximately KRW 10 billion to the defendant, CA, and CB as the so-called collateral value and the settlement price for bills.

Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances, B is likely to have suffered losses rather than acquiring profits from the sale of steel products supplied by the victim company to B ("small dumping sale"). In other words, the core of the first transaction structure of B 1H under the instant business plan concerning the first transaction of this case is to promptly enmination of steel products supplied by the victim company through intermediate sale, such as E, and to obtain profits by using such cash. It is naturally expected that the price supplied from B 100 million won is lower than that of the supplied steel in order to be commercialized within several days. The Defendant also stated to the effect that B 200 billion won was lower than that of the paid unit price by the victim company at the time of the investigation, and that it was 100 billion won more than that of B 100 million won, and the Defendant stated to the effect that Q 100 million won was 5 billion won less than that of the paid unit price by the victim company at the time of the investigation.

Ultimately, according to the structure of the first transaction in this case, even if the Z is supplied with steel from the victim company and resells it, it is impossible to pay steel supply price to the victim company due to the security value against the defendant U, etc., payment of bills, loss from the sale of dumping, etc.

D) On the other hand, Defendant A and B may obtain profits from sales by using cash for a different business (e.g., real estate investment) or by resale after purchasing steel at a price below the market price in light of the payment deadline agreed with the victim company, the payment deadline for steel supply to the victim company may be punished for up to eight months. Thus, even if the value of the security against Defendant U, etc. is deducted, Defendant A and B may ultimately pay the amount of steel supply to the victim company with such profits, and purchase real estate from U, etc., such as the attached list of crimes (mortgage 1) was returned to this business plan.

However, it is clear that the above business plan has no systematic plan for raising funds, such as not entirely invested in one’s own capital, and eventually, due to the transaction structure, it is the so-called return preventing the payment of steel supply from settling the steel supply price in front of the steel sales price. It is clear that the victim company would not naturally supply steel if it was aware of the fact that the steel supply price is prepared in such a way. Furthermore, it is only several months in which the payment period for the price payment that the BH, etc. may delay, and it is impossible in reality to gain profits from real estate investment during the short period (the actual fact is that there is no profit from real estate investment through the first transaction in this case). In light of the fact that the sales profit through the steel sales can not be obtained at all as seen earlier, such assertion is difficult to obtain.

D. Determination as to whether the defendant's participation in the crime of U and the crime of defraudation is committed

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence presented to this court, Defendant U can be recognized as being supplied with steel equivalent to the sum of KRW 8,685,522,396 from the victim company in collusion with BH, etc. as stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment. Thus, the above Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

1) Whether the person involved in the crime and acquired the crime

In the following sense, Defendant U paid the steel supply price to the victim company only based on the resale price of steel supplied by the victim company without a systematic business plan regarding the raising of business funds with respect to the first transaction of this case at least around the time when the first transaction of this case was conducted. As such, Defendant U would be sufficiently recognized that BH and steel sales price would not be paid for the victim company with priority in terms of the value of collateral, etc., even though it is aware that it would not be able to pay the price of steel supply to the victim company, Defendant U would be paid with priority in paying the value of collateral, payment of bills, and payment of bills with respect to the first transaction of this case.

A) Defendant U consistently stated that the prosecutorial office from BH to this court the content of the structure of the first transaction in this case, namely, the supply of steel from a steel company as collateral and the resale price, and the payment of the collateral price (sale price) has been consistently made one month after the date on which the collateral was offered from the resale price. Defendant U offered real estate as collateral and immediately received the collateral price (sale price) is difficult to dispose of real estate, such as BY, which is difficult to treat as soon as the collateral price (sale price) is paid, and not only can it easily gain profit by making it possible to obtain rental income or tax profit during a certain period of time. However, if the purchase price of steel is preferentially used with the above collateral price, it is difficult for anyone to pay the purchase price in the outside of the steel unless other funds are used.

B) Defendant U appears to have known that BH was engaged in the instant first transaction by using a security offered by it without any particular asset or actual and specific financing plan. In relation to the instant first transaction, Defendant U stated in this court that BH’s offering of collateral was a person capable of distributing steel of KRW 1 million from BH, etc., and that BH’s property or past stateless business was not known separately. However, in light of the long-standing relationship between U and BH, Defendant U’s demand for payment of KRW 10 billion, and Defendant U’s attitude of demanding payment of KRW 70 billion at the time of said transaction, Defendant U.S.’s demand for payment of KRW 10 billion at the time of said transaction, and Defendant U.S.’s demand for payment of KRW 10 billion at the time of said transaction was not acceptable. Moreover, Defendant U.S.’s offering of collateral 10 billion at the time of the offering of collateral 10 billion to the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office. Furthermore, Defendant U.S.’s offering of collateral 200 billion.

C) In such a case, Defendant U appears to have been easily aware that if B was paid with priority from the victim’s steel sales proceeds supplied from the victim’s company, it would not be able to pay the price of steel supplied to the victim company. Nevertheless, Defendant U would not have paid the price of steel supplied to the victim. Defendant U would have paid the price of steel supplied to the victim in preference to the price of steel sales in return for providing BH and collateral or bills. Defendant U would have actually received KRW 8.3 billion out of KRW 13.2 billion deposited with the price of steel sales (including the portion deposited to a third party by U.S.’s instruction) from the 13.2 billion deposited with the price of steel sales (According to the Defendant’s police statement, Defendant U sent sent the price of collateral by telephone from the Defendant to BH and at all times deducted the price of steel sales from the price of steel sales, and Defendant QU could not have actually received the payment from the victim’s company. Defendant QU and QU did not have any contact with each of the above date.

D) Furthermore, at the time of the first transaction in this case, BH repeated sales of steel by generating CY, BZ and CL for a period of two years in France. During that process, BH used the provisional name of CI, not only one’s own name, but also borrowed money from another person’s name and registered as a representative. However, according to the Defendant’s statement by the police of CY, the Defendant: (a) after the establishment of CY, the Defendant’s establishment of CY, the name of BH was called as CI and CI (20 pages of investigation record). In addition, at the time of the establishment of CY, the Defendant was able to register CX, one’s own fraudulent act, as the company’s company, as the company’s company was the company’s company at the company at the time of the establishment of BY; and (b) through DA, the Defendant was able to find a person who borrowed the representative name of B, CL and others, and was supplied with RBL and CBL as the representative at the request of DA, DB, DB, DBL and 21318.

③ On May 30, 2014, BH asked Q Q Q Q, who was asked to commit fraud from the time of establishment of BZ at the time of the call with Q Q, did not know, but did so. He did so. He did so. He had been aware of her contribution management, and even if he was so, he did not use her first to use her as a shower shower and shower, and she did not do so in her first to do so, and even if she was said to go through her front report, she was called to go through her front report, she was ‘Isle and Isle,' and she was ‘Isle,' and she was called to go to her front report even if she was said to go to her. Such she was to come to her contact with the customer, she was to come to her first and last, and she was to go to her.

2) Whether the crime was committed jointly

Considering that the security and bill provided by the Defendant U in the first transaction of this case had a very important meaning in the supply of steel to the victim company on credit, the amount acquired by the Defendant U as a result of the crime of this case, and the role of the Defendant U in the first transaction of this case, etc., the Defendant U’s act is not merely a facilitation of the crime of this case, but rather a functional control through BH, etc., rather than a functional control. Therefore, the Defendant U is deemed to have participated in the crime of this case in collusion with BH, etc., and even if the BZ had real estate provided by a third party other than U, among the collateral provided by the victim, it does not affect such conclusion.

3) Determination as to the assertion that Defendant U suffered damages from the instant No. 1 transaction

A) Even if Defendant U’s assertion does not have a significant profit from the crime of this case and rather incurred losses, such circumstance is merely a result that occurred after the first transaction of this case, and such circumstance alone is insufficient to reverse the above circumstances and to deny Defendant U’s criminal intent by fraud.

나) 나아가 BH는 2014. 5. 30. CQ와의 전화통화 당시 CQ에게 '내가 4월에 부도를 내려고 2월에 물건을 챙겨가자고 했다. 우리가 날짜를 잡은 거야, 그동안 40, 50억 원을 챙기려고 그 결제를 해서 그 아등바등 한 건데, 피고인 U가 여기 지금 재산을 안 빼돌려 놨으니까 빼돌려 보내준다'고 말한 바 있다. 이러한 말에 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 피고인 BR은 검찰 조사 당시 '2013년 3월경 BH가 어떻게든 물건을 더 받아내려고 해서 싸움이 생겼다'는 취지로 진술한 바 있고(수사기록 4599쪽), 실제로 2013년경에는 이 사건 제1거래의 비정상적 형태에 대한 철강 원공급업체의 문제 제기 등에 따라 BZ이 피해자 회사로부터 공급받은 철강 물량이 전년도보다 감소하였던 점, 피고인 U는 피해자 회사에 교부한 어음이 부도나기 직전인 2013. 5. 22. AT이 소유한 유일한 재산인 BY 30여 채에 관하여 자신의 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마친 점 등을 더하여 보면 당초 피고인 U와 BH 등이 계획한 대로 범행이 실현되지 않아 당초 계획한 이득을 얻지 못한 것으로 보일 뿐이다.

E. Determination on Defendant A’s participation in and fraud

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence presented to this court, Defendant A can be recognized as being supplied with steel equivalent to the sum of KRW 8,685,522,396 from the victim company in collusion with BH, etc. as stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment, and thus, Defendant A cannot accept the above Defendant’s assertion against this.

1) At around October 201, Defendant A introduced BH to CV, around October 201, around the time when Defendant A became aware of BH, offered CV to be supplied with steel by providing CV with BY 4 bonds as security, and then reselled the amount of KRW 259 million out of the steel through CV, CY, etc.

2) Defendant A around early 2012, the outstanding amount of the steel supply price to the victim company that he operated was KRW 860,000,000,000,000 for the steel supply price to the victim company, and it appears that B and B were to reselld the steel supplied by the victim company and receive certain fees in return. In fact, B and B sold most of the steel supplied by the victim company. In other words, according to BH’s legal statement, B and C sold 85-90% of the total amount received from the victim company because B cannot handle it, and C and C also stated to the police to this effect. ② In light of the value of steel products supplied by the victim company during the first transaction period, B and C were to have been deposited in steel sales price from the victim company for the same period, and the value of steel products supplied by the victim company from the steel products supplied by the victim company and the sales route of the steel products supplied by the victim company, most of them appears to have been sold through E and sold by the victim company.

3) The unit price of steel supplied by E and reselled from the victim company was considerably lower than the unit price supplied by the victim company, and was lower than the ordinary price traded at the time. In this regard, the Defendant asserted that part of the steel products were sold at a price lower than the unit price supplied by the victim company, and that this would not be a sale of dumping in accordance with the same percentage as indicated in the facts charged, and that this would be justifiable due to the market price adjustment reflecting market situation and financial resources at the time of the transaction. However, according to the business’s customer position manager, etc., which purchased steel products from E, such as the company’s transaction bank, the Plaintiff’s sales of so-called dumping as described in this part of the facts charged, as well as the discount sales rate considerably exceeds the rate ordinarily acceptable. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion.

4) Furthermore, as seen earlier, BH stated to the effect that “The dumping of the goods of the Defendant A” was only caused by dumping 10 billion won at the time of telephone conversations with C Q on May 30, 2014, and that “BH is going to go away and going to the Republic of Korea at the time of telephone conversations with C Q,” and that it was said to that effect at the time of such telephone conversation.

5) Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A) Defendant A asserts to the effect that, in the first transaction of this case, the use of cash for a period arising from a difference in the terms and conditions of settlement may obtain a lot of benefits, and that such plan would be feasible and thus be paid for steel supply. However, as seen earlier, the aforementioned plan is ultimately paying for steel supply in the so-called return method, and as long as the value of the first sale of steel is preferentially used for the Defendant’s preferential use of the value of the collateral, it is structurally unreasonable that Defendant A’s payment of the non-satise of the non-satisfy out of the steel (such as prior to the failure to obtain a profit) and thus, Defendant A’s assertion is difficult to accept.

B) Defendant A paid all the steel price supplied from BZ, but Defendant A asserts that BH paid the price for steel supply to the victim company on a timely basis without paying the price for steel supply to the victim company, and only suffered losses by the victim company due to the first transaction in this case, and did not cause losses to the victim company as a matter of course.

However, according to the structure of the first transaction of this case as seen earlier, if the Z repeats the first transaction of this case, it cannot be paid to the victim company the amount of steel supply. According to the above circumstances, Defendant A participated in the crime of this case by acquiring steel products from the Z in collusion with BH and selling them, and depositing the sales proceeds into BE. Thus, even if Defendant A paid all the steel sales proceeds in collusion with BH, this does not mean that the above Defendant’s joint principal liability for fraud is not denied.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the above defendant's above arguments.

F. Determination as to whether the defendant BR's participation in the crime and the crime of defraudation

1) Defendant BR’s assertion of innocence

Defendant BR, as seen above, contests the criminal intent of participating in and defrauding the crime, and, in particular, was somewhat unreasonable in relation to the developments leading to the first transaction of this case. However, Defendant BR asserted that it was a conversion to business activities to raise the sales of the company and recover funds early under the circumstances of the victim company at the time, etc., under the circumstances of the victim company.

2) The portion of steel supply before December 2012 (not guilty part)

A) In light of the following circumstances revealed through evidence submitted to the court, it is suspected that Defendant BR did not take part in the instant crime by forcing the victim company to supply steel products to BZ, despite being aware that Defendant BH, etc. was not supplied with steel products from the victim company.

① In light of the fact that Defendant BR introduced BH and U through A, together with A and B, entered into a pentcheon with U, etc. as well as the supply of collateral or steel, and that the obligation to purchase steel against the victim company was succeeded to B at the time of the commencement of the instant transaction, etc., Defendant BR appears to have been aware of the structure of the instant transaction and, in particular, that A would have to be supplied with steel by the victim company through B and try to resell it (Article 4352 of the Investigation Records).

② In 2012, there was objective circumstances to suspect that B is not a normal entity that can receive and distribute steel in large quantities, such as not only the newly established legal entity but also the absence of particular assets or places of work, and that BH did not register as its representative on its corporate register but also has a large number of experience in distributing steel. Nevertheless, Defendant BR did not take necessary measures to determine whether B has a financial ability to pay steel payment, such as inspection of corporate register or credit assessment, search, and inspection of sales performance, even until the first transaction of this case begins.

③ Around August 2012, when two months have elapsed since the victim company started transactions with the Z, there was a growing number of short-term transactions, including supplying steel equivalent to KRW 1.2 billion. Nevertheless, since September 2012, the Z paid the total amount of steel credits with a promissory note, unlike the payment terms and conditions under the original terms and conditions (3:7: the ratio of cash substitute bills to cash substitute bills). The said note was issued by AT, which is entirely irrelevant to steel distribution, and the Defendant R was aware of this point.

(1) After the commencement of the instant transaction, Defendant BR received a request from BH, etc. to transfer the steel purchase obligation amounting to KRW 860 million for the victim’s company to BZ, and the victim company treated the Plaintiff as not having any obligation to purchase E in the account book by any abnormal method that issues tax invoices false in BZ and E.

⑤ Defendant BR assessed the collateral value of the real estate provided by the Z as collateral for the transaction of this case from the first transaction of this case, notwithstanding prior priority security, etc., the collateral value was somewhat high.

④ From May 30 to November 29, 2013, Defendant BR received approximately KRW 60 million in the aggregate from BZ, E, and U to one’s own account. In particular, on March 5, 2013, BH received KRW 5 million in the name of his own son’s congratulatory money for supporting entry of a kindergarten, and KRW 10 million in U from May 11, 2013, respectively. In addition, from October 16, 2012 to December 12, 2013, Defendant BR deposited KRW 40 million in its own account, and from October 16, 2012 to December 12, 2013, Defendant BR did not have properly received the payment for the reasons.

B) Determination

On the other hand, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone, at least before December 2012, Defendant BR was sufficiently proven to the extent that it was sufficiently proven to the extent that it excludes reasonable doubt as to whether it was aware of, or was aware of, the existence of the intent or ability to pay steel credit to the victim company by December 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416, Jul. 24, 2014).

① As seen above, Defendant BR consistently conducted the instant transaction with the first BH and did not conduct a credit investigation, search, etc., until the transaction began, it stated that the Defendant BR had consistently been engaged in competition among the companies from the investigative agency to the present court, and was under pressure due to the circumstances of the victim company (such as the settlement of the steel supply price for CU, the payment of the victim company’s parent company, and the provision of funds to DD), and not only was introduced by A who had already been engaged in the transaction but also provided real estate as security unlike the ordinary steel transaction. In addition, at the beginning of the instant transaction, Defendant BR did not seem to have reported specifically false facts with respect to the real estate security, etc. provided to the victim company at the time of the first transaction.

At the time, the CD, which was the head of the business of the victim company, stated in this court to the effect that it is similar to the statement of the defendant BR, and in particular, as the tenant has priority over the security value of the BY first secured by the defendant BR, the plaintiff stated that the limit of the credit limit of BY is at least KRW 350 million,00,000,000 per bonds to the extent of KRW 50,000,000,000 per internal meeting, and the plaintiff's representative director, who was the director of the victim company, also stated that the transaction is permitted by receiving a report from the first CD to pay for B from the first CD, unlike ordinary cases. In fact, the plaintiff Eul who was engaged in steel transactions with the victim company, had been provided with steel within a certain scope of credit without separately providing the victim company with the collateral.

In addition, in light of the amount of steel supplied by the first victim company and the transaction method, etc., there is no special circumstance to regard that the first transaction of this case occurred as an exceptional.

② Even if Defendant BR had the victim company succeed to the obligation to purchase KRW 860 million against the victim company, it is difficult to conclude that such succession was disadvantageous to the victim company, on the ground that: (a) there was no particular liability property in the case of E; (b) while (c) the victim company secured a number of collateral to cover the liability property at the time; and (d) there was no circumstance that such succession was unfavorable to the victim company.

③ Even if Defendant BR increased the collateral value in calculating and reporting the collateral value of the real estate provided by Z, it is difficult to deem that Defendant BR reached an excessive deception.

④ As to the developments leading up to the rapid increase in the volume of the instant No. 1 transaction in the short term, Defendant BR, unlike ordinary steel transactions, has been under pressure as seen above, has been continuously offered security from BZ and has been paid in cash at the time of the commencement of the transaction. In fact, Defendant BR was paid in cash the steel price in July 2012, as indicated in the attached Table No. 1 until October 30, 2012, where the instant No. 1 transaction had been continued with BZ and the instant No. 1 transaction. In addition, Defendant BR was provided with several real estate as collateral, and was paid in cash for all the steel price in July 2012.

Furthermore, since September 2012, both the steel credit amount was settled with a promissory note issued by AT. However, at the time, AT held BY at the time, and U.S., its representative, upon demand telephone from Defendant BR on July 31, 2012, deposited KRW 180 million at the time of Defendant BR (10 million in investigation record), there is room to believe that the said promissory note is a note that the said promissory note may be settled from the standpoint of Defendant BR. The CD also stated in this law that the said promissory note was delivered to the bank and was paid to CU, the original supplier, and that the said note was all deposited at the time of paying for steel supply.

⑤ Defendant BR had been employed by the victim company for about five years and did not have any special motive or incentive to commence fraudulent transactions that could cause serious damage to the victim company in collusion with U, A, etc. in the situation where Defendant U, and U, and U, and BH were entirely unaware at the time of the first transaction of the instant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15488, Apr. 1, 2009). (A) The time when Defendant BR received money from the victim company BH, etc. is concentrated at the end of 2012 or around 2013.

3) The portion of steel supply (the portion of oil supply) since December 2012

However, in addition to the following circumstances revealed through the evidence submitted to this court, Defendant BR appears to have participated in the instant crime by not preventing damage to the victim company, such as suspending the supply of steel, even though it was aware of the existence of the intent or ability to pay steel credit to the victim company from the early December 2012, at least that Defendant BR had been aware of the existence of the intent or ability to pay steel credit to the victim company from the early December 2012. Accordingly, Defendant BR’s assertion on this part is rejected.

A) Defendant BR consistently stated from the beginning of December 2012 at the time of the police investigation that BZ became aware of the fact that it was not a normal company but a tin-type company. As to the circumstances that it became known, Defendant BR continued to settle the amount of steel supplied by the steel company without cash settlement at all, Defendant BR became aware that it would be a company at issue due to a loan bill in which AT unrelated to the steel company occurred, and even if it is anticipated that it would not dispose of the supplied steel in light of the size of BZ or industry experience, Defendant BR was demanded to supply a large amount of steel due to a large amount of credit from BH and became aware of it.

At the time of the prosecutor's investigation, the bill of AT, which is paid as steel price, was known as a financing bill, or was expressed to the effect that BZ sold steel supplied by the victim company as dumping. Moreover, the prosecutor's question as to whether BZ was aware of the lack of the ability to pay steel price because it was not a normal company that can pay steel price as above and therefore was not a normal company that can not pay steel price, is denied or it was consistent with the implied answer without examining the circumstances.

B) In fact, the BZ did not provide the victim company with a security of the steel price after October 30, 2012, and the outstanding amount at that time exceeded the aggregate of the maximum debt amount of the established right to collateral security. In addition, the settlement of the steel price was solely a promissory note issued by AT.

around December 2012, CU, which supplied steel to the victim company, was seasonally irregular in steel transactions. From that time, CU, which had been supplied to the victim company, pressured the victim company to reduce the supply volume, and at the time, BH had been demanded to increase the supply volume to the defendant BR. In such a case, the defendant BR, who had been in charge of steel business for about five years, could have easily known that BR had no ability to pay the steel price.

C) Furthermore, as seen earlier, Defendant BR took part in the fraud of the CF as indicated in the judgment, separate from the fraud of the instant transaction. According to Defendant BR’s statement, in December 2012, Defendant BR created a steel trading company with respect to the fraud of the CF, which was supplied with steel by the CA, etc., and reselled the steel and received a proposal for the purchase of steel or the defect of real estate investment business with the said money, and at least at least until the proposal was made, BZ knew that it was not capable of settling the normal steel price.

D) Nevertheless, even though Defendant BR informed the victim company of such fact and had to immediately suspend the supply of steel or take necessary measures to minimize other damage, Defendant BR did not take such measures but rather had the victim company supply steel in total amount of KRW 3.9 billion, including KRW 1.2 billion around December 2012, KRW 1.1 billion around January 2013, KRW 50 million around February 2013, KRW 80 million around March 2013, and KRW 3.9 billion around March 2013.

(E) Defendant BR asserts that (i) if the supply volume of the said steel at the time was reduced, it would result in the reduction of the amount of the bill or outstanding amount already received from B, and (ii) would reduce the amount of the said money in terms of recovery of such money. However, Defendant BR had already contributed to the steel supply of the victim company before December 2012 in terms of objective activities, and thus, Defendant BR contributed to the crime of U, A and BH in terms of objective activities, and it is clearly known that it would have committed such fraud at the beginning of December 2012, and that it is difficult to recognize that the amount of money would have been supplied to Defendant B’s 20 years after the supply of the said amount of steel at the request of B, and thus, it would be difficult to readily conclude that Defendant B and B were supplied with the same amount of money for at least KRW 3.9 billion after the supply of the said amount of money to Defendant B’s 1,000,000,000 won.

4) Sub-committee

With respect to steel parts supplied by the victim company before December 2012, which were supplied by the victim company before December 2012, it constitutes lack of proof of crime, but it is judged guilty as to steel parts supplied by the victim company after December 2012.

G. Determination on the amount of deceitation of this case

1) First, in light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, if the Defendants conspired to acquire steel products equivalent to KRW 8.6 billion (in the case of Defendant BR, KRW 3.9 billion) from the victim company in collusion with the victim company, thereby infringing on the victim’s property, thereby constituting fraud. Even if there is any portion of money paid in the process, fraud is not established or should not be excluded from the amount of fraud.

2) Next, the part that the Z was issued with false tax invoices from the victim company and was actually supplied with steel products is examined as to the part that the Z was issued with false tax invoices from the victim company (the defendant asserts that the part that the above part of the defendants' assertion was excluded from the amendment of the indictment on July 25, 2012; ② the 22,536,390 won on August 28, 2012; ③ the 220,004,400 won on October 31, 2012; ④ the part that was issued with false tax invoices on November 30, 2012, 300,007,07,070 won was not included in the facts charged on the amendment of the indictment on August 4, 2017; ② the part that was issued by the victim was not included in the total amount of the tax invoices issued by the victim and the part that was not included in the facts charged on the amendment of the indictment on August 27, 2017.

3) Next, we examine the argument that the part sold through a company other than the E should be excluded from the amount acquired by the Defendant A. In light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, as seen earlier, insofar as there is a public contest relationship between the Defendant A and B, etc. and it is deemed that the BH would come into action, even if the Defendant A did not participate in part of the action, the co-principal liability for the crime of fraud is recognized.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the above arguments by the Defendants.

2. Judgment on the crime No. 2 of the judgment

A. Summary of Defendant BR’s assertion

Defendant BR not only did not conspired with the CA, etc. to commit the instant crime but also did not intend to commit fraud.

B. Determination

1) Structure of the second transaction8 of this case

A) Steel supply

CF began to be supplied with the EGI COL equivalent to KRW 210 million from the victim company on January 18, 2013, and thereafter supplied steel products equivalent to KRW 2.6 billion from that time until July 1, 2013. The CF supplied most of the steel products supplied by the victim company A and Z to D and E operated by the victim company, and D, etc re-processed this and reselld them to the steel wholesale retail company.

B) Method of settling the amount of steel supply

(1) CF provided a security to the victim company as stated in the attached list of crimes (mortgage 2) and took the method of credit transaction, as a whole, paid at the end of the following month when the steel product was supplied. CF paid 2.1 billion won out of the steel supply price (in the case of money, the outstanding amount) and 1.3 billion won out of the said bill, the payment was refused and actually paid.

(2) D, etc. supplied steel products from CF without offering separate collateral with CF and reselled them, and paid all of the part of the resale price, excluding a certain fee, to CF (The Z stated in this Act that the settlement terms required by the CA was paid in cash within 2 hours from the date on which the steel was supplied).

C) In sum, steel was supplied in order of the Victim Company ? CF ? D, E, and steel wholesale/retailing order. Steel supply amount was a promissory note with the Victim Company, and D was a settlement in cash to CF.

2) Non-conformity of the second transaction of this case

A) CF is a new production company established on November 27, 2012, and was established on November 27, 2012 and did not have any assets as well as 1 million won. Moreover, it was the sole business that received steel from the victim company and resells them without going through any particular production or processing.

In addition, in the course of the second transaction of this case, the CF provided real estate security equivalent to the maximum debt amount of 5.3 billion won as stated in the attached list of crimes (mortgage 2) to secure the victim company's obligation to pay steel supplies. However, the real value of the real estate was almost nonexistent due to a prior security or a special contract under which the payment of the purchase price was rescinded. In addition, as for bills issued by CF for the payment of steel supplies to the victim company, it was difficult to expect the payment of the purchase price because the so-called B-called B-B-B-B-B-B-B-B-C-C-C-C

B) From the time of establishing the CF, the CA et al. intended to use the proceeds from the resale of steel supplied by the victim company as the acquisition price for other listed companies, etc., and did not establish a real and specific fund-raising plan regarding the operation of the CF. In addition, the CA et al. seems to have experienced a large volume of steel distribution business prior to the instant case only in charge of offering collateral for real estate, etc.

C) According to the instant transaction structure and CF’s financial status, means of payment of steel credit, and funding plan, the only source that CF would be able to pay steel credit to the victim company would ultimately be paid to the victim company by resale of steel supplied by the victim company. In fact, the victim company’s source of steel credit paid by CF was the resale price of the said steel. However, as seen earlier, CA et al. thought from the beginning that the purchase price of steel was to be used as acquisition price of other listed companies, etc., and was actually paid as steel credit to the victim company, most of the company’s acquisition price or other purposes were used for other purposes.

Furthermore, in light of the following circumstances, CF appears to have continuously sold steel products supplied by the victim company to D, etc. at a price lower than the purchase price of the steel products ("sub-dumping sales"). In other words, since CA et al. attempted to encash steel products by resale from the time when the second transaction of this case begins to take over such other company in cash by means of resale of the steel products, it is naturally planned to sell prices lower than the unit price supplied in order to industrialize the steel products supplied as such in accordance with the above business plan. ② In fact, comparing the details of receipt of steel products supplied by the victim company from the victim company (Investigation Record 3071 pages) and the details of deposit of steel sales proceeds from D (Investigation Record 3072 pages), CF appears to have received money less than the price supplied from the victim company on the day or within several days from the day when the steel products were supplied by the victim company.

Ultimately, according to the structure of the second transaction in this case, even if the CF supplied steel from the victim company and resells it, it would not be possible for the victim company to pay steel supply price to the company due to the acquisition price of the company, loss arising from dumping sales, etc. Furthermore, if the victim company knew that the CF, without any particular financing plan or asset, resells steel supplied from the victim company and then, it was unclear whether the payment of steel credits was made using the money as acquisition price of another company, it would not have been made to supply steel products to the CF or not on the same condition.

3) Determination as to whether the defendant BR's participation in the crime and the crime of defraudation

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence presented to this court, Defendant BR can be recognized as being supplied with steel equivalent to the sum of KRW 2,695,347,644 from the victim company in collusion with the CA et al. as stated in the facts constituting the crime in its holding, and thus, Defendant BR cannot accept the above Defendant’s assertion against this.

A) At the time of police investigation and prosecutorial investigation, Defendant BR stated that, if the victim company supplied steel to CF, the CA would sell steel and use it as acquisition price for DF, which is a KOSDAQ company. In particular, at the time of the prosecutorial investigation, Defendant BR stated to the effect that it would be replaced by this court. In particular, at the time of the prosecutorial investigation, Defendant BR stated that: (a) the second transaction of this case, like the method in which CA was conducted before the beginning, the two transaction of this case, provided non-value-free security to the victim company; and (b) provided the victim company with the payment as a bill for the bbbbbbbbbbbbb, and made a concrete statement. As such, Defendant BR stated that prior to the commencement of the second transaction of this case, the CA et al. provided real estate without any collateral value prior to the commencement of the second transaction, and provided it as collateral to the victim company with the resale price and then used it for other purposes.

B) Defendant BR stated to the effect that, at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, the real estate which CA and CG et al. sought to use as collateral in the second transaction process of the instant case at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, is not worth property due to senior security, or is not worth property (attached Form 2 No. 1 and 3) due to a special agreement for cancellation of the payment of the purchase price, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage was cancelled and thus it cannot be used as collateral (the above No. 2 and No. 4) was known

Nevertheless, Defendant BR said that the actual value of property is high notwithstanding senior security to the CDs, etc., who are the head of the business of the victim company, or concealed the existence of a special agreement with respect to the rescission of the purchase-price, and made the victim company complete the registration of creation of a collateral as shown in the attached Table 2.

C) Furthermore, at the time of the police investigation, Defendant BR stated that the steel amounting to KRW 2.6 billion supplied by CF was sold at a discount of 7-10% compared to the amount supplied by the victim company in order to rapidly industrialize, and that, as to the circumstance in which the CF became aware of whether the CF sold the steel at a discount of 7-10%, Defendant BR stated that the CF did not know of the accurate content through D but did not dispose of the steel at a lower level than the market formation price. After that, in this court, Defendant BR stated that it was unaware of the fact that the aforementioned statement was reversed, but the first police’s statement was not aware of the fact that the CF was aware of the fact that it was used as the acquisition price of the listed company, even if following Defendant BR’s statement, it appears that the first police statement was aware of the fact that the CF sold the steel at a discount to a certain extent in order to simplify the steel supplied. In view of Defendant BR’s experience, etc.

D) In full view of the above circumstances, Defendant BR appears to have been aware that even if the CF supplied steel by the victim company and reselled it, it is impossible for the victim company to pay steel supply price to the victim company due to the acquisition price of the listed company, loss arising from dumping sales, etc. Nevertheless, Defendant BR is recognized as participating in the instant crime by means of evaluating the collateral value of the real estate that the CA et al. provided.

In this regard, Defendant BR asserts that: (a) the CA and DE acquired DF, a KOSDAQ company, with the proceeds of resale of steel supplied by the victim company; (b) the victim company supplied steel exclusively to DF; and (c) paid steel accounts to the victim company in the course of the operation of DF; and (d) the victim trusted the horses; and (b) the victim company committed fraud. However, as alleged by Defendant BR, even if the CA et al. was under such plan, the plan itself would prevent itself from being paid; and (c) it would have been naturally known that CF could not be paid within the payment period of steel accounts after acquisition of the company, taking into account the existence of the existence of the plan, such as the recovery period of ordinary profits after acquisition of the company, or the uncertainty of such profits. Accordingly, the above Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. Judgment on the crime No. 3 of the judgment

A. Summary of Defendant U’s assertion

Defendant U acknowledged the fact that a false complaint was filed, as stated in this part of the facts charged, but all of them listened to the statement that the other party to the above complaint would file a complaint from A and BH, and claimed that, in particular, as to the facts charged pursuant to paragraph (3) of the facts charged, the name of BH was mistakenly known to CI, and that A and CI (BH) did not have any intention or purpose to be subject to criminal punishment.

B. Relevant legal principles and judgments

1) The principal legal interest of the State’s criminal justice or disciplinary right shall be the crime of false accusation. However, since the crime of false accusation is a crime of protecting the interests of an individual’s unfair punishment or disciplinary right, even if the consent was obtained, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of false accusation. In the crime of false accusation, the purpose of obtaining criminal punishment or disciplinary measure is sufficient when another person files a false report, and it does not require that another person would be subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary measure, and it does not require that the result would occur. Thus, if the complainant submitted a written complaint to an investigation agency, such recognition should be deemed to have existed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do2712, Sept. 30, 200; 2006Do1140, May 12, 2006).

2) Even if Defendant U’s assertion is a fact, in light of the aforementioned relevant legal principles, insofar as Defendant U submitted a written complaint with the knowledge that the content stated in the written complaint was false, it appears that Defendant U would have been subject to criminal punishment, and even if Defendant U’s consent was obtained in the process, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of false accusation.

In addition, the above conclusion does not affect the conclusion even if the defendant U was dismissed without properly cooperating in the investigation process that was filed after the complaint, and expressed his intention to revoke the complaint.

Furthermore, in light of the relationship between U and BH and the defendant who can be seen through the evidence submitted to this court, and the fact that the defendant told C Q to call the main name of BH and called CI, the defendant seems to have been aware that BH's main name is not CI.

Therefore, the above defendant's above assertion is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

A. Defendant U

0 to 45 years of imprisonment;

B. Defendant A

0 to 30 years of imprisonment;

C. Defendant BR

imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 3 years but not more than 45 years

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant U

1) Basic crimes

(a) Determinations of types: Type 4 (not less than five billion won, but less than 30 billion won), general fraud;

B) A special person: A mitigated (negative), a person under commission (if a serious damage has been caused to the victim), or a person under commission (if any)

2) Class 1 Crimes (a non-prosecution of CI at the time of sale)

(a) Determination of type: General dismissal;

B) A special person: No person;

(iii) the second concurrent crime (a non-appeal against A at the time of sale).

(a) Determination of type: General dismissal;

(b) Special convicts: A mitigated person (a consent to be free);

4) The scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years and not more than nine years and not more than four months;

(b) A;

(i) Determinations of types: Type 4 (not less than five billion won, but less than 30 billion won), general fraud;

2) A special person: A mitigated (negative) or a person under commission (if a serious damage has been caused to the victim),

C. Defendant BR

(i) Determinations of types: Type 4 (not less than five billion won, but less than 30 billion won), general fraud;

(b) Special persons: simple admission of mitigated) or where serious damage has been caused to a victim under way;

(iii) Scope of recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for a basic sphere (not less than three years and four months and not more than six years);

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the trial process of this case.

A. Defendant U

The circumstances unfavorable to ○○: The instant fraud was committed by using transaction practices in the steel industry, such as unsold real estate and financing bills, which were conducted by means of credit transaction. In particular, the Defendant continued to commit the instant fraud and provided a security, and used it as credit payment to the victim company by providing a loan bill of amounting to 7.5 billion won. Since the Defendant’s act continues to commit the instant fraud and played a critical role in making it difficult for the Defendant to participate in or contribute to the instant crime, the degree of the Defendant’s participation in or contribution to the instant crime is not easy. Most of the damage incurred by the instant fraud was caused by the settlement of bills issued by the Defendant. The amount acquired by the Defendant is large to KRW 8.6 billion, and considerable damage was not recovered. Such damage was inevitable for the victim company to have caused bankruptcy due to the instant fraud, and such damage was only difficult for the Defendant, not only the victim company but also the multiple companies related to the victim company, but also the Defendant made efforts to pay back to the court for the purpose of the instant crime, such as the payment of bills.

In light of favorable circumstances: (a) the developments leading up to the instant fraud crime; (b) the background leading up to the participation of the Defendant in the instant crime; and (c) the content of sharing the role of the Defendant and BH, etc. as seen earlier, the degree of charge of the Defendant’s crime is relatively heavy compared to other accomplices. The Defendant does not seem to have obtained relatively much profits compared to the property, etc. contributed in the process of the instant fraud. The Defendant’s crime without accusation against each of the instant Defendants was committed with the consent of the person under no charge, and led to the commission of the crime with the consent of the Defendant, and did not cooperate in the investigation procedure after the

B. Defendant A

The circumstances that were disadvantageous to this case: As seen earlier, the method of the instant crime is imminent. In particular, when the Defendant was unable to be supplied with steel with the outstanding amount of KRW 80 million in the process of receiving locks from the victim company, the Defendant started to be supplied with steel via B and appears to play a leading role in the instant crime. The amount acquired through the instant crime is large to KRW 8.6 billion, and the amount acquired through the instant crime is large to KRW 8.6 billion, and there are still considerable damages among them. The victim company caused serious damages, such as the instant crime, and such damages are bound to return not only to the victim company but also to many companies related to the victim company. Nevertheless, the Defendant does not seem to have been able to make efforts to repay damages after the instant crime, but also to consistently make it difficult to obtain payment in this court due to the instant crime, such as imprisonment with prison labor, a fine of more than 13 times, or a prison sentence after the suspension of execution. In light of the circumstances and circumstances of the Defendant’s criminal punishment, etc.

○ favorable circumstances: The Defendant did not directly acquire steel from the victim company, but took part in the crime of this case by acquiring and selling steel acquired by BH, etc.

The profit acquired by Defendant A from the instant crime seems to be merely a part of the total amount of damage, and it is relatively large compared to other accomplices. The Defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same crime.

C. Circumstances unfavorable to Defendant BR: Each of the instant crimes was committed by using steel industry, real estate without little value by using transaction practices, breabbbing note, etc., each of the instant crimes was committed by means of credit transaction. The amount acquired by Defendant’s participation in the instant crime is 6.5 billion won in total (3.9 billion won in the instant crime related to 1 transaction + partial 2.6 billion won in the instant crime related to 2 transaction), and there is no recovery of considerable damages. The victim company caused significant damages, such as the final bankruptcy, and such damages are bound to return not only to the victim company, but also to many companies related to the victim company. In relation to the instant crime related to the instant 2 transaction, the Defendant appears to have used his status as a joint criminal act by taking advantage of the fact that the Defendant was aware of fraudulent methods, such as BH, etc., among the first transaction in this case, and, in light of the circumstances that it is difficult for the victim company to obtain and supply the damage to each of the instant case, the Defendant appears to have made efforts to recover the damage by the Defendant to supply it.

The favorable circumstances: With respect to the part concerning the crime related to the first transaction of this case, the defendant seems to have been aware of the crime and actively engaged in it in the process of continuing the transaction with the BZ, and after recognizing the fact that the steel transaction could be an offense, it appears that there was a part of efforts to minimize the damage of the victim company by reducing the transaction volume with the BZ and taking into account the circumstances leading up to the crime. Regarding the part concerning the crime related to the second transaction of this case, the defendant appears to have been actively engaged in the crime of this case, such as the defendant and the CA et al., prior to the crime, and the content of division of roles between the defendant and the CA et al., and the size of profits acquired through the crime, etc.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant BR, in collusion with U, A, BH, CA, and CB, by deceiving the victim company as stated in the facts charged in paragraph (1) of the crime as indicated in the judgment, and received from the victim company the total amount of KRW 135,019kg, total of KRW 160,706,222, such as EGICOL, and the total amount of KRW 160,706,222 from the victim company around June 2012, and acquired the total amount of 6 real estate security as listed in attached Form 1 (Security) from around that time to November 2012, as stated in attached Table 1 (Security) and obtained the steel in the aggregate of KRW 4,737,326,969.

2. Determination

The above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime as stated in Article 1. f. 2 of the judgment on the argument of the previous accused and the defense counsel, and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as it is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the judgment on

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and presiding judge;

Judges Man-ho

Judges Han Han-chul

Note tin

1) In relation to the crime No. 1 of the instant case, the term “the first transaction” refers to the transaction involving steel products, such as the victim company, BZ, E, etc., and the EGI COL made between them (hereinafter the same shall apply).

2) 다만 E가 BZ에 아직 지급하지 못한 철강대금이 존재할 여지는 있다. 그러나 BH는 2014. 5, 30. CQ와의 전화통화 당시 CQ에게 'A가 덤핑해서 가져간 물건값도 2억 8,000만 원 입금 안 하고 도망 다니고 있다'는 취지로 말하였고, 다시 2014. 7. 27. CQ와의 전화통화 당시 CQ에게 'A가 내 돈 2억 8,000만 원 떼어 먹었잖아, 그러면 나 떄문에 한 6~7억은 번거야'라고 말한 바 있다. 이러한 점에 비추어 보면 피고인 A가 BZ에 대한 미수금은 많아야 2억 8,000만 원에 불과한 것으로 보인다.

3) If “BH” proposed by the police to U.S., the Defendant U would receive the security value and would not pay the tax at the rate. The Defendant U’s head stated to the effect that “the head of U is no longer than anything else.”

4) According to the BH’s legal statement, when the first defendant U offered BY to CV through the defendant A as security, he also demanded a letter, etc. on the ground that he introduced the defendant. On February 10, 2014, the defendant U divided the process of the issuance of the bill to CU staff, etc., and explained the process of the issuance of the bill to S at the time of the division into BW, etc., which is a CU staff member, and the defendant U made a statement to the effect that "I would not prevent the delivery of the bill to S, so I would like to stop the delivery of the bill by sending the object to S, so, I would like to say that I lent the bill to S by facsimile by sending the bill to the effect that "I lent it to the bill by facsimile." In addition, as to the process of the registration of the representative of BY, U lent et al. lent money as security and made a statement to the person who was registered as his representative several times.

5) Defendant UL used the money as the payment for a bill only for the purpose of settling a note paid as the payment for a steel supply price, and at the same time there seems to have been no place where the money was actually used except for the settlement for the steel price. Nevertheless, Defendant U’s payment for a bill, despite having received KRW 00 million as the payment for a bill, did not make a payment for a bill, which led to the failure of payment due to the failure of a considerable portion of the bill delivered to the victim company, etc., and therefore, it seems that there is no reason to view it differently from

6) For instance, on April 13, 2012, B deposited KRW 124,00,000 from E to Defendant U for several times, and it deposited KRW 104,00,000 to Defendant U for several years, respectively. In addition, B deposited KRW 61,00,000 from E on April 18, 2012, and deposited KRW 59,00,500 to Defendant U for five minutes. In addition, B received KRW 100,000 in total from E on September 19, 2012, and deposited KRW 100,000 to Defendant U for five minutes, respectively.

7) At the time of the instant investigation, R, a representative of E and CL, at the time of the police investigation, came to know of the foregoing circumstances through DA. At the request of A, CL lent the name of the representative upon request from DA to grant a locked, and CL borrowed KRW 2,00,000 per month in return for lending the name from BH and A. In particular, DB stated that “DB was the representative of BZ and introduced DB, after hearing her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her, who was the representative of BZ, and introduced DB, which was engaged in construction business in Busan. In addition, R has been doing business for a long time with U.S. her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hers her hers her her hers her.

8) The term “second transaction of this case” refers to the transaction of steel products, such as EGI COL, conducted between the victim company, CF, D, etc. (hereinafter the same shall apply) in relation to the facts charged in the judgment.

9) 1/3 of the lowest sentence range shall be mitigated, as the most severe type of concurrent crimes (type 3 of general fraud) is higher than that of a single crime (type 3 of general fraud) as a result of the addition of concurrent crimes of the same kind.