[1] The number of crimes of fraud (=actual competition) in a case where property is acquired by deceptive act by each victim in the same manner under the single criminal intent against several victims (=actual competition)

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which held that a crime of fraud is established independently for each victim, and the crime of fraud is a substantive concurrent crime, in case where a large number of fraternitys are organized, thereby deceiving several fraternitys individually, and the crime of fraud is established

[3] The case affirming the judgment below which held that Eul's act of directly or indirectly aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the commission of the crime constitutes a crime of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and abetting the commission of the crime

[1] Articles 37 and 347 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 37 and 347 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 32 and 347 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Do582 delivered on June 13, 1989 (Gong1989, 1103), Supreme Court Decision 89Do252 delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong1990, 589), Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6130 Delivered on December 28, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 444), Supreme Court Decision 2003Do382 Delivered on April 8, 2003 (Gong2003, 1134), Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2390 Delivered on July 222, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do405 Decided August 21, 2008

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Jeon-jin et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009No3545 Decided February 9, 2010

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

In a case where a single crime is committed by deceiving the other party with the intention of a single crime, and thereby deceiving the property through several times through the same method, the entire property shall be a single crime. However, in a case where several persons have acquired the property by deception separately against each other, even if the criminal intent is a single crime and the method of crime is the same, the damage legal interests of each victim is independent, and even if the method of crime is the same, the entire crime is not a single crime, and there are several separate crimes of frauds independently for each victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do582, Jun. 13, 1989; 2003Do382, Apr. 8, 2003). Such frauds are in a substantive concurrent crime.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted, namely, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, which were organized by each of Defendant 1, through the guidance of January 13, 2003 and the guidance of April 16, 2004 organized by each of Defendant 1, and separately, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3 suffered damages through the funds of August 16, 2007 organized by each of Defendant 1, but the above victims joined each of the above accounts based on each of Defendant 1’s individual act of deception, and the payment and receipt of the funds of the above victims were made individually with Defendant 1. In light of the above, since the causes of the victims are the individual act of deception by Defendant 1, the victim’s independent act of deception is established, and there is a substantive concurrent relation between them. The judgment below is justifiable in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes of fraud as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Defendant 1’s ground of appeal Nos. 3 and 1 and 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted, it can be deemed that Defendant 1 had no intent or ability to pay the fraternity at the time of receiving the fraternity payment from the victims, and comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted, Defendant 1’s act, which was well aware of the above circumstances, confirmed whether Defendant 1 paid the fraternity payment was made by the fraternity members on behalf of Defendant 1, and demanded to pay the fraternity payment or received the fraternity payment directly from some fraternity members on behalf of Defendant 1, and prevented Defendant 1 from receiving the fraternity payment whenever he was urged or urged to receive the fraternity payment from the fraternity members, and it was recognized that Defendant 1 received a promissory note from his family as the addressee with Kim-S, from the fraternity members in order to guarantee the payment of the fraternity payment from the fraternity members, and thus, Defendant 1 had no intention or ability to receive the fraternity payment. Thus, in light of the legal principles as to the crime of fraud and the crime of fraud, it is justified in the judgment below that the act of fraud and the crime of fraud was not unlawful.

On the other hand, among the grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to fraud and aiding and abetting fraud, which is based on the facts acknowledged by the court below, is nothing more than criticism on the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)