2018Gohap155 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

crime name: Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act on Specific Economic Crimes

(Fraud)Fraud, the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes Act;

On the contrary (Misappropriation), the fabrication of private documents, the uttering of private investigation documents, the taking of property in breach of trust

A

Park Ho-ho (prosecution), fixed number of trials

Law Firm Dong LLC, Attorneys Lee Jae-ho

September 7, 2018

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

In order to order the defendant to provide community service for 120 hours.In the facts charged in this case, the defendant is not guilty.

Criminal 1)

The Defendant, as the Head of the Trust Business Headquarters C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "C") in Gangnam-gu and 10 to 11, was engaged in the affairs related to the trust business, the management of funds, and the execution thereof. F, the Head of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "D"), the Head of D Co., Ltd., Ltd, entered into an agreement on the fund management for the new project in the above C office on August 13, 2015, and the Defendant managed the funds related to the said project through the Hbank account (I) in the name of C.

However, F deposited KRW 1,530,000,000 as the sale price in the above name C with nine persons, such as K, the buyer of the J New Airport Construction Project in Seopo-si, Jeju, Jeju, the other implementation of D (hereinafter referred to as "J New Airport Project"), and then deposited the money to the above account of fund management for new construction projects in the name of C, and the defendant requested the withdrawal of the funds, and the defendant did not receive 1,49,120,000 won from December 23, 2015 to February 1, 2016, and did not receive 3,000,000 won for personal purposes under the name of F (hereinafter referred to as "L") or M (hereinafter referred to as the "New Airport Construction Project") and did not receive 3,000,000 won for other new construction projects. Since then, E and K did not receive 5,000,0000 won under the name of the defendant's investment in the apartment complex under the name of K.

Around June 22, 2016, F entered into two-party funding agency contracts with N and C, and in collusion with M, it would make a three-party custody agency contract between N and C with the third party with the certificate of personal seal impression received from N, Investor, and C at the time of the contract for funding agency contracts between N and C as employees of N and C, and would make a three-party custody agency contract between N and C to obtain investment from the U.S. investor at the time of the contract for funding agency contracts between N and C, and "C will be liable for the return of investment money as requested by the victim and will not execute the fund unless the victim consents."

Accordingly, on July 5, 2016, M is demanded to include the contents that, in any case, "C shall be liable for 3.5 billion won after four months, return deposited money, and not be used without the consent of the investor" in the storage management agency contract of the contents that, if it deposits 3.5 billion won from F for four months at a coffee shop where it is impossible to know the name near the C building, M is required to include "C shall not use the deposited money without the consent of the investor". He prepared the storage agency contract of the above contents that, without any authority, requested the F to enter the additional contents by using the Nowon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu, 10 stories, and trade name: C representative director V of the Co., Ltd., Ltd., and then printed it out to F and put it up to F.

F makes a false statement to the effect that the meeting room located on the 10th floor of C in the same day covers W by the victim's agent or C employee, while sealing the corporate seal of C in advance on the name of C representative director 5 as stated in the said deposit management agent contract, and that the F made a false statement to the effect that if it is deposited into the C’s account (H bank account No. X) for 4 months, it shall be deposited for 4 months, and interest shall be paid during the deposit period, and if it is returned to C after 4 months, it shall be liable for 3.5 billion won, and the funds shall not be withdrawn and used without the consent of the investor.

However, in fact, if the victim deposits 3.5 billion won, F was thought to be used regardless of the PJ apartment construction project by immediately withdrawing the fund under the pretext of fund execution through C and repaying the debt to the buyers of J new apartment construction project, and even if it was paid 3.5 billion won from the victim, F did not have an intention or ability to return 3.5 billion won after four months.

F, as above, deceiving the victim, and received KRW 3.5 billion from the victim to the account in the name of C (H bank account X) opened by the Fund Management Agency Agreement between N and C, on the same day, the Defendant requested withdrawal of the Defendant’s funds near the limit of KRW 1.00 million prior to the Defendant’s execution of the funds, and withdrawn KRW 97 billion from the Defendant on July 6, 2016, referring to the withdrawal of the funds in the amount of KRW 971,000,000,000,000, and used the money for compensation or personal purposes. Accordingly, F, in collusion with M, acquired KRW 3.5 billion from the victim, and the Defendant knew that the investment funds received from the victim were used for a purpose unrelated to the primary multi-use apartment construction project, and even if the request for withdrawal submitted by F was not properly equipped, aided the Defendant to promptly withdraw the funds as required by F. M.’s request.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness F, M, E, K, and Y;

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor in each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant and F (including the part of the interrogation of the suspect's identity, and the part adopted as evidence not);

1. Statement by the police of U;

1. Details of account transactions attached to a report on investigation (State A) (the head of the relevant team and the head of the relevant team and the submission and attachment of a statement of account transactions in this case) and details of account transactions attached to an investigation report (the filing of a report on account transactions), details of account transactions attached to a report on investigation (the filing of a report on account transactions)

1. P Main Complex Construction Project Investment Agreement, Fund Management Agency Agreement (Evidence 18,120), e-mail data (Evidence List Nos. 18,120), e-mail data, e-mail data (e-mail data, e-mail data, the current status of custody deposit transaction, C account transaction details, telephone data, e-mail data (e-mail data, April 20, 2016), contracts and related details, requests for cooperation, agency contracts for custody management and related matters, requests for money execution (e-mail, July 5, 2016), requests for money execution (Evidence 6, 2016), requests for money execution (Evidence 6, 2016), documents sent by E to F, requests for money execution (written request for money execution, July 7, 2016).

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) and Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aid and mitigation;

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing has been repeatedly taken into consideration for favorable circumstances)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than nine months nor more than seven years and six months;

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: An auxiliary offender, which does not apply the sentencing criteria.

3. Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment; and

The crime of this case at an unfavorable condition is likely to be criticized in that the Defendant committed a fraudulent act, such as F, etc., within a certain amount as the head of the trust business team responsible for the management and execution of the trust company, by attempting to commit the crime of fraud within a certain amount of money, and the Defendant committed an act that may undermine the trust of the trust company where the Defendant works. The amount of fraud acquired by aiding and abetting and abetting and abetting is a large amount of amount of money KRW 3.5 billion. The Defendant does not seem to be contradictory to denying involvement in the crime by denying the involvement in the crime from the investigative agency to the court. The Defendant does not appear to have been able to go against the situation after committing the crime, such as defending that he was unaware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was unaware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he had received the supporting documents at the time of withdrawal and execution. The victim was not fully recovered from the victim’s damage, and the victim was shicking.

○ The favorable circumstances do not seem to have overall involvement in the instant crime, and were limited to the role of gathering withdrawals at F’ request. The Defendant obtained direct benefits, such as taking part in the amount of damage. It is difficult to find out circumstances to deem that the Defendant, after the withdrawal and execution of funds twice, the remaining amount of KRW 1.532 million in the account C was returned to the victim. There was no criminal history prior to the instant crime. There was no criminal history prior to the instant crime. In the instant case, S who was punished as a principal offender, was sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a two-year period. 6) The equity between the Defendant and the aiding and abetting, which is merely a principal offender, was considered.

Considering the above circumstances, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and progress of the crime, and various circumstances shown in the records and arguments of this case shall be determined as ordered by taking into account, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

As indicated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of August 13, 2015, the Defendant concluded an agency agreement for fund management with F, the head of D, in the victim C office, to manage funds in the name of the victim C (I) established in the H bank in order to manage funds related to the said business. As such, as seen in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant had a duty to manage funds in the name of the victim C (I) and manage funds in the name of the bank in order to manage funds related to the said business, and to manage funds in good faith for the victim C as well as the victim C, with a careful attention as to whether the withdrawn funds are appropriately used for the relevant business, and there was a duty

Nevertheless, from around 22, 2015 to January 22, 2016, the Defendant promoted a variety of projects from F, and, at the same time, intended to help the withdrawal of funds and distribute the profit of the project, requested prompt withdrawal of funds so that the proceeds from the sale of new projects by J-built Project, which is not related to G-built Project, can be used for various projects, and deposited KRW 1.53 billion in C (I) established in H Bank to receive the proceeds from the sale of new projects from 9 K, and received KRW 1.53 billion in money from 1.1 billion in money to H Bank.3 billion in money, the Defendant did not submit the seal impression affixed to the request for the withdrawal of funds, and did not submit the tax invoice for the request, but did not meet the requirements for the disbursement of funds to the representative director of D-based agency agreement who is a party to the fund management contract, and did not enter the funds in the account under the name of 21.21 billion won in money transfer by 201 million won in the name of the 201.2.25.

B. Part on property in breach of trust

On December 23, 2015, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from F to the effect that, along with the awareness of an auditor about the withdrawal of funds from F in the daily house AC located on the second floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul AB Building, the Defendant received cash of KRW 2 million in the name of the case expenses until July 5, 2016 from that time, and received a delivery of KRW 14 million in total on seven occasions, as shown in the attached Table 2 of the Crimes List 2, from that time.

C. The joint principal offender of the crime committed against U.S.

Upon F’s request, the Defendant brought about the issue of E and J, the buyer of the K and K New Project, etc., who was the buyer of the Fund deposited in the account as set forth in paragraph (a) of this paragraph, and when the issue of the above execution of the Fund was the problem, the Defendant, as well as F, was faced with the situation of criminal punishment. The Defendant, together with F, attempted to resolve the said problem by receiving investment under the name of P in the name of P in the name of 0 and four lots of land, as if the Defendant would promote the new project, but did not accept the demand of the investors requesting the return of the investment money in C, while the Defendant did not receive the investment as if the Plaintiff was an employee of C, by using the previously received C’s certificate of personal seal impression on June 2016, and did not receive the investment. Accordingly, the Defendant, as a result, issued the victim a false investment management contract to the extent that the victim did not consent to the return of the investment money in sequence as required by U.S. and did not consent to the execution of the contract.

1) From July 5, 2016, M in the crime related to the fabrication of a gold-management agency contract, upon request to include the phrase "in any case, 3.5 billion won shall be liable and returned after four months after the payment of interest," and "in any case, c shall not use the deposited money without the consent of the investor" in the contract of gold-management agency contract with the content that, at the coffee shop where the name near the C building is unknown, 3.5 billion won shall be paid to F for four months, and c shall not use the deposited money without the consent of the investor, c shall prepare the said contract of gold-management agency contract with the above contents that the F shall not use the Nowon-gu, Seoul, and 10 stories, Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the defendant sent it to F by printing it out to F, c. 1 of the contract with the representative director after signing it in the name of the victim or his agent and signing it to C. 3 of the above document to deliver it in advance.

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

Around July 5, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, in collusion with F, M, and M, the Defendant presented a forged brokerage contract in F, F, and F, F, as in paragraph 1, to F, to F, to F, and to F, deposited into the account of the victim’s agent W, the Defendant made a deposit for four months, and paid interest during the deposit period, and that, during the deposit period, the Defendant may not make a refund of KRW 3.5 billion, and may not withdraw funds without the consent of the investor.

However, in fact, when the victim deposited the amount of KRW 3.5 billion into the C account, it was thought that it would be used regardless of the PJ apartment construction project by immediately withdrawing it under the pretext of fund execution and repaying the debts to the buyers of J new apartment construction, and even if it is paid KRW 3.5 billion from the victim, it did not have the intention or ability to return KRW 3.5 billion after four months.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in collusion with F and M, deceivings the victim as above and acquired 3.5 billion won from the victim via C (H bank account No. X).

2. Determination

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

In light of the following circumstances, even if the Defendant violated some procedures or agreements to withdraw the fund management account of G new projects, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant intended to incur property damage to the victim C.

① Unlike “three-party contracts that require the consent of investors, etc. at the withdrawal of funds” as “two-party contracts entered into between D and victim C,” the G new project management account is different from “three-party contracts that require the consent of investors, etc. at the withdrawal of funds,” and the Defendant who is in charge of the execution of funds will only be deemed to have a duty to determine whether the funds are required to satisfy the required documents and procedures under the loan management agreement, and to confirm whether the funds deposited in the fund management account are actual proceeds of the new project.

② In light of the purport of an agreement on vicarious management of funds for the purpose of keeping and managing business funds, or the fact that the victim C’s remuneration under the said agreement is merely KRW 10 million (Evidence 3:950 pages), it cannot be deemed that the victim C has an obligation to verify whether the withdrawn funds are appropriately used for the pertinent business beyond confirming whether the withdrawal of funds conforms to D’s intent, the delegating person.

③ In this Court, F stated that “the Defendant would distribute the profits of various projects promoted by the Defendant,” and “the Defendant would use money deposited in the Fund Management Account for a new project and would have been withdrawn from the Fund.” However, it is difficult to believe that the investigation agency and the court have changed specific statements on the circumstances up to this time. Meanwhile, in this Court, F would be difficult to believe that “the Defendant would have known that the money deposited in the Fund Management Account would have come to know at the time of the last withdrawal of the Fund, that it would have become known that the Defendant would not use the money deposited in AD personal account under the pretext of advertising loans,” and it is also unclear whether F would have known the fact that the said money was sold in lots of other projects or that it would have been used for a new project, other than a new project.”

④ Meanwhile, Article 5(4) of the G New Enterprise Fund Management Agency Agreement provides that “A (victim C) shall, in principle, make a direct payment to the Agency within three business days from the date when the request is made when the investor A (D) requests the withdrawal of the deposited funds including a certificate of the personal seal impression.” However, the Defendant appears to have withdrawn funds after checking whether the seal impression affixed to the request for withdrawal of funds is the same as the seal impression or employee seal impression submitted at the time of the conclusion of the Fund Management Agency Agreement even if the seal impression affixed to the request for withdrawal is a D’s employee seal impression without obtaining a certificate of the personal seal impression from F. However, the Defendant asserted that “D E entered into an agreement for withdrawal of funds under the name of D without permission when the request for withdrawal of funds was made without obtaining a personal seal impression impression certificate, it is difficult to view that “A’s initial request for the withdrawal of funds was made with the consent seal impression affixed to the request for the withdrawal of funds from the request for the withdrawal of funds, and even if the victim CE also stated that it was consistent with the existing request made with C’s request for withdrawal of funds.

(5) According to the victim’s other office agreement, U8, which states that the trust company can confirm the advertiser’s advertising solicitation, etc. in the victim’s other office agreement. In this case, the defendant pointed out that in relation to the amount withdrawn under the name of the advertisement loan in the letter of request for withdrawal of funds, the defendant did not obtain the advertisement presentation, etc. from the advertiser M, who is the advertiser. However, in cases where the trust company confirms the advertisement presentation, it is not to confirm whether the actual withdrawn funds will be used as advertising expenses in preparation for the issue of the victim’s external responsibility if the trade name, trademark, etc. of the trust company entered the advertisement announcement, and it is not to confirm whether the funds actually withdrawn are used as advertising expenses. In light of the fact that the victim’s trade name or trademark might not be used, it cannot be said that the defendant has a duty to confirm the advertisement presentation from M in

The complainant also pointed out that the tax invoice is not attached to the request for withdrawal. However, it seems that there is a lot of cases where the tax invoice is attached to the request for withdrawal of funds. However, in full view of the following points: (a) the victim C employee T in charge of the proposal for withdrawal of new project funds following AF stated in this court that “the receipt of the tax invoice in connection with the large business was not an essential requirement and there was no prescribed business procedure; and (b) the submission of the tax invoice cannot be deemed as an inevitable error because there is no provision to require the submission of the tax invoice under the agreement; and (c) there is no provision to require AG to submit the tax invoice under the agreement.” (Evidence No. 4381 or 1383 of the evidence record No. 1383), it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not confirm the tax invoice merely because it violated the fund management agency agreement

7) It is pointed out that the money requested as an advertising loan is deposited into the personal account of the representative M rather than the Plaintiff’s bank account, the agent entrusted with the advertisement business affairs, attached to the written request for withdrawal. However, in light of the fact that the AF stated in this Act that “it is possible to deposit the money to another deposit account in the judgment of the head of the relevant team or the discretionary authority for the progress of the relevant business,” and that in the two-party fund management agent agreement, the said two-party fund management agent agreement provides that the said payment account shall be paid to the account different from the account indicated in the written request for withdrawal attached to the written request for withdrawal, and it cannot be said that the said provision is contrary to the agreement unless there is any express provision restricting this.

8. Reviewing whether the Defendant had a duty to verify whether the Defendant was a normal execution of funds to E by the representative director who is a party to the Fund Management Agency Agreement, in light of the following, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had a duty to verify whether the Defendant had a normal execution of funds to E by obtaining lawful delegation from D in connection with the Newly-built Project: (7) the Defendant had a duty to verify whether the Defendant had a normal payment of funds to E each time when F made a request for withdrawal of funds. (D) In fact, E had a seal imprint and a certificate of seal impression attached to F; (2) the Defendant had a duty to verify whether the Defendant had a normal payment of funds to E by obtaining lawful delegation from D in connection with the Newly-built Project.

9) Although the complainant submitted an advertising agency contract between AH and R, which is not a delegate of the contract for fund management agency, when the F makes a request for fund management, the complainant pointed out that the Defendant released the fund under the name of the advertising loan. However, regardless of whether there was any problem that the Defendant withdraws the funds based on the contract under the name of AH, not D, i.e., the representative director of D and AH knew that D were to succeed to the agreement between AH and R, and through F that made a request for fund management, it is highly probable that the Defendant actually recognized that the parties were the same. In light of the above, it is difficult to conclude that the above circumstance alone erred by violating the standards for additional advertising contract or the execution of withdrawal, etc.

(10) On January 15, 2016, the complainant asserted that the account was submitted as stated in the JAI and JAJ’s written request for withdrawal from the Fund, and that the amount deposited in the G new project fund management account was related to the G new project at Seopopo City of Seopopo City of Seopo City. However, it is difficult to determine that the amount deposited in the fund management account was immediately the amount deposited in the J new project due to the fact that the fund was merely KRW 50 million, and the amount requested for withdrawal was merely KRW 50 million, and that it was difficult to determine that the amount deposited in the fund management account was the sale price of J new projects. In light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had a duty to confirm the source of the amount deposited in the fund management account as seen earlier, the fact that the above account was submitted is difficult to conclude that the sale price deposited in the new project fund management account was deposited in the new project management account.

The withdrawal of funds under the Fund Management Agency Agreement for the New Project is carried out by the victim C Trust Project 3 team employees after obtaining approval from the defendant, and the financial team is confirmed separately, so the formal procedures for the approval and examination of the victim C's execution were all followed.

B. Part on property in breach of trust

1) There are evidence that corresponds to the facts charged, such as F, M, S’s statement, F’s statement recorded by S, AK’s deposit transaction statement, AK and M. The statements of M and S are all made by F to deliver money to the Defendant. The details of deposit transaction are merely circumstantial evidence with weak probative value as to this part of the facts charged, in addition to the fact that cash has been withdrawn on or around the date indicated in the facts charged or around that time, the direct evidence is nothing more than circumstantial evidence with weak probative value as to this part of the facts charged.

2) The credibility of F’s statement

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the F’s statement that the Defendant provided the Defendant with cash one million won each over seven times is not trustable.

① While F made a statement that the Defendant was not involved in both the fraud of the purchase price of J-built Project and the fraud case against the victim, F argues that the Defendant was given money in return for the Defendant’s involvement in the crime of one’s own fraud by changing his attitude.

② At the initial stage of the investigation, the statement was made to M around February 23, 2016, to the effect that “it was ordered to withdraw KRW 28 million and deliver KRW 20 million among them to the Defendant.” The statement was changed to the effect that “it was delivered KRW 10 million over four times,” and “it was delivered KRW 2 million over four times,” and the statement was again made to the effect that “it was delivered KRW 2 million every seven times on the basis of the details of cash withdrawn from the account to which it was used,” and that “it was delivered every two million won over seven times on the basis of the details of cash withdrawn,” thereby making it an attitude to change and make a statement to the specific circumstances in line with the objective evidence or circumstances presented by the investigation agency.

③ On December 31, 2015, the F stated that Q paid all meal expenses except for the settlement of meal expenses, but did not present data corresponding thereto. Rather, the Defendant, other than AC, claiming that F provided money, actively presented the credit card settlement details proving that F had been in another place on the date on which Q claimed that Q provided money (Evidence No. 1972 through 1983).

④ Specifically examining some of the facts charged, F did not properly explain the fact that the Defendant and the Defendant were in a single-style house on December 2, 2015, and that the two were in a single-style house on March 23, 2015, but the meal cost was KRW 4650,000 or KRW 465 million.

The F stated that on December 31, 2015, the Defendant and Q gave KRW 2 million to the Defendant. However, Q consistently stated in the investigative agency and this court that “There was any meals like the Defendant and F, but the F did not seem to have been given money,” and there was no vindication for “F’s delivery of money,” and there was no vindication for “F’s delivery of money.” Moreover, it is difficult to believe that Q made withdrawal of cash from the ATM of Seoul Gangnam-gu AM located in the Bupyeong-gu Seoul AM and delivered money to the Defendant.

Along on January 14, 2016 and on January 22, 2016, the starting point F refers to the statement that the Defendant was released from the cash at the ALM and the Youngbu Central Branch of the Z Bank, and delivered the cash to the Defendant at a distance remote AC or at the Gobu N located in the same region. Therefore, it is difficult to believe.

On July 5, 2016, when the Defendant and F along with meals, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise than F’s statement as to whether F provided money on the job.

3) The credibility of other statements

① First, M’s statement was 7: (a) the date of the first instance trial on the charge of the instant case’s charges [the forgery of private documents, the display of falsified investigation documents, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) to victims], and was first sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years, and the first instance court rendered a confession and argued that the Defendant was involved in the instant case; (b) the statement was first made by F that it was not known whether cash was actually withdrawn and delivered to F; (c) the investigative agency made a statement that “the cash that was delivered to F was withdrawn and sent to AO on February 11, 2016 and sent KRW 28 million”; and (d) the statement that “the F.I.D. purchased KRW 28,000 at the time of the examination of witness was also hard to find out that it was changed to 200,000,000 won, and that it was 200,000 won at the time of the examination of witness.”

② S’s statement is merely a statement that the Defendant was involved in the instant case from F, AK, and M, and there is no fact that the Defendant actually received money, and it is also insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was paid cash from F. According to the recording of conversation between S and F’s mother-friendly AK, the Defendant’s statement to the effect that “AK got cash from S (Defendant )” (Defendant 1) and “in cash, it is only that the Defendant was issued a large amount of cash from F (Evidence 6:4 pages of evidence record), but it is also difficult to recognize this part of the charge as the basis for recognizing this part of the charge.

C. Part of the crime committed against U.S. victims

1) In light of the following circumstances as to whether the act of forging private documents, uttering of a falsified investigation document, and the joint principal offender of the crime of fraud, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone by the defendant to share the role with F, M, etc. and control of functional act, thereby forging private documents, uttering of a falsified investigation document, and damage

It is insufficient to view that there was a conspiracy to commit fraud against such person.

① When the F obtained a claim from the buyer for the use of the Jeju J sale price for other purposes, the F colors investors together with the Defendant in order to recover the damage and to raise funds to be used for its own business and individual purposes, but the Defendant refused the investor’s return guarantee agreement of the principal return of C and entered into a contract on behalf of the victim’s agent with W and the money custody management with the Defendant’s agent while excluding the Defendant as the investment was no longer made.

② At this Court, F showed that the Defendant was involved in the entire instant case, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the Defendant forged a deposit management agent contract in the name of C and then delivered it to the victim.”

(3) The facts that F entered into a contract with a victim for a money custody management agent under the name of C using the certificate of the personal seal impression of C sent through T, and the circumstances that deemed that the defendant was aware of the fact that F was deceiving the victim by using the forged money custody agent contract.

④ As to this, F and M state that the Defendant conspireds with F to commit a crime by hearing all these circumstances from F and allowing F to engage in a criminal act as C employee. However, as seen earlier, there is any change in the statements about the specific circumstances of the Defendant in relation to this part of the facts charged. However, it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of the Defendant’s statement to transfer his responsibility to the Defendant in order to reduce his responsibility for the crime following the discussion with the victim.

S also made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was involved in the instant crime, and presented F, M, and AK recording and text messages, etc. However, it is merely a statement to the effect that the Defendant was involved in the instant crime from F, M, K, etc.

6. There is no evidence that the defendant is deemed to have divided the money obtained from the victim.

On the other hand, although F made a statement to the Defendant that “F will give KRW 100 million to the Defendant. It would like to carry on the same business as it carried out, it is unclear whether the Defendant would give benefits to the Defendant on a conclusive basis with the crime of fraud in this case, although it is not clear whether or not it would give benefits to the Defendant for a conclusive consideration.

2) Whether the victim U is liable for aiding and abetting fraud

In light of the following circumstances, even though the Defendant could not be deemed to have conspiredd with F, etc. to commit fraud, it can be recognized that the Defendant aided and abetted F, etc. by recognizing the crime of fraud, such as F, at least by facilitating the withdrawal of funds.

① J 신축사업 수분양자들이 F의 이중분양 행위를 들어 D 대표이사인 E에게 항의를 하자, E은 자신의 동의 없이 D 명의로 C과 G 신축사업 관련 자금관리대리사무약정 이 체결되고 C 명의의 자금관리계좌가 개설된 사실과 그 계좌에 J 신축사업 분양대금이 입금되었다는 사실을 알고, 2016. 4. 4.경 C 직원 Y에게 '저희 당사는 귀사와의 계약체결이 없었음에도 불구하고 불미스러운 사건들이 일어나고 있습니다. 그로 인하여 제3자의 피해자까지 발생하게 되었습니다' 라면서 계약 관련 자료를 요청하는 내용의 공문을 이메일로 보냈고(증거기록 3권 944쪽), Y로부터 공문이 온 사실을 보고받은 피고인은 같은 날 F에게 공문을 첨부하여 보냈다(증거기록 4권 1505, 1506쪽). 이에 대하여 피고인은 "당시 F이 E과 사이에 지분 문제가 발생하였다고 하여 큰 문제로 여기지 않았다"는 취지로 진술하나, D가 보낸 위 공문의 내용 및 F이 당시 D와 G 신축사업과 관련하여 업무대행계약을 체결한 업무대행인 지위에 있었을 뿐이었던 점을 고려하면 이해하기 어려운 변명이다. J 신축사업 분양대금을 지급한 K, AQ 등이 상황을 확인하고자 D 사무실을 찾아가 E에게 항의한 후 C 사무실까지 찾아가 피고인을 만났는데, 피고인은 이들에게 아직 시작되지도 않은 "P 주상복합아파트 신축사업이 잘 진행되고 있다"는 취지로 말한 점,10) ◐ 피고인이 E이 보낸 D 명의 공문을 보고 F에게 "제주도 건을 빨리 해결하 라"고 말한 점,11) Ⓒ C 직원 T은 이 법정에서 "이 사건 자금인출 전에 경찰 요청으로 J 신축사업 분양대금 사건 관련하여 자료 요청이 있었다"고 진술한 점에 비추어 보면, 피고인은 이 사건 자금인출 전부터 G 신축사업 관련 자금관리대리사무약정에 관하여 D 대표이사 E이 문제를 제기한 사실, 그것이 J 신축사업과 관련한 문제라는 사실은 인지하고 있었던 것으로 보인다.

③ Around June 2016, in order to compensate for buyers of G New Project and raise other business funds with the Defendant, F mets investors around June, 2016. The investors demanded that the provisions on guaranteeing return of the investment principal of C be inserted into three-party agreements to recover their investments. However, the Defendant refused this request. Since F entered into two-party agreements concerning fund management agent services between C and N without excluding the Defendant, the victim, who is an investor, entered into a contract for money management agent services (three-party agreements) in which the provisions on guaranteeing return of the investment principal of C are entered into while performing C’s employees. As seen earlier, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the agreement for money management agent services of G New Project, in which F participated, was concluded by two-party agreements, but not by three-party agreements initially participated and promoted, but by two-party agreements excluding investors, the Defendant took charge of funding as requested by F without receiving only doubtful fund contracts as follows.

④ The Defendant received a request from F to F to send a fund investment contract written between F and the victim. However, the Defendant stated that F is “AR, other than U,” and there was circumstances to suspect the authenticity of the contract, such as the omission of the victim’s certificate of personal seal impression.” In the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant also stated that “I think I would like to know that I would like to know if I would not carry a certificate of personal seal impression, and did not inform F of the victim’s contact address” (Evidence No. 3: 922, 923, 1243, 1911 page). However, the Defendant’s vindication appears to have been able to suspect F’s fraud, and that the victim attempted to communicate several times with F’s office (Evidence No. 6479, 480) and that “I would like to have known that I would like to have been 60% of the Defendant’s e-mail from the Defendant’s 26th day before the withdrawal of the contract.”

6) On July 2, 2016, before the victim deposits KRW 3.5 billion to C Fund Management Account, F sent a written request for withdrawal of funds by e-mail (Evidence No. 6: 146 pages) and July 5, 2016, and on July 5, 2016, the date when the amount of KRW 3.5 billion is deposited, F again withdrawn the request for withdrawal of funds by e-mail in accordance with the limit of KRW 1.0 billion, Defendant’s discretionary power, and then withdrawn the request for withdrawal within 16 billion in the request for withdrawal of funds (Evidence No. 16: 13) and the date of conclusion of the contract between N and C on behalf of the Fund Management Account (Evidence No. 16: 200, Jun. 22, 2016), and the Defendant did not request the request for withdrawal of funds by 160,000 won in the request for withdrawal of funds by 160,000 won in the request for withdrawal of funds (Evidence No. 16).

7) On July 6, 2016, F sent a letter of request for withdrawal of funds from the Republic of Korea on July 6, 2016, stating that PM (396 million won in terms of agency fees, 275 million won in ASU under the name of the model cargo rental fee, and 300 million won in ASU under the name of the model cargo rental fee. (3) The above letter of request for withdrawal of funds was accompanied only by the contract, which is the basis document for withdrawal, and the certificate of personal seal impression of the contracting parties was not attached. (15) The representative of N, the client of N, and the agent of AT corporation, the agent, were S, and the F was executing the instant fund management agency contract, etc. on behalf of agent, but the request for withdrawal of funds from AT corporation under the name of the agent contract, and the defendant could not be seen to have been aware of the fact that AFU was used under the name of 160 million won in the name of the lessor’s account, and the defendant could not be aware of the rent.

8) On March 14, 2017, the investigation of the instant case was conducted by the Defendant, as the police agent, believed F to be N, and there was no doubt in withdrawing funds as requested by N, and submitted an agency contract between N and F (Evidence No. 1166 through 1175). However, as seen earlier, F appears to have submitted an agency contract between N and EM No. 16, Jul. 6, 2016, and the representative director, who was not the above contract, submitted an agency contract between N and AT Co., Ltd., and the Defendant did not appear to have submitted an agency contract between NF 16,60,00 won for 60,000 won for 60,000 won for 60,000 won for 7,000,000 won for 16,000,000 won for 7,000,0000 won for 3,000,000 won for 16,00.

앞서 본 바와 같이 D 대표이사 E이 공문을 보내 F이 체결한 G 신축사업 자금관리대리사무약정에 대하여 문제를 제기한 점, Ⓒ J 신축사업 사기분양 피해자들이 C 사무실을 찾아와 피고인을 만나 F이 추진하는 사업의 정상적 진행 여부에 관해 물었던 점, Ⓒ 피고인과 F은 이 사건 자금인출 전에도 종종 식사나 술자리를 함께하였 고,20) 피해자가 C 명의 계좌에 입금한 자금 중 9억 9,000만 원을 F 요청에 따라 처음 인출해 준 2016. 7. 5. 당일 저녁 장시간 식사 및 술자리를 함께하였으며, F이 그전에도 피고인을 통하여 C과 여러 차례 자금관리대리사무약정을 체결하는 등(증거기록 6권 160쪽 참조)21) 긴밀한 관계를 지속해 왔던 점, ㉣ F이 2016. 4. 20. 피고인에게 'C 계좌에 입금한 보관금 35억 원은 4개월 후 2016. 8. 20.까지 조건 없이 자금주가 인정한 계좌에 입금한다(반환기간은 최대 2개월 연장이 가능하다)'는 내용의 이메일을 보낸 것(증거기록 6권 316쪽)에 비추어 J 신축사업이 문제될 무렵부터 피고인과 F 사이에 35억 원의 투자금을 유치하여 C 계좌에 보관시키는 내용의 협의를 한 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인은 적어도 FO J 신축사업 등의 문제해결을 위해 투자금 마련이 급박한 상황이었고, 피해자로부터 받은 자금이 P 주상복합아파트 신축사업이 아닌 다른 용도로 사용될 것이라는 점을 충분히 알 수 있었던 것으로 보인다.

3. Conclusion

If so, among the facts charged in this case, the facts charged in the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), the violation of trust property, the forgery of private documents, and the uttering of the above-mentioned investigation documents fall under a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the summary of the judgment of innocence is not published pursuant to the proviso of Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the fact of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article

The presiding judge; and

Awards and Decorations for Judges

Judges Lee Jong-deok

1) Taking into account the records of the instant case and the part of innocence, the facts charged are revised to the extent that does not impede the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense.

The reasons for the recognition of crime are as follows: The part concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

2) F is required to withdraw funds for L as an agency fee on the ground of the G new construction project agency contract (PM) agreement between D and L (the representative for name trees).

D. Meanwhile, E is the position that the above agency contract itself was made without one’s delegation and is invalid, and F.I.D.

This is recognized.

3) F The advertising loans against R on the basis of the G New Project Advertising Agency Agreement between D and M as representative (hereinafter referred to as “R”)

The request for withdrawal of funds was made on the pretext of the request, and the F requested the withdrawal of funds to MI not to be a corporate account but to MI.

4) As to the defendant's act of causing capital withdrawal at F's request, the prosecutor also violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation).

Although instituting a public prosecution, this part of the facts charged was acquitted as follows.

5) S is a company whose representative director is S, and F acquires the company upon entering into a transfer contract with S on June 21, 2016 to commit the instant crime and then it takes over C.

For the reason that it is required to engage in the duties of employees, the S has made S enter into a contract with the victim as the representative.

6) Cheongju District Court Decision 2017Gohap104 decided August 18, 2017

7) The complainant asserts to the effect that it is the case in itself concluded between two parties with a funding agency arrangement, but at the time, a funding agency work

C's work manuals or guidelines which enforce three-party contracts or prohibit two-party contracts are deemed not to have been made.

8) Most of the grounds for convictions alleged by the prosecution during the public trial are the fraudulent victim of the instant case (which is the content of the complaint submitted to the investigative agency);

In this article, I would like to explain how to judge the complainant's assertion.

9) The fact that the victim, against the Defendant and C and M, took part in the fraud crime committed by the Defendant, F, etc. is brought a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages;

M In the instant case, the first instance court was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor and was sentenced to 4 years, and no condition exists with the victim in the appellate trial.

This agreement is reached and the sentence is mitigated by confession, and F is also subject to the investigation of the fraud of the sale price of the J-built Project that occurred before the instant case.

Not only this case but also the fact that the defendant was involved in the fraudulent purchase price of J-built Project, the defendant changed his attitude to the effect that he was involved;

The victim also asserts that the defendant was involved in the fraudulent case of the purchase price of J-built Project, which is not directly related to himself/herself, in the investigative agency

In light of the fact that the victim has filed the complaint of this case against the defendant seeking favorable results in the above lawsuit for damages.

F and M appear to have been in progress, and F and M are disadvantageous to the defendant who is exempted from or mitigated from the victim's civil or criminal liability;

The statement is highly likely to be made.

10) The Defendant also acknowledges the fact that it was said in the prosecutor’s investigation (3rd 911, 912 pages of evidence record), provided that K is “at the time” in this court.

The defendant stated that he did not talk about the construction of a new multi-use apartment and P, and that he was "K, etc. at the time as alleged in F.

It was stated to the effect that it was not memory as to whether the U.S. 3.5 billion won stated to the effect that it was 3.5 billion won or not.

11) A statement at the time of the prosecutorial investigation of the defendant (3rd 929 pages of evidence records);

12) The Defendant made a statement that he was aware of the victim (Evidence Nos. 920, 923 of the evidence record).

13) At the time of the prosecutorial investigation, the Defendant stated that “F is a discretionary decision if the enforcement fund in its position as the team leader does not exceed one billion won.”

‘Evidence recorded’ (Evidence 3rd 930 pages).

14) Reference to Article 7 of the Fund Management Agency Agreement for New Complex Construction Project (Evidence Record 6No. 140 pages)

15) Unlike the Fund Management Agency Agreement, the certificate of personal seal impression of the contracting parties to the contract attached to the Fund Withdrawal Document shall be attached only once to the contract.

did not have been abandoned.

16) Reference to the Defendant’s statement at the time of prosecutorial investigation (the steam record 3rd page 932 pages).

17) It refers to a real estate lease agreement (Evidence 3 1212 pages).

18) According to the Prosecutorial Investigation of F (Evidence Record 5No. 2044, 2045 pages) and e-mail content (Evidence Record 6No. 146 pages), F. 2016, 72.7

It seems that it is attached to the sending e-mail.

19) The number of issuance of a certificate of seal imprint and the date of issuance of the certificate of seal imprint are the same.

20) The defendant also recognized the fact that he has a drinking job in F and several entertainment taverns on several occasions. The five evidence records 1908 pages are recognized.

21) The defendant sent F by e-mail to F, including G new construction business, P main apartment construction business fund management agency agreement, etc.

The current status of unpaid remuneration concerning agency affairs is stated.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.