2015Gohap594, 1019(Joint), Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

(Fraud), fraud;

A

In the case of Kim (prosecution) and Kim Heavy (Trial)

Law Firm B

Attorney in charge C, D

September 27, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Criminal facts

"Criminal Power"

On June 12, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and six months at the Seoul Central District Court for fraud, and the judgment was finalized on June 20, 2017.

"2015 Gohap594"

The defendant shall be the chairperson of the F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter referred to as the "F") with the second floor E in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu.

1. Fraud against the victim G;

A. On May 23, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim G at the above F Office that “The 50% portion of the right to operate the Hab restaurant will be 25% if the Defendant invests additional funds in the amount of KRW 50 million, because the 500 people use the 50 people.”

However, at the time of fact, the defendant did not have the right to operate a mar restaurant at the H construction site, and there was no intention or ability to make profits from the victim.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 50 million from the victim to the new bank account under the I’s name on May 23, 201, and KRW 100 million on June 10, 201, including KRW 100,000,000,000 from the same account on June 10, 201.

B. Around September 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim G at the above F Office that “it is difficult to operate the company because the building of a three-scale restaurant is delayed.” The Defendant accepted the slaughterhouse, which is the J, which is located in the previous North Korea, and then made an investment that would incur a large amount of profit if he slaughters cattle, pigs, etc.... The Defendant would use it only for a period of four months if he/she invests in the deposit by changing the transfer tax that is currently living at the monthly.”

However, at the time, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to return the investment funds of the victim through the takeover or operation of the slaughterhouse.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 25 million from the victim to the new bank account in the first name on October 4, 2011, and received KRW 60 million in total nine times until December 28, 201, as indicated in [Attachment 6-1] to 14, 201.

C. Around December 19, 2011, the Defendant, at the above F Office, lent money to the victim G with a high-class vehicle as collateral, he/she may receive six-paid interest after the two months. A false statement was made that the Defendant “if he/she lends money to the victim G with a high-class vehicle as collateral, he/she may make an investment of KRW 150,000,000,000 which is able to secure three vehicles with a double four-paid interest.”

However, the defendant had no intention or ability to return the investment money to the victim by operating the vehicle security credit business normally.

On December 20, 201, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 150 million from the victim to the new bank account in the name of I on December 20, 201, as set forth in No. 15 of the List of Offenses.

D. On September 201, 201, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim G at the F Office at the end of the F Office, stating that “The Defendant would return 30 million won to the victim G, as the funds necessary for the operation of the Young-do M&D Corporation and the boom restaurant and the N corporation’s accommodation are urgently needed.”

However, at the time, the defendant had no intention or ability to acquire the right to operate a restaurant and a lodging or to repay the borrowed money to the victim through its operation while the Corporation was in progress.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received from the victim a total of KRW 30 million, including KRW 24 million on September 29, 201, and KRW 30 million on September 30, 201 and KRW 6 million on September 30, 201.

E. Around June 2011, the Defendant is expected to take over 40% of the 0th 0th 0 logistics center to the victim G at the above F office.

In addition, since the market price has 100 tons of North Korea's 10 billion won, it will be sold in the future.However, there is no funds for the operation of the party headquarters, so there is no money for the investment of the party headquarters.In this regard, it made a false statement that "I will return all investment funds and return them to the vice president of the company and hold the office of the vice president of the company."

However, the F, at the time, did not have any sales or any other profit, and did not have any intention or ability to pay the investment to the victim through the acquisition or operation of the F, which is a brin restaurant, 0 logistics center at the construction site of the detailed construction site.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 68,945,00 in total from the victim on August 23, 201, and received KRW 4 million from the victim, as indicated in the attached Table Nos. 17 through 29, 31 through 33, as well as the transfer of KRW 68,945,00 in total until July 5, 2013.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim G, received a total of KRW 559,945,00 from the victim over 31 times.

2. Fraud of victim P;

On July 7, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim P, “The Defendant secured the right to operate the restaurant at the site of the relevant Q Q Q Q works. It would be 25% of its profits when the construction begins. If the operation of the restaurant is not properly implemented, the principal and the agreed interest will be paid until December 31, 201.”

However, at the time, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to secure the right to operate the restaurant at the third Qu Corporation site or to return the investment funds to the victim through its operation.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim participate in the business of operating the above Haba restaurant during the same month, and had the victim take part in the business of operating the said Haba restaurant, to conversion the victim’s loans worth KRW 50 million into equity, and received from the victim KRW 50 million on the 18th of the same month, KRW 50 million on the 26th of the same month, KRW 30 million on the 26th of the same month, and KRW 3050,000 on the 1st of the same month from the new bank account in the 1’s name.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, obtained monetary benefits equivalent to KRW 50,000 of the amount of the loan that was paid by deceiving the victim to convert into investments, and acquired the amount of KRW 150,000,000 from the investment.

"2015 Gohap1019"

On February 2, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would have the Victim U take charge of collecting earth and sand in relation to the VPP construction works in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S. one week after the day, and would have approximately KRW 5 billion expected to be accrued, which would have been divided into half.”

However, there was no work plan under the name of V Port Development Project in Ulsan-gun at the time, and the Ulsan-gun W development project, which was a construction project that had existed only at the time, was a part of the project regardless of the Government's presentation for the project as a part of the establishment of the basic plan, and the project is not fully embodied or progress due to the failure to implement the project in spite of the Government's presentation for the project, and the defendant did not have the intent or ability to allow the victim to perform the construction work, such as gathering soil and sand, even in relation to any harbor development project in Ulsan-

Around February 24, 2014, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim U, received KRW 100 million from the victim to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant’s use, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

[2015Gohap594]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by witnesses G in the first trial record;

1. The witness's statement in P in the second protocol of trial;

1. The details of P, details of deposits from G, details of deposit receipts, details of account transactions from G, each cash receipt, X joint operation agreement, loan certificates, conditional commitments, motor vehicle registration certificates, etc., details of transactions from each account, and records of transactions from each account;

[2015 Gohap1019]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of U among the protocol of interrogation of the police officer against the accused (second, second, and replacement);

1. Statement of each police officer against U and Y;

1. A notarial deed, construction contract, fact-finding certificate, and copy of passbook;

1. Investigation report (Confirmation of the existence of a port construction in this case);

1. A previous record of judgment: A copy of the judgment (2016 Height2160), a statement of inquiry about criminal records and investigation records, and a statement of inquiry about summary information of the case;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (including fraud toG), Article 347 (1) of each Criminal Act (P and U fraud, and choice of imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed by the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with the largest penalty

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

2. Whether the sentencing criteria are applied: Each of the crimes in this case is concurrent crimes with the crimes listed in the judgment of the court and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the sentencing criteria are not applicable.

3. Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment; and

Although there is no intention to conduct business or the process of business is uncertain, the Defendant deceivings the victims as if they were in progress of business and received money from them, and the amount of fraud reaches 850 million won in total, and among them, the actual amount of damage of the victims, excluding the amount paid as monthly salary or interest, etc., reaches 810 million won. While the Defendant repeatedly stated in this court that he/she would make an agreement with the victims or make a deposit for recovery from damage, the damage of the victim G and P was not completely recovered as well as that he/she paid and agreed to the victims to U until now, and the above victims want to be punished against the Defendant, and it is inevitable to punish the Defendant, which is equivalent to the nature of the crime. The Defendant again committed the crime of this case even though he/she had been punished several times due to fraud.

However, all of the crimes of this case are led to confessions and reflects against the victims, and some of the money received from the victims are deemed to have been written in the course of the business or with F Operating Funds, and the fact that the victims U.S. paid KRW 23 million shall be considered as favorable to the defendant.

In addition, in consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, the circumstances, means and results of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

presiding judge, judges, vibration

Judges Lee Jae-py

Power of Judge

1) While the Defendant asserts that he/she would repay to the victims with the ZOND that he/she owns from the investigation process to the present court, it is difficult to view the above claim as a claim with real value in light of the fact that the standard price or the appraised value is zero.

2) According to the letter of withdrawal of the complaint prepared by U.S., it is stated that the defendant received cash of KRW 23 million, KRW 100,000,000 from the defendant, and KRW 100,000,000 from the guarantor, but among them, it is probable that the amount of damage actually recovered by the victim is not real value as seen above.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.