2018Gohap551(combined) is the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

anti-Fraud (Fraud) . Recognizing Defendant A

Name of crime: Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes

【Violation of Law (Fraud)】

(b) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

1.(b) B

2. A.

3.(a) C.

The Acknife number (prosecution), sent back, and new flag (public trial)

Attorney Hah-su, Yeong, Park Jong-su (for defendant B)

Law Firm Barun (Defendant A)

Attorneys Song Dong-jin, and Kim Dok-do

Law Firm Republic of Korea (For Defendant A)

Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Kim Jong-soo, and Kim Delay

Law Firm Normal (for the defendant C)

Attorney Lee Jae-jin

May 10, 2019

Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, by a fine of 1,50,000 won, by imprisonment for one year, and by imprisonment for one year with prison labor for Defendant A, and by imprisonment for Defendant C for four years, respectively.

When Defendant B fails to pay the above fine, Defendant B shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A mobile phone (SHOW, No. 2) seized shall be confiscated from Defendant B.

To order the defendant B to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

On May 18, 2017, Defendant B was sentenced to five years of suspended sentence for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. at Seoul High Court on May 18, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 26, 2017. On September 6, 2017, Defendant B was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment at the Seoul Central District Court as a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 14, 2017.

Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act at the Seoul Central District Court on April 26, 2018, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 26, 2018.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by Defendant B and C and Defendant A in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

On October 2015, Defendant A obtained a loan from a third party to purchase J shares (hereinafter referred to as “J shares”) held by Defendant C through D, E, and F on or after the lower day of the lower day of October 2015, Defendant A requested K to provide the above loan (hereinafter referred to as “stock loan”) after having become aware that the third party would offer the purchased shares as a security for a loan obligation, and after having become aware that K would offer the purchased shares as a security for a loan obligation, K accepted the above loan request. K made Defendant C, upon receiving L’s instructions from Defendant C to the effect that “D” would offer a loan through a usual-friendly L, and issued a share certificate from the victim as a security, it would immediately dispose of the shares after entering into an agreement with the third party, and made it possible to use Seoul as a security loan and make it available to Defendant B to use his personal seal as a "share and to use it as a loan in his name at the city of Busan.”

Meanwhile, on October 29, 2015, E and N sent the above situation to K by sending the above situation, and upon receiving a request from K to the effect that “P Kafbook (hereinafter referred to as “P Kaf”), the place where the J stock loan agreement is undertaken on October 29, 2015, the victim and D were sent to the lender, but the lender was not at any time, and the loan contract will not be concluded. On the same day, N made contact to Defendant A at around 10:30 on the same day, and it would be good if the borrower shows the loan if the loan is not paid to the lender.” Accordingly, Defendant A again sent the above situation to K, and accepted the request to the effect that “P Kaff is changed at the site of stock loan” from K.

After all, even though Defendant A knew that a stock loan contract made by K may not be a normal stock loan contract, Defendant A entered into a R building near Q, his spouse, using a number of 1 billion won to board or a part of Q, and had Q from this place show a number of 1 billion won to N in Q, who is waiting for a lot of clients. This check will bring this check to show financial capacity, and will bring it to other people to gain money, and E and N will return to PKa P, which means that the victim and D will bring it to the victim.

Defendant C prepared a loan on October 29, 2015 as a check in accordance with K’s instruction and presented the loan to the victim, D, E, and N, who is waiting for the victim, D, E, and N. However, Defendant C did not directly conclude a loan contract but did not enter into a direct contract, and the person who entered into the loan contract did not enter into a contract.

On October 29, 2015, Defendant B started from Busan on the day of October 29, 2015, and arrived at the rear part of the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul on the same day at around 12:20 on the same day, M is a person who is a "C director" and notified Defendant B of the phone number of Defendant C, and this person can be identified if telephone calls. The above is called "I am getting off and off the vehicle." The Defendant B made Defendant B go to the P Kaf, a place where S drives is promised to drive.

After that, Defendant B entered the Pk page and entered into a "loan Agreement" with the victim, E, N, and Defendant C, with the victim, with the content of "477,350,000,000 won of loans (the prior interest of KRW 23,500,000) between the victim, "87,300,000 of the collateral J shares, one month after the due date," and "the creditor shall be liable to fully return the collateral shares other than the principal and interest of the loan and transaction expenses to the debtor," and moved from the victim, etc. to an I office near the above0 distance. At this point, Defendant C issued to the defendant a check of KRW 45,50,000,000 of the above loan amount after deducting the prior interest from the above loan amount, and Defendant C received the share certificates issued by the victim from the victim, and Defendant C received the share certificates of KRW 783,00,00 from the victim.

On January 10, 2015, Defendant B and C issued a loan to the victim and issued a share certificate of J shares as security against the victim, and subsequently, Korea, M, and Defendant A went to a cross-concept near this long-distance, and at this point, K changed a transfer to Defendant C, respectively, and M instructed Defendant B to the effect that “A transfer to a transfer to a transfer to a transfer to a “T” with Defendant C”, respectively.

As a result, Defendant B and C transferred to the Securities Agency of U.S. (hereinafter referred to as “U”) located in T, and Defendant C disposed of the said shares by entering the said J shares into a securities account in the name of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “W”) and receiving a sale-based loan.

However, Defendant B and C only intended to dispose of the shares delivered as security by the victim immediately and acquire the proceeds thereof, and they did not have any intention or ability to return them to the victim in the future, such as the above "Agreement on Loan".

Nevertheless, Defendant B and C, as if they were to keep the J shares issued as security in collusion with K and M for a period of one month, deceiving the victim, and have been issued by the victim a total amount of KRW 97920,000,00 of the market value of the J shares of KRW 87,300,00,000, and Defendant A assisted by facilitating the fraudulent conduct of M, K, Defendant B and C by means of assisting the victim and the Defendant to prevent the occurrence of the J share loan contract.

2. Violation of the Road Traffic Act by Defendant B

On March 23, 2018, Defendant B, while under the influence of alcohol 0.085% of the blood alcohol concentration on March 23, 2018, Defendant B driven a Y-low-low-scale car and continued approximately 300 meters from the Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul ZA parking lot to the front day of the same Gu AB AC CE.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements (Provided, That Defendant A and C are part of each and the 16th court date)

1. Statement in Defendant B3 in the first trial record;

1. The witness H, E, B (the above 14th court date), and A (the 15th court date) each legal statement;

1. The witness H’s partial statement in the third protocol, witness D, E’s partial statement in the fourth protocol of the trial, witness G, N, and part of the fifth protocol of the trial, witness K and C’s partial statement in the sixth protocol of the trial, witness K in the sixth protocol of the trial, witness S and B in the seventh protocol of the trial, each part of the witness B and C in the 8 protocol of the eighth protocol of the trial, each of the witness B and C in the 9 protocol of the nine protocol of the trial, each part of the 10th protocol of the 12 protocol of the 12 protocol of the witness C;

1. The self-examination report by each prosecutor of the prosecution against the defendant B, A, and C (including the part of each of the statements by the defendant H and the defendant B);

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning M, E, H,D, S (including part of the statements made by Defendant B), N (including part of the statements made by E and H), AD, G (including part of the statements made by F and E), K, L, Defendant A (including part of the statements made by Defendant B), B, and C (including each of the statements made by Defendant B and D);

1. Some protocol of interrogation of the police as to Defendant B (limited to Defendant B);

1. Each text message attached to the statement of the police by the defendant C and the business registration certificate, the investment contract, the copy of the passport, the resident registration certificate (as above, Nos. 39 through 42 of the evidence list) attached thereto; 1. H, D, AE, and N (part) of the police statement by the police; and each text message attached to the police statement by some police officers against H (Evidence No. 31 to 34 of the evidence list);

1. Written statements of D;

1. Report on detection of a host driver and report on the circumstances of a host driver;

1. A complaint and a loan agreement attached thereto, a sales contract for stocks, a subsidiary agreement (Evidence No. 7), a certificate of delivery, a certificate of delivery, an electronic data processing, each text message (Evidence No. 10), a copy of the complaint, a copy of the J sovereignty of a stock company, and a report on loss;

1. Seizure records;

1. 수사보고(한국예탁결제원 자료회신 첨부) 및 그에 첨부된 경찰서 금융거래정보의 제공요구서에 대한 회신과 금융거래정보제공 내역, 수사보고(고소인과 전화통화), 수사보고(피의자 B과 정산한 정산내역서 첨부) 및 그에 첨부된 자기앞수표 사본(증거목록 순번 44), 수사보고(D 송부 대출약정서 초안 첨부) 및 그에 첨부된 이메일, 대출 약정서 초안, 수사보고(C 제출 수표 사본 편철) 및 그에 첨부된 수표 사본, 수사보고(H 제출 수표 사본 편철) 및 그에 첨부된 수표 사본, 수사보고(J 주식 매도자금 흐름도 및 C 제출 금융자료 편철) 및 그에 첨부된 X 증권계좌의 J 주식 매도자금 상황, 계좌내역, 과거거래내역조회, 은행이체/대체거래내역, 자기앞수표, 거래증명서, 각 이체결과조회, 각 위탁계좌 거래내역서, 잔고 및 거래명세서, 수사보고(고소인, B 등으로부터 교부받은 4천만 원권 및 1천만 원권 수표 사본 제출) 및 그에 첨부된 수표 사본, 수사보고(C가 B에게 지급하였다고 주장하는 2억 248만 200원권 수표 거래내역 추적, 피고인 B, 피고인 C에 대하여만) 및 그에 첨부된 각 수표 사본, 각 자기앞수표 거래증명서, 수사보고(AF 차량 관련 등 S의 사건 관련성 파악) 및 그에 첨부된 E이 고소인에게 전송한 AG 캡쳐사진, AF 미니쿠페 차량 차적조회, 수사보고(금융계좌추적용 압수수색검증영장 집행결과 첨부, 피고인 B, C에 대하여만) 및 그에 첨부된 X 증권계좌의 J 주식 매도자금 흐름 상황, 압수수색 대상 수표에 대한 배서, 지급, 교환 등 상황, 주식회사 AH 명의 및 AI 명의 U 은행계좌 범죄수익 세탁 상황, 계좌내역, 각 제적등본, 각 주민조회, 수사보고(J 주식 인수자금 조달자 AD 관련), 수사보고(범죄수익은닉 추정 계좌발견, 피고인 B, C에 대하여만) 및 그에 첨부된 예금거래실적증명서, 고객인적사항 조회, 자기앞수표 사본, 주민조회, 수사보고(범죄수익은닉 추정계좌 발견) 및 그에 첨부된 서류(수사기록 제432면 내지 제438면), 수사보고(범죄수익은익 추정 외국은행 계좌 발견) 및 그에 첨부된 서류(수사기록 제440면 내지 460면), 수사보고(A, B, S에 대한 접견현황 및 녹음파일 첨부) 및 그에 첨부된 자료(증거목록 순번 126 내지 128), 녹취서 작성 보고 및 그에 첨부된 무인접견 녹취서 26부 등(증거목록 순번 133, 134, 수사기록 제509면 내지 제659면), 수사보고(2차 금융계좌 추적용 압수수색영장 집행결과 첨부, 피고인 B, C에 대하여만) 및 그에 첨부된 정리표 1(증거목록 순번 136, 피고인 B, C에 대하여만), 정리표 2(증거목록 순번 137), 수사보고(피의자 B 및 M 동종 사건 관련 공소장 및 불기소결정서 등 첨부) 및 그에 첨부된 사건종합정보, 서울남부지검 2017년 형제24014 공소장, 서울남부지검 2017년 형제24014 불기소결정서, 서울남부지검 2017년 형제24014 사경 송치의견서, 수사보고(공범 A 관련 판결문 첨부) 및 그에 첨부된 사건요약정보조회, 각 판결문 사본, 수사보고(피의자 B 휴대폰 2대 제출), 수사보고 (참고인 K, C 근무지 확인) 및 그에 첨부된 홈페이지 출력물, 수사보고(참고인 AJ 전화 진술 청취), 수사보고(디지털포렌식 결과 확인) 및 그에 첨부된 각 모바일분석 보고서, 수사보고(참고인 AD 문자메시지, AG 대화내용 사진 제출) 및 그에 첨부된 문자메시지 캡쳐사진, AG 캡쳐사진, 수사보고(참고인 K 추가 자료 제출, 피고인 B, C에 대하여) 및 그에 첨부된 자료(증거목록 순번 229 내지 234), 수사보고(참고인 G녹취파일 제출 및 녹취록 첨부, 피고인 B, 피고인 C에 대하여만) 및 그에 첨부된 각 녹취서, 녹취 CD 2장

1. Name cards (Evidence No. 16), each text message (Evidence No. 31 through 34), on-site map (Evidence List No. 105), the share transfer/acquisition agreement, the share price of J stocks, the general account information, B explanation-type (Evidence List No. 249), the investment contract (Evidence List No. 277), the registration certificate (Evidence List No. 279), the copy of each B passport, copies of the cashier's checks, cash-recording files, cash-recording files No. 279, cash-recording files No. 277 or 287), each individual's status (Evidence No. 339), separate rights No. 1 (Evidence No. 322), and separate rights No. 2 (Evidence No. 3233);

1. Previous convictions (Defendant B and A): A inquiry letter (Defendant B), investigation and inquiry into criminal records (Defendant A), investigation reports (Attachment of sentence related to the B of the previous sentence related to a suspect B), and copies of each judgment attached thereto, integrated search of cases, investigation reports (Confirmation of the same kind of evidence as a suspect A), and copies of each judgment attached thereto (Evidence No. 295 through 297);

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence submitted by prosecutors and defense counsels, the following facts are acknowledged:

A. Status of the parties

1) L is the real representative of X, and Defendant C is a person registered as the formal representative director of the above X at the request of L, and K is a person registered as X director.

2) K was the AK representative director at the time of 2015, and from the latest 2016, K operated the said company as the representative director of AL. Defendant C was registered as a director of AL from August 2, 2016, and was paid at least KRW 100 million annually. 4)

3) AD is a person who has provided L with a financing.

4) On the other hand, Defendant B and M are those between high school line and post line, and 5) as well as Defendant B’s subsequent high school line, and S served as a driver or a heart as a subsequent operator of M and Defendant B, but was receiving a kind of remuneration from M around around 2015.

5) Defendant A, as a bond company, became aware of K in the course of a secured loan agreement on the shares AM stock company around August 2015.

(b) Status of stock loan contracts ( October 28, 2015) before entering into a contract for stock loan;

1) On October 23, 2015, the victim purchased the J shares from a third party by borrowing funds necessary to purchase the J shares held by him/her, but was a plan to immediately provide the purchased J shares as collateral for the obligations of loans.

2) On the same day, the victim requested D to grant a loan to D as security, and from this point to October 28 of the same year, D to E, E to F, F to G (one person), and G requested Defendant A to grant a stock security loan in order to Defendant A, and finally Defendant A was given the answer that a stock security loan can be granted by requesting K to provide a stock security loan.

3) On October 28, 2015, K directed M to exclude a person who will act as a formal lender at the J-B loan site. M means that M resides in Busan on the same day and visited Defendant B, who was living in Busan on the same day and was living in Busan on the same day and served as a lender for another crime, and M was recorded Seoul on October 29, 2015 with his/her identification card and seal impression until October 29, 2015.

4) On October 28, 2015, Defendant C prepared an amount of KRW 500 million from L around October 28, 2015, and followed by K, on October 29, 2015, instructed Defendant B to deliver an amount equivalent to KRW 450 million to Defendant B. As such, Defendant C was under dispute over a correct amount and purpose, Defendant C was examined in detail thereafter.

C. The current status of the date of the instant stock security loan ( October 2015, 29)

1) 피고인 C는 L의 지시대로 2015. 10. 29. 10:39 경부터 10:52경 사이에 L의 요청을 받은 AD으로부터 X의 계좌로 입금 받은 4억 원과 X이 보유하고 있던 1억 원을 가지고 1억 원권 수표 4장, 4,000만 원권 수표 1장, 1,000만 원권 수표 5장, 500만 원권 수표 2장 합계 5억 원)을 마련하였다(뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 피해자는 | 사무실에서 위 수표들 중 피고인 C, B 순으로 전달된 합계 4억 5,000만 원 상당의 수표들을 교부받아 그중 1억 원권 수표 4장 합계 4억 원을 I에 교부하였고, 4,000만 원권 수표 1장, 1,000만 원권 수표 1장 합계 5,000만 원을 주식회사 AO(이하 'AO'이라고 한다) AP 지점에 제시하여 현금으로 교환하였으며8), 위 4억 5,000만 원 상당의 수표를 제외한 나머지 5,000만 원 상당의 수표들은 [별지 1] '합계 5,000만 원 수표 사용처 추적결과' 기재와 같이 사용되었다).

2) On the other hand, on October 29, 2015, the victim, D, E, and N met at P Kaf, a promise place, to enter into a J stock loan agreement. On the other hand, E sent a loan to the victim and D, rather than personal funds, to the company to which they belong. However, the victim and D expressed that they will leave the P Kaf at the latest arrival of the loans to N, and around 10:30 on the same day, N sent a large number of stories to Defendant A to the effect that "on the other hand, I will leave the 100 billion won of the P Kaf," and that "I will leave the 100 billion won of the P Kaf's own stocks," and that "I will leave the 100 billion won of the P Kaf's own stocks."

3) Defendant C, at least 11:1511 on the same day, had shown a check held by the victim, D, E, etc. while driving as a company’s funding executor to provide a loan to the P car page at least at least 11:151 on the same day.

4) After 12:00, D left the P car page and 13), victims, E, N and Defendant C arrive at the representative director of the fund lending company who will sign the contract document in the above P car page.

5) On the other hand, between 09:00 and 10:00 on the same day, Defendant B was on board the KTX in Busan and arrived at the rear part of the PTP building near the PTP, and Ma and K reached only on the vehicle parked there. M is a responsibility for Defendant B to the effect that it is so late. While Defendant B was informed of Defendant C’s telephone number and called “the telephone number to reduce”, Defendant C director (Defendant C) will appear in front of the PC. As such, Defendant B was on board the PC at around 12:20, and Defendant B was on board the PC at around 12:20, and Defendant C was on board the PC, and Defendant C did not prepare the agreement on the PC loan (hereinafter “the agreement on the PP loan”) at the same time, and Defendant B did not present the agreement on the PC loan (hereinafter “the agreement on the PP loan”). Defendant B was on the 30th page of the PC and the agreement on the PC loan (hereinafter “Defendant”).

2. The Defendant B is obligated to fully return to Q14 the secured stocks except for the principal and interest of this loan and transaction expenses. ① The secured stocks loan is KRW 4773.5 million in daily amount.

② Security of Q: 87,300 Common Shares 87,300 shares of the KOSDAQ-registered corporation J (No. N. AR): 5% per month from the date of the due date of loan execution. (1) 5% per month. (2) If the collateral ratio is not more than 140% even before the due date of loan execution, if the debtor does not provide additional shares or cash, etc. as security, prior notice shall be given to Q Q, and if the debtor does not provide additional security within 1) business day, the principal and interest shall be sold within 87,300 shares during the current period after deducting 87,300 shares, and the principal and interest shall be immediately refunded to Q.

6) The victim, E, N, Defendant B, and C went to the I Office located in P car page immediately after the conclusion of the instant stock loan agreement. At this point, Defendant C sent to Defendant B, as seen above, a check amounting to KRW 450 million in total among the checks prepared by Defendant C to the victim, and the victim paid to I the said check amounting to KRW 400 million in total, and the victim paid 87,317 Shares 16 (However, under convenience, the number of the instant shares will be expressed as KRW 87,300,00 in total, among the checks prepared by Defendant C to the victim, and delivered the said share certificates to Defendant B. Defendant B re-issued the said share certificates.

7) As mentioned in the above 6) above, the procedure for the payment of loans and the issuance of share certificates offered as security has been completed, and the above behaviors demanded the I Office B to provide the remainder of the work, but they did not accept such demand, but they reported to the police. Defendant B was immediately away from the scene of damage, and Defendant C appeared to witness the scene of damage, as seen above.

8) Defendant B and C demanded to continue to provide KRW 50 million each for different routes, and, at the same time, Korea, M, and Defendant A had been in advance with respect to the instant shares, thereby bringing to Defendant C a transfer of ownership for the instant shares, and M ordered Defendant C to provide a transfer of ownership with Defendant C, respectively.

9) Defendant B and C completed the entry of change of ownership of 87,300 shares of this case in the U Securities Agency located in T in the name of Defendant B, and Defendant C visited W, located in V, around 15:16 on the same day, and entered the instant shares into the X W Securities Account (20).

10) On the other hand, K issued to Defendant A a copy of KRW 10 million check from among the checks issued by Defendant C as described in the above paragraph (1) in the AS Skbook located in Gangnam-gu Seoul at a time near the same day in o'clock. Defendant A sent the same copy to N as it is, and N exchanged exchanged the above KRW 10 million check in cash and divided into G and F.

D. Status of the instant stock security loan agreement (after 2015, 10, 29)

1) From October 30, 2015, Defendant C disposed of 87,300 shares of this case by means of sale and loan, and as a result, around 13:57 on October 30, 2015, Defendant C deposited KRW 350,000,000 out of the total amount of sale and loan loan, KRW 757,000,000,000,000 into XW securities account.

2) Meanwhile, around 14:04 on October 30, 2015, around 15:10, around 15:10 on the same day, KRW 248,200,000 on 15:31 on the same day, and KRW 13.4 million on 15:31 on 15:31 on the same day, respectively, was transferred from X’s W Securities Account to X’s AO bank account. Defendant C issued at the point of AOP to KRW 2.248,200 on 15:23 on the same day, one and 4,7740,00 won check, respectively.

3) On October 30, 2015, K, M, S, and Defendant C entered X office for the settlement of the proceeds from the disposal of the instant shares at an end of time on October 30, 2015. At this point, K or M, as described in the foregoing paragraph (2) above, instructed S to exchange KRW 2.48 million checks issued by the Defendant C with KRW 15,000,000, KRW 32,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 32,000, KRW 20480, KRW 32,000, KRW 1,000,000, KRW 2,000,000, KRW 2,000,000, KRW 2,000,000 was divided into checks exchanged by S in accordance with the foregoing order, and paid KRW 2,00,00,00 to Defendant C as expenses (On the other hand, the specific details of the use of checks verified among S checks [Attachment 2. 2, 2, 2.2.

4) Defendant B arrived at the above X office around 17:00 on the same day after the settlement of accounts as to the disposal price of the instant shares was completed, and signed at the investment contract that K and Defendant C met (M left the above office) and signed at that place, and signed at that place to the effect that “the receipt of the fixed settlement amount on the copy of the check of KRW 2.248,200,000,000.” After which Defendant B received two copies of the check of KRW 2,000,000,000, out of the check exchanged as described in the above paragraph 3, from K, under the pretext of repair expenses, Defendant B received two copies of the check of KRW 10,000,000 from K.

2. Whether the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is established against Defendant C

A. Summary of Defendant C and Defense Counsel’s assertion

Defendant C received an order from Defendant B to deliver KRW 500 million necessary for Defendant B’s purchase of shares as investment money, and delivered the above KRW 500 million to Defendant B, and Company X, a representative director, entered into an investment contract with Defendant B. After which Defendant C received a request to sell the instant shares from Defendant B, Defendant C disposed of the instant shares in the form of a sale secured loan, and Defendant B paid KRW 248,200,000,000,000,000 from Defendant B, as stipulated in the investment contract with Defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant C did not recognize that the above KRW 500 million delivered to Defendant B was used for the stock loan, and furthermore, it was used for the fraud crime, such as the crime No. 1, which pretended to be the stock loan (hereinafter “the fraud of this case”).

As a result, Defendant C did not conspired to commit the instant fraud with K, M, Defendant B, and the instant fraud, and there was no intent to commit the crime by deception against Defendant C. Even if Defendant C participated in the instant fraud, Defendant C participated in the instant fraud.

Even if we do so, it is only a crime as an aiding and abetting crime.

B. Specific determination

1) A joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly by two or more persons. In order to establish a joint principal offender, a joint principal offender requires a fact of implementation of a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is a subjective element, with the intention of joint processing and objective requirement. A joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act with another person’s intent, and to shift his/her own intent to implement a specific criminal act by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4792, Nov. 9, 2001). Such joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and accept it without restraint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 200). It does not require a prior joint principal offender’s prior conspiracy to commit a specific criminal act, and if each accomplice has an essential relation to the elements of a crime between his/her accomplicess, then it should be deemed that each of the accomplice is sufficient (see, 2007.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C directly participated in most of the instant act of committing the instant fraud, such as the conclusion of a share security agreement, transfer of ownership and disposal of the instant shares, and settlement of profits, and thereby, Defendant C constituted the elements of the instant fraud, or shared the instant act in essence related to the elements of the fraud. Accordingly, Defendant C cannot be exempt from the criminal liability as a co-principal of the instant fraud, and the assertion by Defendant C and the defense counsel cannot be accepted on a different premise.

① 피고인 C는 2018. 8. 31. 열린 제2회 공판기일에서 공소장 변경 전의 공소사 실24)에 대하여 '공소사실을 인정하지만 주식담보대출 사실을 사전에 계획하고 공모하지 않았고, 현장에 나가서 알게 된 상황이며, 피해를 회복할 것이고, 잘못을 뉘우치고 있다'는 취지로 진술한 바 있고, 2018. 10. 26. 열린 제6회 공판기일에 증인으로 출석하여 "그 현장에서는 주식매수자금투자가 아니라 주식담보대출 건이라는 것을 충분히 인지하셨지요."라는 검사의 질문에 대하여 "나중에 피고인 B이 늦게 오고 상황을 보면서 어느 정도 인지를 할 수 있었습니다. 그런데 저도 돈을 빌려서 갔기 때문에 손해도 있고 해서 그때 멈췄어야 되는데 멈추지 못해 지금 이런 사단이 발생한 것 같습니다. "라고 대답하기도 하였다. 비록 피고인 C가 그 이후에 '자신은 피고인 B에게 제공한 자금을 주식매수자금에 대한 투자금으로 알았고, 주식담보대출에 제공되는 대출금이라는 사실을 몰랐다'는 취지로 그 진술을 번복하였으나, 이 사건 변론 종결시까지도 그 진술 번복의 이유에 관하여 납득할 만한 설명을 하지 못하고 있는 데다가 검사가 제출한 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들까지 더하여 보면, 피고인 C가 이 사건 주식담보대출약정 체결 당시 자신이 현장에 가져온 자금이 주식담보대출에 제공되는 대출금이라는 사실을 알고 있었다고 충분히 인정할 수 있다.

① As to who was the victim, E, N, and C’s statement did not coincide with each other, as to who explained the terms and conditions of loans at the scene, etc., the victim, E, N, and B did not coincide with each other, but at least as to the fact that Defendant C was able to know the contents of a stock loan agreement between the victim and the Defendant on the site where the stock loan agreement was concluded between the victim and the Defendant, the statement of the other related parties except the Defendant C is the same. In addition, at least at least at the scene of the instant stock loan agreement, the victim, D, E, N, and Defendant B, who was at the location of the instant stock loan agreement, were gathered in Pk page to purchase the original stocks of the victim, and the Defendant also displayed a check worth KRW 450,000,000,000,000, which is to be used as loans to the victim and E and N, prior to the arrival of Pk page, in light of the empirical rule, it is difficult for the Defendant to know that the instant stock loan agreement with the victim and N26.

In the event that Defendant C was aware of the funds he prepared as investment funds for the stock purchase fund of Defendant B, it is difficult to ascertain the circumstances to deem that there had been discussions on investment in stock purchase fund between Defendant B and C, even though Defendant B and C had to have been discussed as to the investment funds for the stock purchase fund at the time of maturity. Furthermore, if Defendant C and his defense counsel asserted, Defendant B would have purchased the instant stocks directly from Defendant C with the funds provided by Defendant C, the holder of the J stock purchase. However, in fact, the victim, not the Defendant B, was the office of the Defendant B, who was the victim of the check, was taken from the Defendant B, and confirmed the fact that the said checks were normally issued by Defendant C, and issued the said checks and delivered the instant stocks first from the Defendant B, and instead, Defendant B did not comply with the act of Defendant C and the defense counsel’s offering of the checks to the victim and delivery of the stock certificates from the victim. Therefore, it does not coincide with the act of Defendant C and the defense counsel at the scene.

Even if Defendant C and his defense counsel’s assertion on investment in acquiring stocks of this case acted on the part of Defendant B to invest in funds to purchase stocks again from the victim, it is difficult to confirm objective data to deem that there was a separate agreement between the victim and the Defendant B on the purchase or acquisition of the stocks of this case, in addition to the unilateral statement by Defendant C, and thus, it is difficult to accept the allegation made by the Defendant C and the defense counsel as above.

② At the time of the instant stock loan agreement, Defendant C appeared to have been witness to the effect that at the time of the instant stock loan agreement, Defendant C did not disclose the actual status of Defendant B and himself/herself as the representative director, even though he/she did not disclose the fact that Defendant B was introduced differently from the fact that Defendant B was a company’s loan to the victim and D, and that he/she was demanded from outside the I Office to report to the “police” because he/she was refused to do so. Accordingly, Defendant C continued to participate in the transfer and disposal of the instant stocks in accordance with the direction of K, even though he/she was sufficiently aware that the situation before and after the instant stock loan was not normal.

3. In particular, Defendant C’s investment contract between X and Defendant B during the first investigation process.

[Attachment 96 pages, hereinafter referred to as the "investment contract of this case"], Defendant B, by submitting a tape recording file and a transcript of recording (profess. 1454 through 1456 of investigation records), Defendant B signed by Defendant B, 2248,200,00 won check (profess. 1461 of investigation records), Defendant B entered into an investment contract for purchase of normal shares between Defendant B and X in which he/she is the representative director, and claimed that Defendant B paid proceeds according to the ratio of share distribution of proceeds stipulated in the above investment contract.

However, as examined next, the above evidence submitted by Defendant C appears to have been made to conceal the crime of Defendant C or a person in its hinterland, and rather, Defendant C himself appears to have been involved in the preparation and withdrawal of the aforementioned false evidence. It is reasonable to view that Defendant C was actively involved in the act of fraud of this case by other accomplices.

① Defendant B did not appear as a witness in this court and entered into an investment contract with X where Defendant C is the representative director in the form of a witness, and it was merely an ex post signature signed by K or Defendant C with the signature on October 30, 2015 following the date of the conclusion of the instant stock loan agreement. Defendant B signed the check at KRW 2.488,200,00 on the copy of the check at KRW 2.488,200,00, and signed this name at the request of K. In fact, Defendant C was only delivered KRW 20,000,000 on the hand, and Defendant C stated that the recording of the currency with Defendant C was made as a false investment contract in order to pretend that it is a normal investment contract. In light of other facts or circumstances, it is acceptable to accept the above statement in light of the following facts and circumstances.

○ The investment contract of this case states the investment amount of KRW 500 million, and Defendant C asserts that the investment amount of KRW 500 million, which is the amount under the investment contract of this case, was delivered to Defendant B.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor's evidence, namely, the money received by Defendant B from Defendant C is consistently stated as KRW 450 million, and E and the victim in the I office also make a statement consistent with the Defendant B's argument. In particular, Defendant C's assertion was delivered KRW 500 million in an envelope to Defendant B, and Defendant B delivered KRW 50 million in an envelope, and delivered KRW 450 million to the victim. However, the I office space was not significant. Since both parties concerned were present at the I office, the sum of KRW 500,000,000 received from Defendant C cannot be seen as being 50,000,000,000 won in total [the sum of KRW 50,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 won were excluding the sum of KRW 50,500,000,000,000,000 were 40,000.

○ In accordance with the terms of the investment contract of this case, if Defendant B received the 22.48,200,000 won check under the name of 200 million won as a profit, it should be confirmed that Defendant B used the 2.2.480,000 won check around October 30, 2015, at around 15:39, 15:00 won check at S, 32 won check at KRW 15,000,00 won, and 20,000 won check at KRW 1,00 won, among which 20,000 won check was delivered to Defendant B and used for the 10,000 won check at KRW 2,480,000. The remaining checks and cash were delivered to Defendant C, and Defendant B did not receive the 200,000 won check from the above 2.4,000 won, excluding the above 200,000 won check at KRW 200,000.2.

㉣ 피고인 B이 피고인 C에게 이 사건 주식을 매도해달라고 전화한 내용을 녹취한 내용은 다음과 같다.

The contents of recording ○○ Defendant B: Don Don Don Don Don Don? Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Do, Don Don c Don Don b Don Don Don e. Don e. Don e. Don e. e. Don e. e. e. e. Don Don e.) ? Don Don Don Don e. Don Don Don e. e. e. Don Don Don e. Don Don e. e.) * Don Don Don e.

However, on October 30, 2015, the following circumstances confirmed in the course and contents of the above call, namely, Defendant B and C, when Defendant B’s phone calls connected to each other, the conversation between Defendant B and Defendant C on the sales of the shares was carried out immediately without any communication or any personnel assistance, and the entire conversation was recorded immediately, Defendant C appears to have been in the absence of speech during the interview between five seconds and twenty seconds. According to the Defendant C and the defense counsel’s assertion, Defendant C and C told Defendant C to the effect that they were the holders of the instant shares, who were the holders of the instant shares, the contents of the call, such as the above recording, would be deemed to have been intentionally exchanged and received on the premise that the contents of the conversation are recorded between the holders of the instant shares.

Article 4(1) of the Investment Contract of this case provides that Defendant B shall sell the shares at a timely time according to his own judgment (in accordance with the investigation record No. 96), but the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence, i.e., Defendant B, despite the following circumstances acknowledged by Defendant B, at the time of telephone conversations as seen earlier, sold the shares of this case by means of sale and loan, unlike Defendant B’s instructions, Defendant C disposed of the shares of this case; Defendant B stated that Defendant C would talk with K as to whether to sell the shares of this case; Defendant C also received a sale and loan of this case from K after call with Defendant B, and Defendant C was actually ordered to receive a sale and loan of this case’s shares, and Defendant B had the authority to decide whether to dispose of the shares of this case, contrary to the terms of the Investment Contract of this case. Rather, Defendant B had the authority to decide whether to dispose of the shares of this case.

3. Whether the crime of aiding and abetting Defendant A in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is established

A. Summary of the defendant A and his defense counsel

Defendant A merely delivered the share loan requested by the victim from G to K, without awareness that it would facilitate the instant fraud, and did not have any act that would facilitate the instant fraud. As such, Defendant A did not aid and abetting the instant fraud, as well as did not aid and abetting the instant fraud, there was no intention to aid and abetting the instant fraud.

B. Determination as to the establishment of aiding and abetting crime

1) Relevant legal principles

The act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to direct and indirect acts that facilitate the principal offender's act while knowing the fact that the principal offender is committing the crime. Thus, the principal offender's act of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the principal offender's act is an act that constitutes the elements of a crime. However, since such intent is in depth, if the principal offender denies it, it is bound to prove indirect facts that have considerable relevance to the principal offender's intent due to the nature of the object. In this context, what constitutes indirect facts that are considerably related to the principal offender is no other way to reasonably determine the connection of the fact by using the detailed observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule. Moreover, the principal offender's intention in aiding and abetting and abetting is not required to reasonably recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, and it is sufficient to dolusence or prediction (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005).

2) In the instant case:

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, Defendant A and the defense counsel’s aforementioned assertion are difficult to accept, on the ground that it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant A and the defense counsel made it easy for K, M, Defendant B and C to commit the instant fraud by using N and E, etc., a check equivalent to KRW 1 billion in order to prevent the stock security agreement from being discharged at the site of the instant stock security loan.

① On September 22, 2016, Defendant A, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da3518, “Defendant A and AU,” were found guilty of having been convicted of having been convicted of having been convicted of having committed a crime (i.e., disposal of stocks acquired as security). A., having borrowed 1 billion won from AV from AV, having been lent to AW on January 14, 2010 and kept 940,00 shares received as security from AW on January 18, 2010 and on January 19 and 19 of the same month, having been in custody of 940,00 shares acquired as security by borrowing 410,00 won, and embezzled 835,510,000 won of the remaining 410,000 won of the shares (i.e.,, the investigation record, 952 through 973).

② around August 2015, Defendant A received contact from G with respect to a stock security loan of AM shares, and requested K to offer a stock security loan. At the time of the request for the said stock security loan, Defendant B played a role as a formal lender (hereinafter “B”) in the process of the fact that CM shares, which were deposited as security, were disposed of at will at the time of the request for the said stock security loan, and that Defendant B served as a formal lender (hereinafter “CM shares”).

③ Nevertheless, Defendant A again requested K to offer the instant stock security loan on October 23, 2015, when two months have not elapsed since the occurrence of the said accident in the case of AM stock security loan.

Defendant A made a vindication to the purport that he is not related to the AM case of “A” and that he again requested K to offer a stock security loan with respect to the instant shares.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, namely, Defendant A only became aware of the fact that around August 2015, the request for a stock security loan was made only at the time of the request for a stock security loan of Company A (No. 4 of the Record of Examination of Witness A); Defendant A’s request for a stock security loan of Company AM was the first transaction between Defendant A and K (No. 23 of the record). In particular, Defendant A knew that it was made on the ground of the so-called fraud of the stock security loan of Company AM, in light of the fact that Defendant A knew that it was made on the ground of the so-called fraud of the stock security loan of Company AM, it is difficult to readily accept Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A believed and requested a stock security loan of this case.

4. Around that time, Defendant A, who had been absent on a trial date in another criminal case, was in a de facto escape status 32), was aware that Defendant B served as a lender, who was late from N to the site of the instant stock security loan, sent N’s horses by making a phone call to K to prevent the occurrence of a contract at K’s request, and made Q Q show the number of 1 billion won around the site of the instant stock security loan to N and E, and eventually, the instant stock security agreement was concluded by Defendant A to continue a transaction with the victim’s efforts. Accordingly, Defendant A’s assertion that, in good faith, Defendant A, who had to prevent the occurrence of the instant stock security agreement from being exposed to his own status, should not be able to readily accept the allegation that Defendant A and his defense counsel prepared for the instant stock security loan by making it difficult to accept the allegation that Defendant A and his defense counsel had made a visit to the site of the instant case by making it difficult to accept the allegation that Defendant A and his defense counsel prepared for the instant stock security loan.

In particular, at the time of requesting the instant stock loan to K, Defendant A was aware of the fact that he was going to the actual site of the instant stock loan. However, on the date of the instant stock loan, Defendant A received a request from N and K to the effect that “I would like to go to the actual site of the instant stock loan and present funds” during the process of the instant stock loan. As such, Defendant A could be sufficiently aware that the instant stock loan, which is made by K, was not normal at the time of telephone communications with N and K, was not normal.

⑤ At the time when the police investigation was conducted with respect to the fraud of this case, N stated to the effect that “N obtained the name of Defendant AY instead of Defendant A in order to conceal the Defendant at the request of Defendant A at the time when the police investigation was conducted (Article 6, 7, page 33 of the record of the examination of witness N). If the Defendant was merely merely acting as a broker for the stock security agreement of this case, it is difficult to understand that N requested N to make a false statement to an investigative agency.

④ On October 29, 2015, upon which the instant share loan agreement was concluded, Defendant A received a copy of check of KRW 10 million from K for the purpose of acceptance and payment on October 29, 2015. Although Defendant A appears to have been aware of the condition of the instant share loan, Defendant A was not aware that the amount of KRW 10 million, which was received from K for the purpose of acceptance and delivery to other intermediaries, was higher than that of KRW 450 million, KRW 23.5 million or normal loan and KRW 22.5 million, KRW 34 million. (In other words, Defendant A appears to have been aware that the interest incurred from the instant share loan was much higher than that of the aforementioned prior or normal loan and that the instant share loan agreement had not been traded (G witness was also aware that the amount of KRW 10 million was more than that of the instant share loan under the pretext of introduction of the instant share loan from 30% under the pretext of Defendant A’s offering of interest on KRW 1050,000.

C. Whether the crime of embezzlement should be applied (additional determination)

Meanwhile, Defendant A and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that, since Defendant B and C received and kept the instant shares as collateral from the victim and disposed of at will, they can only be subject to embezzlement, and they cannot be subject to fraud.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence, i.e., Defendant B had no intent to keep the instant shares from the beginning of the first and all other co-principals. Defendant B consistently stated to the effect that the instant shares were received in the form of stock security loan as well as AM cases, which were concluded prior to the instant stock security agreement. In fact, the instant shares were entered into the X account on the date of the conclusion of the stock security agreement and disposed of in the form of sale security loan on the following day (the sale security loan can be received immediately after the lapse of two transaction days (the sale of the shares can be received in the case of the sale of the shares) from the date of the sale of the shares (the sale of the shares would be deemed to have disposed of the instant shares in the form of sale security loan as soon as there was no intent to keep the instant shares in the form of the stock security agreement from the victim under the pretext of the instant stock security agreement).

Therefore, the acts of K, M, Defendant B, and C constitute fraud, and since the status of the custodian of the shares of this case cannot be applied to embezzlement by giving them the status of the custodian of the shares of this case to Defendant B, Defendant A and the defense counsel cannot be accepted in this part of the legal principles.

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant B

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Fraud), the main sentence and proviso of Article 1 of the Addenda to the Road Traffic Act (Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018); Article 148-2(2)3 and 44(1)36 (the point of driving and the choice of fines) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018)

B. Defendant A

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

C. Defendant C

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347 (1) and 30 (Fraud) of the Criminal Act

1. Mitigation of self-denunciation (Defendant B);

Articles 52 (1) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act [the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Time of Sale]

1. Mitigation and mitigation (Defendant A);

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

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant B, A);

Each, Articles 37 (latter part) and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (with respect to Defendant B, between the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Fraud) and the first head of the judgment that became final and conclusive, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Narcotics and the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and with respect to Defendant A, the crime

1. Discretionary mitigation (as to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in Defendants A and B);

Each of the Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the defendant B has contributed to the discovery of substantial truth, and the defendant A has a minor degree of participation in the crime)

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant B);

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution ( against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by Defendant B);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Confiscation (Defendant B);

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment (Defendant B);

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant C.

(a) The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 30 years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] 02. Systemal Fraud [Type 3] 50 million won or more, less than five billion won

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 4 years to 7 years of imprisonment

(c) Determination of sentence: Four years of imprisonment; and

Defendant C participated in the fraudulent conduct of this case under the direction of K or L37 without criminal power, and does not seem to have independently performed significant action. The victim appears to have received only KRW 757 million out of the total proceeds from the disposal of the shares of this case, and the victim would have received a considerable amount of money under the pretext of agreement from K as co-offenders, and it appears that the victim's property damage was recovered from a certain portion of the victim's property damage (basicly, the damage alleged by the victim is the loss of expectation profit, so it is difficult to view that the share value at the time of the fraudulent conduct of this case can be maintained even after the fraudulent conduct of this case). However, Defendant C was also aware of the fact that it was difficult for the victim to directly participate in the investigation process of this case's fraudulent conduct of this case, such as the structure of the crime of fraud of this case and the acquisition of the shares of this case, and that it was also difficult for the victim to directly participate in the investigation process of this case's fraudulent conduct of this case.

Not only actively made a false statement in order to conceal the involvement of K and M in the crime and L behind the instant fraud, such as making a statement, but also made a false statement to conceal the criminal act of K, M and the Defendant C, but also made a false statement to conceal the previous statement on December 21, 2018, and even though it was declared on December 21, 2018 in this court that the act of the said person was still aware of the fact that the act was not a secured loan but a stock acquisition investment, the circumstances after the crime are not very good. Accordingly, it is recognized that it is necessary for the Defendant to close the strictness of the law through treatment inside the facility, and the punishment shall be determined as per Disposition in consideration of the overall circumstances of sentencing, such as the age, character, health, occupation, environment, and family relationship of the Defendant C, etc.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

○ Crimes No. 1: Imprisonment from September to June.

○ Crimes No. 2: Fines of 50,000 to 3 million won

B. Whether the sentencing criteria are applied

The first crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, respectively, since the first crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the first head of the judgment that became final

The second crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is not set separately in the sentencing criteria.

(c) A sentence of sentence: A sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year, two years of suspended sentence, and a fine not exceeding 1.5 million won; and

○ Crimes No. 1

Defendant B actively participated in the instant fraud by taking account of the following: (a) the party to the instant agreement on stock security; and (b) the victim directly received the share certificates of KRW 97,300,000,00 from the victim; (c) the fact that performing the so-called role for the main offender K and M in the hinterland of the instant fraud crime; (d) the fact that there is a high possibility of social criticism about the structure and characteristics of the instant fraud crime that makes it difficult to discover substantive truth as seen in the sentencing grounds for Defendant C, as well as the fact that there is considerable need to take into account the fact that the circumstances after the crime were committed, such as the fact that it is difficult for Defendant B to find out the circumstances to directly make efforts to recover damage to the victim; (b) the fact that the victim’s family relation cannot be seen as having been actively engaged in the crime of violation of the provisions of the Act, such as the restoration of the victim’s identity from the investigation agency to the judgment of the victim of the instant fraud; and (b) the fact that the victim’s role in the Defendant C’s crime of the crime of fraud was committed.

○ Crimes No. 2

Defendant B is not less than 14 years of driving under the influence of alcohol while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol even though it had the same criminal power as once. However, Defendant B’s crime of driving under the influence of alcohol was committed at the time when about 14 years have elapsed since the first crime of driving under the influence of alcohol, Defendant B’s driving distance was not relatively long, Defendant B’s mistake was divided, and Defendant B’s late, and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant B’s age, character and behavior, occupation, environment, family relation, etc., shall be determined as above.

3. Defendant A

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for nine months to seven years; and

B. Whether the sentencing criteria are applied

The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the first head of the judgment which became final and conclusive.

(c) Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment; and

Defendant A, not directly shared the act of committing the crime of this case, did not directly contribute to K, M, Defendant B, and C. It is difficult to view that Defendant A had actively contributed to the overall crime of this case by aiding and abetting the crime of this case. Defendant A did not directly receive profits from the fraudulent act of this case; Defendant C did not directly acquire funds from the mediation of the victim’s stock security loan; Defendant C’s receipt of considerable amount of money under the pretext of agreement from K, the principal offender of the fraudulent act of this case, as seen in the reasons for sentencing. The victim’s damage was not deemed to have been recovered at a certain level. Defendant A’s fraud of this case did not appear to have been favorable to Defendant A, which is the first head of the judgment; Defendant A’s crime of this case’s crime of aiding and abetting the crime of this case’s crime of this case’s crime of aiding and abetting the crime of this case’s violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; Defendant A could not have been tried at the discretion of the competent investigation agency regarding the crime of this case’s violation of trust loan of this case’s trust agreement.

The acquittal part (Defendant A)

1. Summary of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant A among the facts charged in the instant case

Defendant A was intended to dispose of the shares of this case received from the victim as collateral and to acquire the proceeds thereof without being aware of the intention to return the shares of this case to the victim again, and the shares of this case received as collateral in collusion with K, M, Defendant B, and C in collusion with K, and M, Defendant B, and C in collusion with the victim for one month, as if they were to keep the shares of this case for one month, the victim was deceiving the victim, and it was issued from the victim 87,300 shares of this case amounting to KRW 9792,00

2. Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant A received a victim’s request for stock loan from G and delivered this to K, and there was no conspiracy with K, etc. to commit the instant fraud, and did not participate in the instant fraud. Accordingly, Defendant A does not support the joint principal offender’s liability regarding the instant fraud.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

A joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly by two or more persons. In order to constitute a joint principal offender, a subjective element is required to commit a crime through functional control based on a joint doctor’s intent as an objective element. Here, the intent of joint process is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act but not to restrain it, and it is not sufficient to accept it. As a joint principal offender’s intent, the intent of joint process ought to be integrated in order to commit a specific criminal act with another person’s criminal act, and to shift one’s own intent to practice by using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do12639, Aug. 23, 2012).

Meanwhile, when comprehensively taking into account the status, role, control over the progress of the crime, etc. of a person who did not directly participate in and implement part of the acts constituting the elements of a crime among the conspiracys, if deemed that functional control exists through essential contribution to the crime rather than merely engaging in the conspiracys, the so-called crime liability as a co-principal may be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017).

In a case where a co-principal constitutes a crime of conspiracy or conspiracy, which constitutes a crime of conspiracy and conspiracy, requires strict proof. In a case where the Defendant denies the criminal intent along with the fact of conspiracy while recognizing the fact that he/she was directly involved in the act of the commission, the facts constituting such subjective elements have to be proved by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent given the nature of things (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do12649, Dec. 22, 2017).

Whether a co-principal is established shall be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the status and role of each person through the whole process of committing the crime, the details of solicitation for accomplices, etc., and the relationship with mutual use of the same should be comprehensively examined. If there is no such proof, even if there is doubt as to guilt against the Defendant, the interest of the Defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7658, Sept. 13, 2018).

B. Specific determination

1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and defense counsel, the following facts are revealed: (a) Defendant A arranged for the transfer of ownership of the instant shares offered from G on October 28, 2015; (b) Defendant A visited the loan site to prevent the transfer of the instant shares from being free of cost upon request by N, K on October 29, 2015; and (c) on the same day, Defendant A visited N and E to visit the loan site to prevent the transfer of the instant shares from being free of cost; and (d) Defendant A was at the hotel page located in this private distance after the completion of the instant share loan; (c) Defendant A issued the transfer order to Defendant B to enter the transfer of ownership of the instant shares; (d) Defendant A, after completion of the said transfer procedure, Defendant A received a check of KRW 10 million from K to deliver it to N; and (e) Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A and his defense counsel were not aware of the aforementioned fraud’s participation in the instant shares; and (e) Defendant A’s participation in the instant shares and support to Defendant C’s aforementioned fraud.

2) Furthermore, we examine whether Defendant A participated in the instant fraud as a co-principal.

A) The main evidence as shown in this part of the facts charged is as follows: ① the victim's investigative agency and this court's statement that the defendant A had directed the fraud of this case from E; ② the fact that the defendant A participated in the fraud of this case from E and B; ② the statements in the investigation agency of D and the investigative agency of this court and the investigative agency of this court and the statement that D, ③ the statement that "IJ would have been involved in the fraud of this case", ③ the statements that the defendant A would have been involved in the fraud of this case; ④ the statements in E investigation agency and this court, and the defendant A were involved in the fraud of this case; ④ the defendant A was involved in the fraud of this case.

Defendant B’s investigative agency and this court made statements, ⑤ text messages given and received between the victim and E and D (Evidence List Nos. 10, 17, 31, 32, 34).

Pursuant to Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the hearsay statement is exceptionally admissible only when the person making the original statement who is not a defendant is unable to make a statement due to death, illness or unknown whereabouts in a foreign country or any other similar cause, and the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3081, Sept. 4, 2001). Since the above (i) or (iii) evidence is a full-time statement the content of another person's statement or a protocol stating a full-time statement, it is admissible as evidence to prove that there is "where a statement is unable to be made due to death, illness or unknown whereabouts in a foreign country or any other similar cause."

However, it is difficult to see that E/D’s appearance in the court as a witness and testimony, and it is difficult to see that the above reasons have occurred, and there is no circumstance to see that AI was "where it is impossible to make a statement due to death, disease, unknown whereabouts abroad, or any other similar cause." As such, the part of the evidence revealed in the above ① or ③ as above, the part of the evidence presented by a person other than the defendant, as hearsay evidence, cannot be used as evidence because the defendant Gap did not agree to use it as evidence ( even if the above evidence is admitted as admissible, it is difficult to recognize its credibility because all of the above mentioned evidence is merely based on the prosecution of E or AJ). Meanwhile, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant Eul participated in the investigation agency in this court in relation to credibility of the statement 39) made by the defendant B at the investigation agency, and it is difficult to recognize that the defendant Gap actively participated in the criminal investigation agency of this case in the process of the investigation, in view of the possibility that the defendant Gap's participation in the criminal investigation agency of this case and the defendant Gap.

In addition, the remaining evidence presented by the prosecutor, including the above text message sent and received between the victim and E and D, alone, is difficult to view that this part of the facts charged that Defendant A conspired with other accomplices and participated in the instant fraud as a co-principal, was proved to the extent that it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

B) Meanwhile, according to the evidence submitted by a prosecutor and Defendant A’s defense counsel, the following facts or circumstances can be acknowledged.

① Of the amount of KRW 450,000,000, which was provided for the instant fraudulent act committed in collusion by K, M, Defendant B, and C, KRW 400,000,000,000 from L was borrowed from AD (in November 2, 2015, the amount of KRW 400,000,000 was deposited into the AZ Association account in which K is its representative, and the amount of KRW 44,00,00,000,000, which was created by combining with other money in the said account was transferred to the account in the name of AD). On the other hand, it cannot be confirmed that Defendant A directly contributed to, or provided for the money equivalent to the amount of the loan of the instant shares.

② Defendant B served as the representative director of the company paying the loan at the instant stock loan site in accordance with the direction of M, upon receiving instructions from K, and Defendant C served as a fund execution officer of the said company under the direction of L or K. During this process, it is difficult to confirm the circumstances in which Defendant A has gathered in advance with respect to K, M, or L, or given instructions to them (at the investigation stage from K and M to this court, there is no statement to the effect that Defendant A and M have conspiredd to commit the instant fraud).

③ Defendant A and Defendant B and C did not directly participate in concluding a stock security agreement or exchanging a loan and a stock certificate, which is the place of exchange of the stock certificates, due to the lack of the instant agreement on stock security, and the circumstances where Defendant B and C gave specific instructions to Defendant B and C by telephone conversations, etc. (However, Defendant A presented 1 billion won marks to N and E to prevent the occurrence of the instant stock security agreement upon N or K’s request. However, Defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting the above 1 billion won of the check may be deemed to have been committed on the same day, in light of the following circumstances, Defendant A may be deemed to have been performing an act that was not originally scheduled due to a sudden event where the funds to be used for the instant loan were delayed, and Defendant A and the same victim did not directly evaluate Defendant A and D with the above 1 billion won of the check, and Defendant A and 1 billion won of the check was not an act of aiding and abetting Defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting the above 1 billion won of the check.

① At the time when Defendant C arrives in a private car page near the private distance with the share certificates issued by the victim as collateral, it is difficult to confirm the circumstances to deem that Defendant C was involved in the process of changing the ownership of the instant shares ( even based on the facts charged in which Amendments to Bill of Indictment was approved on April 5, 2019, Defendant A was placed in the RBk at the time of the above, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant A committed a significant act in relation to the change of ownership).

5. Furthermore, the person who ordered the disposal of the shares of this case by the method of sale and mortgage loan is K, and there is no attendance of the defendant A at the place of distributing profits from the disposal of the shares of this case. If the defendant A conspired with M, K, or L, or operated the fraudulent conduct of this case in the hinterland of M, K, or L, it would be in accordance with the ordinary rule of experience that a considerable portion of the proceeds from the disposal of the shares of this case corresponding to the proceeds from the disposal of the shares of this case should be acquired, but there is no confirmation of the amount distributed by the defendant A around that time among the proceeds equivalent to KRW 757 million from the disposal of the shares of

④ Defendant A received a check equivalent to KRW 10 million from K on the date of the formation of the instant stock loan agreement. However, Defendant A delivered it to N as it is, final, N, G, and F divided the above KRW 10 million into the check, and as a result, there is no money acquired under the pretext of Defendant A’s acquisition of the check of KRW 10 million by acquiring the check of KRW 10 million ( even if it is deemed that Defendant A acquired part of the proceeds from the criminal act in the case of joint principal offenders, it is general to acquire part of the proceeds from the criminal act, and thus, Defendant A received only KRW 10 million, and it is difficult to view that Defendant A made an essential contribution in the instant fraudulent act).

C) Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing, it is difficult to view that Defendant A did not only engage in aiding and abetting that facilitates the conduct of K, M, Defendant B, and C, but also intended to jointly process his intent to commit his fraud by using his act. In light of the status, role, control over the progress of the crime or the influence of the crime in the instant fraud, it is difficult to deem that Defendant A did not merely engage in the conspiracy, but also have functional control over the criminal act by inherent contribution to the crime.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone that Defendant A took part in the instant fraud is hard to see that this part of the facts charged is proved to the extent that it is beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, the defendant A's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant A shall be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as seen above, as long as the defendant A is found guilty of the violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), which is related to the crime

The judge of the presiding judge shall be net;

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Kim Jae-han

1) The prosecutor indicted Defendant A as a joint principal offender of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), but then found Defendant A not guilty of the above facts charged without proof of the crime. However, since the identity of basic facts with the above facts charged is recognized, and it does not infringe Defendant A and the defense counsel's right to defense, the prosecutor acknowledged Defendant A's criminal facts in violation of the Aggravated Punishment

2) Since those involved in the conclusion of the J-BS agreement, including the Defendants and the victims, use the expression "loan", they will use it as it is.

3) Of the facts charged in the instant case, confession as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) is the confession.

4) The second page of the record of the examination of witness K

5) On April 2015, 2015, prior to the conclusion of the J-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

6) Defendant C alleged that it received instructions from L or K to deliver the amount equivalent to KRW 500 million to Defendant B. However, as seen later, Defendant C’s delivery (the amount received by the victim last) to Defendant B can sufficiently be recognized as constituting the cause of KRW 450 million.

7) A copy of each check attached to investigation reports (C submitted checks) not more than 282 pages of investigation records.

8) Examination records No. 321

9) Record No. 4, 5 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness A on November 23, 2018 to the witness A

10) Recording No. 8 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness with respect to N of Witness, and Recording No. 8,9 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness with respect to Witness E

11) When Defendant C prepared KRW 500 million as described in the above paragraph 1, Defendant C finally withdrawn four copies of a KRW 100 million check at AOAP from around 10, 29:11:15 (14 pages), and Defendant C also expressed the checks held as loans to the victim, etc., at least, the point at which Defendant C arrived at PKaba, at least 11:15,00,000, when the four copies of a 100 million check were withdrawn.

12) The recording number Nos. 4, 7 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness E, the recording number of the Protocol of Examination of Witness against Defendant C on December 21, 2018, the recording number No. 4 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness, the recording number of the Protocol of Examination of Witness H on February 27, 2019 for witness H

13) The recording page 9, 10 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness with respect to Witness D, page 4 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness with respect to Witness H, page 6 of the Protocol of Record of Examination of Witness with respect to Witness H

14) As the victim’s spouse, the victim drafted the instant share loan agreement using the name of Q.

15) The actual principal is 450 million won, including 23.5 million won under the name of a vessel interest.

16) In the case of shares purchased by A Q in the stock sales contract (the No. 6 of the Investigation Record No. 87,317 shares, the number of shares recorded as 87,317 shares,

17) In this court, Eul demanded 50 million won from 'I office to Na and N, and the N refused, the defendant Eul made a statement to the effect that 'the defendant Eul demanded the above money as above and 'the defendant Eul went away' (No. 43,44 of the record of the examination of the witness E), and the defendant Eul made a statement to the effect that 'the defendant Eul gone away from the defendant Eul' in this court, 'the defendant Eul gone away from the defendant Eul' (No. 45 of the record of the examination of the witness as of December 21, 2018), 'the fact that the defendant Eul passed away from 'I office' and 'the fact that the defendant Eul passed away to 'the defendant Eul' (the witness's record of the examination of the witness as of February 27, 2019, No. 19, No. 20 of the record of the examination of the witness as of February 27, 2019).

18) Meanwhile, Defendant C asserts to the effect that “Defendant B, as described in paragraph (7) above, h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h.

In addition to the above fact that the defendant B was unable to take part in the CR building in this court, if he discovered the vehicle and the driver (S) of the vehicle of the above such CRper by finding out the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle of the above such CRper, he saw that the driver (S) was on board the vehicle of the above POper at the time when about 30 seconds passed, he saw that the driver was on board the vehicle of the above NAperer, and he was on board the vehicle of the above NAperer, and that he was on board the vehicle of the above NAperer, and even if he was on board the vehicle of this court, it is difficult to find that he was on board the vehicle of this court because he was on board the vehicle of this case without any special reason that he was on board the vehicle of this case, and it is difficult to find that he was on board the vehicle of this case because he was on board the vehicle of this case, and that he was on board the vehicle of this case without any reason that he was on board the vehicle of this case.

19) On November 5, 2018, the recording of the witness examination protocol No. 23 of the witness examination protocol, on December 21, 2018, on witness C, the recording of the witness examination protocol No. 90 of the witness examination protocol, on December 21, 2018

20) Data sent to the Korea Securities Depository attached to the investigation report (Attachment to the Korea Securities Depository) not more than 74 pages of the investigation records.

21) The investigation record was deposited into the said W Securities Account around November 2, 2015, with the exception of the above KRW 96,350,000,000,000,000,000,000 other than the remaining KRW 47,700,000.

22) Defendant C consistently asserts to the effect that “M, K, S, and Defendant B were almost at the same time above X around 15:00 on the same day and paid the above KRW 22.480,00 according to an investment contract concluded between X and Defendant B (No. 12 of the record of the examination of witness C).” Defendant B is in the pro-Japanese house located in the investigative agency through this court, and entered the above X office at around 17:00, after receiving the communication from the investigative agency to X, and the settlement due to the disposal of the shares of this case was completed, and only KRW 20,000,000 was received from K on the pretext of hand.” Defendant B’s statement consistent with the rule of experience (the record of the examination of witness C) and the record of the examination of witness C’s statement prepared after the exchange of checks, etc. by the general public.

23) As seen thereafter, the said investment contract was made by falsity even though there was no fact that the investment contract was actually made between Defendant BP X, and there was no fact that Defendant B actually received the said KRW 2480,000 in fact.

24) The summary of the facts charged prior to the amendment of the indictment is as follows: from October 29, 2015 to October 13: 10 of the same day, Defendant C followed the process of dividing the victim, N, E, and Defendant B into PKaf, and entering into a contract with Defendant B. The fact is not that Defendant B purchases shares from the victim with the funds provided by Defendant C, but merely means that Defendant C would actually purchase shares with the funds provided by Defendant C; Defendant C delivers the funds provided by Defendant C to the victim as collateral withdrawal; Defendant C promptly disposes of the stocks received from the victim as collateral and transferred its implementation of the crime plan to acquire profits by disposing of them through Defendant C through the victim’s immediate disposal; Defendant C took advantage of the same as the representative director of the lending company; Defendant C took advantage of the funds received from Defendant B from Defendant B to Defendant B 30 million won, and Defendant C took advantage of the funds received from Defendant B to Defendant B 140 million won, and Defendant C’s share certificate was distributed immediately from 700 million won to Defendant B.

25) column 9 of the record of the examination of witness evidence in relation to witness D, column 7 of the record of the examination of witness to witness E, column 5, 47 of the record of the examination of witness on February 27, 2019 to witness H, column 2019, column 6 through 8 of the record of the examination of witness on February 27, 201 to witness B.

26) Nos. 4 of the record of the examination of witness C in relation to the witness C, 27 February 2019 to the witness H, 2 of the record of the examination of witness, 4, 7 of the record of the examination of witness to the witness E.

27) 이 법정에서, D는 'E으로부터 회사의 대표이사가 올 것이고, 피고인 C는 회사의 자금집행이사로 소개받았다'는 취지로 진술하였고(증인 D에 대한 증인신문조서 녹취록 제7, 8면), N는 'E이 대출약정서 작성 당시 피고인 B을 대표이사로, 피고인 C를 자금집행이사로 소개하였다'고 진술하였으며(증인 N에 대한 증인신문조서 녹취록 제10면), E은 '피고인 C가 자기에게 '자금을 집행할 사람'이라고 소개를 하면서 수표를 보여주었고, 피고인 C가 대출약정서를 작성할 사람은 대표이사인 피고인 B이므로, 피고인 B이 도착할 떄까지 대출약정서를 작성하지 않았다'는 취지로 진술하였다(증인 E에 대한 증인신문조서 녹취록 제3, 5면).

28) At around 2015, 10, 30, 10:52, Defendant C made a call to Defendant C for a total of 1 minute 22 seconds (in case of investigation records No. 1025 pages), and the total recording time is 18 seconds per minute (in case of investigation records No. 1455 of investigation records), Defendant may sufficiently recognize that the recording was commenced immediately after the call began.

29) Record No. 60,83 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness C on February 28, 2019 against the witness C

30) Defendant A stated, in the course of responding to the question regarding the case of acquiring AM stocks in this court, that “IX will not sell the stocks because IX is too well aware. If IX is a problem, I will be a legal problem if I will not participate in this case. I will not participate in this case.” (See No. 24 of the Protocol of Examination of Witnesses of October 11, 2018 against witness A), it is reasonable to view that I knew that there was a case of arbitrarily disposing of the stocks received for the purpose of security in the corporate bond market.

31) For the witness A, 2018, 10, 11. Record of the examination of witness, 25. Record of the examination of witness G of witness, 19.

32) Defendant A was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor from the above court when he had been absent on the sentenced date while being tried for a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and the charge of embezzlement (No. 950 through 958 of the Investigation Records).

33) If N did not receive the request from the defendant A, the credibility of the above statement made by N may be recognized in light of the fact that there is no special reason to use the name of the defendant AY on behalf of the defendant at the time of the police investigation.

34) The amount calculated by applying the agreed loan interest rate of 5% per month to the loan principal of KRW 450 million.

35) It appears that the person raising a loan means the person raising the loan.

36) Each subparagraph of Article 148-2(2) of the Road Traffic Act as amended by the main sentence of Article 1 of the Addenda of the Road Traffic Act (Act No. 15530) shall enter into force one year after the date of promulgation, and Article 44 of the Road Traffic Act as amended by subparagraph 2 of Article 1 of the Addenda shall enter into force six months after the date of promulgation.

37) L did not be considered as an accomplice of the instant fraud by an investigative agency, but it is recognized that Defendant C voluntarily acted in accordance with L’s instructions to pay to himself. However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, L is confirmed to have prepared the instant stock security loan and that Defendant C, L, and K were listed as an officer or auditor in X’s registration. Thus, it is inevitable to assess L’s punishment in determining punishment by Defendant C.

38) E appeared as a witness in this Court and responded to the question of Defendant A’s defense counsel “for example,” “for the purpose of this Court’s questioning of Defendant A’s defense counsel that Defendant A was involved in the instant fraud, because the question is not good in the market on the basis of talks from AJ which is not related to the instant case” (No. 56 pages of the record of the examination of witness E).

39) The purport of the statement is that “When you go to a private distance for the instant stock loan, you sent the Defendant, including K and M, within the vehicle, and Defendant A was so late,” the statement was “(No. 1240, No. 1260, No. 1309, 1310, the investigation records).”

40) On November 5, 2018, the recording of the witness examination protocol No. 40, 41, and 44 of the witness examination protocol No. 40, 41, and 44 of the witness examination protocol No. 5 of the witness examination protocol No. 11, 23 of the witness B of the witness examination protocol

41) Recording No. 8 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness with respect to N of Witness, and Recording No. 8,9 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness with respect to Witness E

42) Although there was a fact that some of the proceeds from the disposal of the instant shares was deposited into the account under the name of BA related to Defendant A on February 2, 2012, 2012, Defendant A asserted that, with respect to the nature of KRW 65 million, Defendant A was paid KRW 50 million, which was lent in relation to BB takeover on December 2015, as fees and interest for KRW 65 million, and the statement made by K is consistent with Defendant A’s statement (as of Article 72 and 73 of the record of the examination record of the witness witness K), and in fact, Defendant A was paid KRW 65 million at the expiration of three months from the date on which the instant fraud occurred, it is difficult to conclude that the deposit of KRW 65 million was made at the level of the distribution of the proceeds of the instant fraud.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.