2014 fixed 1146 A. Fraud

(b) Occupational embezzlement;

1. (a) . (b) ○○ (57 - 1), drivers;

2. (a) Ma-O (54 - 1) - Representatives of the Company.

3. (a) . ○○ (58 - 1) and housing managers;

The highest number of masters (prosecutions) and leapscopes (Trial)

Law Firm Han-mun et al.

Attorney Limited-style (For the Defendants)

October 8, 2015

Defendant 1, 200, 000 won, Defendant 1, 200 won, Defendant 2, 000, 300 won, Defendant 1, 300 won, and Defendant 1

○ punished by a fine of KRW 1,00,000, respectively.

When the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, the period of 100,000 won converted into one day shall be avoided.

The custody of senior citizens in a workhouse.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Criminal facts

1. The co-principal of the Defendants and yellow, Kim, and leaps;

Defendant ○○○ is the person working as the head of the above apartment management office from May 2013 to September 16, 2013, the head of Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City OO -O -O - O 000 apartment occupants’ representatives’ representatives’ representatives’ representatives’ representatives’ representatives’ management directors, Defendant ○○ is the person working as the head of the above apartment management office from May 2013 to September 16, 2013.

After the Defendants came to know that the subsidies were paid to 70% of the construction amount in connection with the '70% of the construction amount' project implemented in Incheon Metropolitan City, in collusion with △△△△, Kim, and △△△△△, the Defendants applied for the increased amount of the above construction amount as the construction amount, and recruited to implement the construction with only the subsidies, regardless of the demand for about 40,000,000 won.

Therefore, on January 8, 2013, the Defendants submitted documents, such as a false business plan, stating as if construction cost of KRW 56,728,00 (self-paid 16,728,00,00) is required in relation to the ‘Woo-gu' business in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which is located in the Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and around January 8, 2013, and acquired subsidies of KRW 40,000,000 after submitting a tax invoice, construction completion statement, etc. on or around June 2013.

2. Joint criminal conduct between Defendant ○○ and Yellow Dust

On August 29, 2012, Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ apartment construction business entity was delegated with construction works for replacing the elevator floor of an apartment, sand washing and supplementary works, and received KRW 10,00,00 from the above construction cost, and embezzled the remainder after using it for construction cost of KRW 508,00 as in the form of occupational storage, from that time until December 18, 2012, Defendant 1 embezzled the remainder after consuming KRW 508,00 as in the form of occupational storage, and then embezzled it by arbitrarily consuming KRW 779,800, as in the list of crimes in the attached Form, from that time until December 18, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. The second protocol of the trial – Witness Kim - The statement of the witness.

1. Part of the statement made by the witness Kim Jong-chul in the second trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused ○○, and ○○’s interrogation of each prosecutor’s office

1. Examination protocol of interrogation of △△△ by the prosecution;

1. Investigation report (the case of a project sprinking a private wall and planting trees);

1. Data related to the project of cutting off and planting trees with private fences, 2013;

1. A copy of the standard contract for private construction works;

1. A statement of use of KRW 10 million, bulletin board public notice materials, estimates, credit card sales slip, receipt;

1. List of the members of the 12th council;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant ○○○: Articles 347(1), 30(a), 356(s), and 355 of the Criminal Act

§ 1, Article 30(1) and Article 30( point of occupational embezzlement), and the choice of each fine

B. Defendant Mo○○○, and Maap○○: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant ○○○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2)1 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. As to fraud

The Defendants and defense counsel asserts that there is no fact that they obtained subsidies equivalent to KRW 40,00,00 by entering into a contract with the execution of construction work only with the subsidies or submitting a false business plan, etc. without the self-charge.

In light of the circumstances and contents of the statement, ○○○○’s prosecutorial office’s statement reversed the above statements made by the above Defendants, but it was reliable in each statement made by the above Defendants, to the effect that the auditor Kim - of the council of occupants’ representatives of the apartment of this case entered into a contract with the execution of construction work only with the subsidy without the self-charge, i.e., the fact that the auditor Kim - of the council of occupants’ representatives of the apartment of this case’s own testimony was reliable in a concrete and consistent manner from the investigative agency to this court, from the time of this court to the time of this court, and that he knew about the method of this case’s construction work at the general meeting or the council of occupants’ representatives’ representatives, etc., the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives of this case’s apartment of this case’s general meeting or the council of occupants’ representatives. In light of the circumstances and contents of this case’s statement, it is reasonable to view that the above Defendants’ statement was insufficient to implement the construction work without the above 000th amount of subsidies.

2. As to occupational embezzlement

Defendant ○○ and his defense counsel asserted that Defendant ○○ and his best attorney did not have any intent of unlawful acquisition, since ○○ obtained a resolution of the council of occupants’ representatives regarding the remaining balance of the construction cost received from Non Young C&C. As such, Defendant ○○ did not have any intent of unlawful acquisition.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the remaining balance of the construction cost received from the vice-f&C should be treated as miscellaneous income and disbursed after the resolution by the council of the prime representatives; Defendant ○○○, despite the fact that the resolution by the council of occupants’ representatives was adopted by the council of occupants’ representatives, lack of evidence to deem that there was legitimate resolution by the council of occupants’ representatives; Defendant ○○, despite the fact that Defendant ○ used the remaining balance of the construction cost received from the vice-f&C for the purpose of the occupants, he arbitrarily used it for the friendship with the head of Tong and Ban, etc., and Defendant ○○○, even though Defendant ○ used the remaining balance of the construction cost received from the vice-f&C for the purpose of the occupants. Thus, Defendant ○○ and the defense counsel do not accept the above assertion.

Judges Kim Jin-ju

Omission of Crime List