2012Gohap1279 A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Forgery of public documents;

(c) Exercising forged official documents;

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Events of a falsified investigation document;

(f) Fraud;

1. (a) . (c) . (d) . e. Kim 00 (46-years, South Korea) , △ electronic representative director;

2. A. Kim Sung-M (52 years old, south), andCC parts import business;

3. The representative director of the Park (55 years old, remaining) and the Lao General Parts Corporation;

4. (a) . (c) . d. e. Kim (59 years old, South) , and influence (former △ Electronic Company);

Technical Directors)

5. 나. 다. 라. 마. 바. 변⊙⊙ ( 59년생, 남 ), □□전자주식회사 기술이

6. (a) ○○ (78 years old, south) and the head of the planning team of △ Electronic Corporation;

Lee Jae-won (prosecutions and public trials)

Law Firm, which is a defense (U.S.) Pacific (Defendant Kim, Kim-○, Lee Dong-ho, and leap, for the sake of ○○)

Law Firm Lords (For Defendant Kim -)

Law Firm Dong-in (U.S.) (For Defendant Kim Jong-han)

June 5, 2013

Defendant Kim 00, who is sentenced to the imprisonment of five years, two years and six months, and one year and six months, and who is sentenced to the imprisonment of Defendant Park Ma-young, Defendant Kim ○, and Ma-○, who is sentenced to the imprisonment of one year and six months, respectively, and Defendant Kim ○○, who is sentenced to the imprisonment of six months.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the day this judgment became final and conclusive, and for two years from the day this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant Park, Kim ○, and ○○○○○ each ordered a community service of 160 hours for each of the 160 hours, and a community service of 80 hours for Defendant Lee’s side to each of 00 hours.

Facts of crime

1. The defendants' relation

A. Defendant 00, who was related to △ Electronic Co., Ltd., was established at around 1996 on a condition that he was in charge of the affairs as the representative director, and Defendant changed ○ is the head of △ in △ in △ in △ in △△ in △ in △△ in △96, who was in charge of the maintenance of military equipment, replacement of parts, calculation and settlement of costs related to external maintenance contracts, etc., as the second head of △ in △ in △ in △ in △△ in 2003 to May 201, and was in charge of the settlement of maintenance costs related to external sales expenses in △ in △△ in △△ in △△ in 203 as the head of △ in charge of the maintenance of military equipment, replacement of parts, and settlement of cost accounting and settlement related to external maintenance contracts. Defendant Ma○ is from October 209 to the last day.

B. Defendant Park Young-chul established the Electronic Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “EM”), around 1995, and controlled the business as the representative director. Defendant Kim Jong-soo is an individual entrepreneur who is engaged in the business of importingCC parts under the trade name of “○○ Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter referred to as “EM”).

2. The Defendants’ open recruitment relationship

Defendant Kim 00, from July 18, 2007 to February 25, 201, concluded a contract to maintain 297 aircraft components, such as "the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, the Air Force Headquarters, and the Naval Headquarters" with the victim of the Republic of Korea (the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, the Naval Headquarters) over 21 times during the period from July 18, 2007 to February 25, 201, and attempted to acquire the cost of aircraft maintenance from the victim by means of deception, such as "F-16 aircraft component maintenance contract", although the parts subject to maintenance were not replaced by all kinds of parts subject to maintenance, or even if they were replaced with similar parts other than static, it was replaced by the net government.

Defendant Kim 00, in collusion with Defendant’s change, Kim ○, etc., the head of the △ Technology Team, who is the head of the △ Technology Team, adopted an import declaration certificate as a documentary evidence for purchase of parts to deceiving the victim, and adopted a resolution to forge the transaction statement, etc. in the name of ○○○○○○, and to acquire the price

Defendant Kim 00, who is the representative of Oro, conspired with Defendant Park Inkin, the above Defendant Lee Jong-chul, Kim ○, etc., and decided to prepare a false statement of transaction, tax invoice, etc. in the name of Oro as if he was supplied with parts, and to utilize them as a claim for the price of parts, even though he was not supplied with parts from Oro.

During that period, Defendant Kim0 was demanded from the victim to "Evidence on Import of Parts Used in the Aircraft Maintenance Process". Accordingly, in collusion with Defendant Kim and Ma○○, the head of the △ Planning Team, who operates the ○○○○ Commercial, exported waste parts, etc. already owned by △△, etc. to the U.S. materials company compliance with the U.S. materials company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company's company company's company's company's company'

3. The crime of forging documents, such as the defendant Kim 00, legal change, Kim ○, etc., and defraudation by using such documents;

가. 피고인 김00, 변⊙⊙ 등의 공동범행 1 ) 공문서위조 및 위조공문서행사

Defendant Kim -00 issued an order to forge an import declaration certificate on the parts imported from the U.S.com in the name of the head of the Incheon Customs Office to the ○○○○○○○ on the parts imported from the U.S.com before, and received an import declaration certificate on the part of the parts imported from the ○○○○○○○○ from the ○○○○○○ Department, and submitted an import declaration certificate on October 18, 2007, using a computer-to-mail program without authority, as the ○○○○○○ was imported from USD 7,492 on October 18, 2007, and submitted an import declaration certificate on the ○○○○○○○○○○○’s 11 parts such as the Scom file, “the date of import declaration,” “the name of parts,” and “the size of parts,” and “the employees who received an order from the ○○○○○○○○○ order through the ○○○ order.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to forge and use one certificate of import declaration under the name of the head of Incheon Airport customs office, which is an official document, from that time until November 2009, and forged two copies of the certificate of import declaration under the name of the head of Incheon Airport customs office, which is an official document, and exercised four times in total, from that time until November 2009.

2) Forgery of private documents and uttering of private documents

At the end of 2008, Defendant Kim 00 instructed Defendant Lee Jong-soo to forgee a statement of transaction to be submitted to the ○○○○ as documentary evidence for the purchase of parts required for maintenance at the Gun office of the Air Force. The Defendant changed, without authority, for the purpose of exercising the right at that time, by preparing a transaction statement as if he purchased at KRW 1,243,00 as he purchased 22 parts, including 'Daod' from OO commercial by using computer X- or Korean language program, and then arbitrarily affixed the seal of the ○○○○○ representative Kim Jong-m, and then affixed the seal on the said transaction statement. On December 5, 2007 and around December 10 of the same year, ○○ employee under the direction of the Defendants submitted a forged transaction statement to the Gun of the Air Force headquarters, which does not know the above facts.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to forge and use a statement of transaction in the name of the ○○○ Master Kim, a private document, from that time until August 2010, and forged a statement of transaction in the name of the ○○ Master, a private document, in four times in total, including the statement Nos. 2, 6, 8, and 15, from that time until August 2010.

3) Fraud

The Defendants filed a claim for the cost of maintenance based on an aircraft maintenance contract with the victim (a military headquarters within the jurisdiction of the Defendants) entered into around July 18, 2007. As such, the Defendants were issued KRW 23,814,148, 148 as the cost of maintenance, by submitting a forged certificate of import declaration completion as evidence for the purchase of the parts required for maintenance, and deceiving the victim as if they were genuinely formed. The Defendants received from the victim the delivery of KRW 23,814,148 as the cost of maintenance, around December 28, 2007 and December 24, 2008.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to obtain 23,814, 148 won from the victim, and, from that point to December 8, 2009, acquired the total amount of KRW 64,207,41 from the victim (the jurisdiction: the Air Force Headquarters, the Navy Headquarters, etc.) by submitting an import declaration certificate or a trade statement in the name of the OO company five times in total as evidence for the purchase of parts required for maintenance, such as the following: 1,6,9, 11, and 16:

B. Forgery of official documents and uttering of forged official documents

Defendant Kim -00 instructed Defendant Kim ○ to forge an import declaration certificate on the purchase of parts required for maintenance at the Navy headquarters at the end of the end of 2007, and Defendant Kim ○○ issued an import declaration certificate prepared in the name of the head of the Incheon Customs Office on the parts imported by ○○○○○ from the previous department of accounts around that time, and received an import declaration certificate prepared in the name of the head of the Incheon Customs Office on the parts imported by ○○○○○○○○ from the previous department of accounts, and then Defendant Kim ○○ was transmitted with the file file without authority for the purpose of exercising it.

As if 158 parts, such as stable electricity, were imported from 9,167 US dollars, the column of "the import declaration date of can file," "the name of parts," "the size," and "the amount" has been modified by the import declaration certificate, and then output the can file as a coverter by the above import declaration certificate, and the employees whose name was ordered by the Defendants are not 207 US$.

12. We submitted to the Maritime Affairs Council an import declaration certificate with the knowledge of the above fact, as it was actually supplied with 158 parts, such as a stable electricity, etc. imported from Componies through the ○○ Department.

As a result, Defendants conspired to forge and use one certificate of import declaration under the name of the head of Incheon Airport customs office, which is an official document, and thereafter, from that time until November 2008, the Defendants forged two copies of the certificate of import declaration under the name of the head of Incheon Airport customs office, which is an official document, and exercised three times in total, as shown in attached Tables 1 and 3 from November 2008.

2) Forgery of private documents and uttering of private documents

Defendant Kim -00 directed Defendant Kim ○, at the end of the end of 2007, to forgee a statement of transaction to be submitted as documentary evidence for the purchase of parts required for maintenance at the Air Force Headquarters, and Defendant Kim ○○, without authority at that time, prepared a statement of transaction from OO to purchase 15,950,00 won of 232 parts, such as 'ICCN from OO', using computer X- or Korean language program, and printed out the seal of ○○○○ Kim Kim Ma-kon arbitrarily and affixed it on the said statement of transaction. On December 5, 2007 and around December 10 of the same year, Defendant Kim ○ submitted a false statement of transaction to the Guns of the Air Force that he/she knew about the above facts.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to forge and use a statement of transaction in the name of ○○○ Master Kim, a private document, from August 201 to August 5, 2010. From that time, the Defendants forged a statement of transaction in the name of ○○ Master, a private document, and exercised it over 29 times in total, as stated in the attached Table 2 Nos. 1 through 5, 9 through 14, 16 through 27. 3) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

The Defendants filed a claim for the cost of maintenance based on an aircraft maintenance contract with the victim (a military headquarters within the jurisdiction of the Defendants) entered into around July 18, 2007, by submitting a forged certificate of import declaration completion as to the purchase of the parts required for maintenance as if they were genuinely formed two copies, and deceiving the victim. The Defendants received KRW 23,814,148 as the cost of maintenance from the victim on two occasions around December 28, 2007 and December 24, 2008.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to acquire KRW 23,814, 148 from the victim, and received KRW 562,338,393 in total from the victim (competent: Defense Acquisition Program Administration, the Air Force Headquarters, the Navy Headquarters, etc.) by submitting a false certificate of completion of the transaction under the name of ○○ commercial name on 12 occasions from September 8, 2010, as stated in attached Table 3 1 through 5, 7 through 8, 10, 11 through 12, 14, and 19, or by submitting a false certificate of completion of the transaction under the name of ○○ commercial name as evidence for the purchase of parts requiring maintenance.

4. The crime of acquiring by fraud, using a false statement of transactions, such as defendant Kim 00, changed age, Kim ○, leap, gambling, and Kim, a tax invoice, etc.;

가. 피고인 김요요, 박空空, 변⊙⊙ 등의 사기 피고인 김00은 2008. 7. 23. 경 체결된 피해자 ( 소관 : 공군군수사령부 ) 와의 항공기 정비계약에 근거하여 정비대금을 청구함에 있어, 피고인 박空空, 변⊙⊙ 등과 위 ' 2의 다 ' 항 기재와 같이 공모하여 사실은 □□이 오오으로부터 부품을 납품받은 사실이 없음에도 마치 부품을 납품받은 것처럼 오오 명의의 허위 거래명세서, 세금계산서 등을 작성, 제출하여 피해자를 기망하고, 이에 속은 피해자로부터 2008. 12. 5. 경 정비대금 명목으로 2, 336, 125원을 교부받아 이를 편취하였다 .

B. Defendant Kim 00, on August 17, 2007, filed a claim for the cost of maintenance based on an aircraft maintenance contract with the victim (a jurisdictional military headquarters: Air Force Headquarters), Defendant Park Jong-○, etc., prepared and submitted a false statement, tax invoice, etc. in the name of mistake in the same manner as described in “A” and deceiving the victim. Defendant Kim ○, on or around December 31, 2007 and around July 11, 2008, received KRW 75,659,925 as the cost of maintenance from the victim.

As a result, the defendants conspired to acquire 75,659,925 won from the victim, and from that time until December 21, 2009, the defendants submitted false statements, tax invoices, etc. as evidence for the purchase of the parts required for maintenance on a total of nine occasions, such as the statement in attached Table 3 2 through 4, 7 through 8, 10 through 11, 13, and 15 from that time to December 21, 2009.

A total of 455, 378, 440 won was acquired through deception.

C. Defendant Kim Jong-soo, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), including Defendant Kim 00, Kim In space, and Ma○○, filed a claim for the cost of maintenance based on an aircraft maintenance contract with the victim (the Defense Acquisition Program Administration under its jurisdiction) on April 15, 2009, according to the public offering, such as Defendant Kim, Yoon-I, etc. 2-D, who had already held the waste parts, etc., as if they were the net government, through a disguised export and import procedure, such as Defendant Kim Jong-I, Ma-I, etc. as described in the above Section 2-D, and made and submitted a false statement, tax invoice, etc., thereby deceiving the victim, and then received KRW 264,87,810 from the victim as the cost of maintenance around August 18, 2010.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to acquire 264, 887, 810 won from the victim, and subsequently, from December 21, 201 to December 21, 201, acquired 1,19,640,335 won in total from the victim (the Defense Acquisition Program Administration and the Navy Headquarters, etc.) by submitting a false statement, tax invoice, etc. as evidence for the purchase of maintenance parts five times in total, as shown in attached Table 3 12, 17, 18, 20, 211.

D. Defendant Kim 00’s fraud

When the Defendant claims for the cost of maintenance based on an aircraft maintenance contract with the victim (the Defense Acquisition Program Administration under its jurisdiction) entered into around April 15, 2009, the Defendant: (a) as if the Defendant had supplied the parts required for maintenance to △△, prepared and submitted transaction specifications, tax invoices, etc. in the name of the above EECH, and deceiving the victim; (b) received KRW 135,946,80 from the victim as the cost of maintenance around December 21, 2009.

As a result, the Defendant, including by deceiving 135,946,80 won from the victim, and from that time until December 21, 2009, by submitting false statement, tax invoice, etc. as evidence for the purchase of parts three times in total, from the victim (the Defense Acquisition Program Administration and the Navy Headquarters, etc.) by deceiving 146,186,80 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Delivery of an accusation by the Board of Audit and Inspection, and each accusation;

1. 방위사업청, 공군군수사령부, 해군군수사령부와 □□전자 사이 각 정비계약 서류 일1. 수사보고 ( 외주정비사업 관련 등 감사결과보고서 첨부보고 ), 수사보고 ( ♀♀ 종합부품주식회사 상대 압수, 허위 세금계산서 47매 사본 편철 보고 ), 수사보고 ( 위조 허위신고 필증 4부 내역 첨부 보고 ), 수사보고 ( ○○상사 명의 위조 거래명세서 내역보고 ), 수사보고 ( 정비대금 편취에 이용된 E - TECH 허위 세금계산서 · 거래명세서 제출내역 보고 ), 수사보고 ( 정비대금 편취에 이용된 오종합부품주식회사 허위 발급 세금계산서 , 거래명세서 제출내역 보고 ), 수사보고 ( 정비대금 편취에 이용된 OO 상사의 위장수출입 관련 허위 세금계산서 · 거래명세서 제출내역 보고 ), 수사보고 ( 박 추가 제출자료 요약보고 ), 수사보고 ( □□전자 ⇔ E - TECH, E & I PARTS, 일렉뱅크 허위 거래내역 확인 보고 ), 수사보고 ( 피의자 편취금액 특정 및 횡령금액 확인보고 ), 수사보고 ( 피의자 김00 제출, 미구입 모듈제품 확인 보고 ), 수사보고 ( 김 제출, 3억 8천만원 현금 김00 반환 내역 등 첨부 보고 ) - 별책, 수사보고 ( ○○상사 작성 E - TECH , E & I PARTS 수출 송장, 팩킹리스트 확인 보고 ), 수사보고 ( 위장수출입 관련 세금계산서 및 거래명세서 사본 첨부보고 ), 수사보고 [ OO 상사 ( 김 ) 제출 ○○상사 → 컴트론 등 송금내역 첨부보고 ], 수사보고 ( ○○상사 위장수출입 실무 담당 정선아 전화 통화 보고 ), 수사보고 ( 김○○, 변이 편취금액 산정 보고 )

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant Kim 00 and Kim ○: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 225 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 229, 225, and 30 of the Criminal Act (abstinence of a forged document), Articles 231 and 30 of the Criminal Act (abstinence of a falsified document), Articles 231 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act (abstinence of a falsified document, and choice of imprisonment)

B. Defendant Kim Sung-ok and Male-○: Each of the Specific Economic Crimes Act Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive charge of fraud, etc.)

(c) Defendant’s gambling: Articles 347(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act (in all cases, choice of imprisonment with prison labor)

(d) Defendant’s change ○○: Articles 347(1), 30 (a), 225, and 30 (abstinence of fraud, inclusive of fraud), Articles 225, and 30 (abstinence of an official document) of the Criminal Act, Articles 229, 225, and 30 (abstinence of a forged official document) of the Criminal Act, Articles 231 and 30 (abstinence of an official document, choice of an imprisonment), Articles 234, 231, and 30 (abstinence of an official document, and choice of an imprisonment) of the Criminal Act, Articles 234, 231, and 30

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant Kim 00 and Kim ○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Article 50]

(b) Change of Defendant: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the severe crime committed on or around November 2009, the weight of concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in the crime of uttering of forged or falsified documents)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant Kim, Kim ○, Ma○, and Maap○: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the grounds for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant Park Full-up, Kim○-○, Lee Dong-young, and leap○: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the grounds for sentencing)

1. Social service order;

Defendant Park Ho-ho, Kim ○, Lee ○-○, and leap○: Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of each Criminal Act

1. Determination on the assertion by Defendant Kim 00, Kim Kim ○, Kim ○○, Lee ○○, and his defense counsel

A. Summary of the assertion

The amount of defraudation of the facts charged of this case is simply the sum of the amounts indicated in the tax invoice and the statement of transaction submitted by the Defendants, but it is unfair to consider the number of parts actually used to replace, and the Defendants were normally maintained by using the net government items, not the waste parts or similar parts.

B. Determination

(1) The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that cause mistake to a person, which have the belief and duty to observe each other in property transactions. The essence of fraud does not require the acquisition of property or pecuniary gains by deception and actual loss to the other party (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do5789, Feb. 5, 2002; 2001Do5789, Feb. 5, 2002). In the case of fraud involving property taking advantage of deception, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it constitutes fraud by itself. It is established as a result of the infringement of the victim’s property. Even if considerable consideration was paid or there was no damage to the entire property of the victim, it does not affect the establishment of fraud. Accordingly, even if such consideration has been partially paid, the amount of fraud shall be deemed to be the entire property lawfully received, not the difference between the value of the property given by the victim and the value of the property (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5789, Feb. 39, 1999).

① According to each contract for the maintenance of munitions concluded between △△ and the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, the Air Force Headquarters, and the Navy Headquarters, where it is necessary to replace parts, in principle, to allow the manufacture of parts to use the net government goods of the relevant military supervisory officer, etc., and where it is inevitable to use parts of domestic enterprises in the Republic of Korea, △△ shall obtain approval from the relevant military supervisory officer, etc., and △△ shall prove whether the parts replaced during the maintenance process, such as submitting an import declaration certificate, a statement of transactions, a tax invoice, etc., are the net government goods purchased from the manufacture company (Evidence No. 1, No.

② However, in order to deceiving the victim as if the Defendants purchased and replaced the parts subject to maintenance from the manufacturer of parts, the Defendants forged the certificate of import declaration, the statement of transaction, the tax invoice, etc., which is the evidentiary data purchase of parts as stated in its holding.

③ Unlike as stipulated in the maintenance contract, the Defendants used the domestic parts without the approval of the relevant supervisor, etc., or maintained them using the inventory parts of △△, other than the net government goods.

④ Unlike the above facts, Defendant Kim Jong-soo asserts that the O’s inventory part was obtained without compensation from this △△ in charge of gold electric materials around 1997, or that it was purchased with KRW 20,000 from △△△ in consideration of around 1998. However, this △△ has already stated to the effect that “this △△ has already been used or used by the research institute such as twitter, ICT, and cable, and that it is the expendable part that can be easily purchased in the Republic of Korea (Evidence No. 580 through 1803 of the evidence record), ④ Defendant Lee Jong-ok stated to the effect that it was hard to view that it was a new part manufactured in the Republic of Korea (Evidence No. 180 through 1803 of the evidence record), and that it was hard to view that it was a new part manufactured in the Republic of Korea, ○○, Daod, and tampers, and that it was a part of the parts purchased in the past 191 or 3194 of the evidence.

1) According to the above facts, the Defendants received a total of KRW 5,199,246,360 from the victims as the cost of maintenance [the part of each ‘payment and settlement amount' among the 38 pages of evidence No. 1, 38 (the part of the contract under the jurisdiction of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration), 608 (the part of the contract under the jurisdiction of the Navy), 2, 831 (the part of the contract under the jurisdiction of the Navy), 2, 746 (the part of the contract under the jurisdiction of the Navy), 746 (the part of the contract under the jurisdiction of the head of the Air Force Headquarters)]. According to the above facts, the above acts of the Defendants exceeded the scope of social reasonableness in the contract for the maintenance of munitions, or did not fulfill the fiduciary duty and good faith in the transactional relationship, and all the charges charged by the Defendants acquired as the cost of maintenance through deception shall be deemed to constitute deception.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendants and defense counsel's above assertion is rejected.

2. Determination on the assertion by Defendant Kim 00, Kim ○, Madon, Madon, and defense counsel

A. Summary of the assertion

A false certificate of import declaration and a false certificate of import declaration and deception that is irrelevant to the submission of tax invoices or specifications of transactions;

Since the above causation is not recognized, this part must be deducted from the amount of fraud.

B. Determination

(1) Fraud is established by deceiving another person to take advantage of his/her inherent property or gain pecuniary advantage by inducing his/her disposal act (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do1155, Jun. 27, 200). Degrasation as a requirement for fraud means all active and passive acts that undermine one another’s duty in property transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5789, Feb. 5, 200; 2001Do5789, Feb. 7, 200). It is reasonable for the court to determine whether any act constitutes a fraudulent act, and whether there is a causal relationship between such act and the disposal of property should be determined based on the following circumstances in light of the circumstances of transaction, knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc. of the other party to the contract, and thus, it is reasonable for the court to have determined that there was a reasonable method of replacement of the parts within the scope of this case’s new evidence sale certificate under the consideration of the aforementioned circumstances.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendants and defense counsel's above assertion is rejected.

3. Judgment on the assertion of Defendant Kim Jong-soo and defense counsel

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant only participated in the transaction statement on the part of the stock parts whose price has been unfeased through disguised export and import procedures and the part of the fraudulentation of the cost of maintenance using the tax invoice, and there was no collusion or functional control over the part that was deceiving as if the parts were replaced even if no part was replaced, or the part that was used for the part that was irrelevant to disguised export and import.

B. Determination

(1) In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with two or more persons, there is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if there is a combination of intent to do so in order or impliedly among several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 201). In order to recognize such conspiracy, strict proof is not required. However, in a case where the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance in the nature of the crime. What constitutes indirect facts related to the crime should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the situation of connection with the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do6160, Jan. 24, 2003; 200Do62071, Jun. 16, 2007).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.

① 피고인은 ' ○○상사 ' 라는 상호를 사용하여 IC ( 집적회로 ), 다이오드, 군용통신기에 사용되는 반도체 부품 등을 미국에서 수입하여 국내에 판매하는 개인사업자로서 , 미국 소재 컴트론, 씨제이인터내셔널 등으로부터 부품을 구입하여 국내의 ㅁㅁ 등에 판매하여 왔다 ( 증거기록 제1권 617쪽, 618쪽 ) .

② The Kim Jong-soo had a large number of inventory parts, and even if they were maintained by using them, it was not paid for the maintenance cost due to the lack of evidence purchase. Accordingly, the above inventory parts were exported to the United States, disguisedly, imported again by ○○○ Co., Ltd. and sold them to ○○○○○. (Evidence No. 1, 625 pages)

③ The △ inventory parts were imported in the manner of disguised export and import, such as TECH, E-TEC, E-Nz, etc., disguisedly exported into the Republic of Korea through the ○○ commercial name. During that process, the Defendant issued a tax invoice and a statement of transaction in the name of abnormal company according to the direction of Kim 00.

④ In addition, in the process of disguised export and import, the Defendant received approximately KRW 2 billion from Kim as the purchase price of parts, and paid KRW 1.1 billion out of KRW 1.8 billion as the import price to the importing enterprise, such as Comment, except for the expenses. The Defendant returned KRW 3.87 billion, excluding the remainder KRW 700,000,000,000,000 to Kim (Evidence No. 2, 7555 through 757, 764, 5, 1808, 2087).

⑤ The Defendant was involved in the disguised export and import of △○○ Master’s Name in the process of the instant 13 occasions, and issued a false tax invoice and transaction statement in the name of KRW 2,051,618,486 (Evidence No. 2, 764, 974, 977 pages), and Kim00 received KRW 1,119,640, and 335 in total under each maintenance contract using the above tax invoice and transaction statement issued by the Defendant (Evidence No. 2, 974 pages).

6. The defendant was unaware of the fact that △△ was supplied to a military unit at the time, but ○○.

In light of the above facts, the Defendant stated to the effect that the tax invoice and transaction statement in the name were used as materials for supporting the purchase of materials in △△△△ (Evidence No. 1, 622, 625 of the evidence record). (3) In light of the above facts, the Defendant issued in the process of disguised export and import.

In full recognition of the fact that the false tax invoice and the false statement of transaction in the name are used as documentary evidence for the purchase of materials in △△△△, the defendant actively participated in the disguised export and import process at the request of Kim 00, and actually used the above transaction statement, etc. in the acquisition of the cost for the maintenance, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant acquired the amount stated in the facts charged in collusion with Kim.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the above defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant Kim도요: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years but not more than 45 years;

(b) Defendant Kim-hwan and Maap○: Imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than 6 months but not more than 15 years. Defendant Park: Imprisonment for not less than one month but not more than 10 years;

(d) Defendant Kim ○: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than six months but not more than twenty years and not more than six months;

(e) Defendant’s change ○: Imprisonment for not less than one month but not more than 15 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant Kim 01 (1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

[Determination of Type] Fraudulent Crime, General Fraud, Type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)

【Special Convicted Persons】

- If committing repeatedly over a considerable period of time (aggravating factors, actors)

-where significant damage has been restored, (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

【General Adopteds】

- Serious reflective elements (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four years but not more than seven years) (2) a crime of uttering of each forged official document around November 2009 and September 2009

[Determination of Type] Type 1 (Non-Business, Non-Organizational, Non-Business, Non-Organizational, etc.)

【No Special Convicted Person】

【General Adopteds】

- Where a person who made the above-mentioned, altered, etc. uses the above-mentioned or altered document (aggravating factors, actr)

- Serious reflective elements (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field (The processing of multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 4 years but not more than 8 years and not more than 3 months; the scope of punishment shall be determined by adding up 1/2 of the upper limit of the sentence for the crime of uttering of forged public documents on November 2009, and 1/3 of the Decision on September 2009, which is the concurrent crime to the upper limit of the sentence for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of uttering of falsified public documents)

B. Defendant Kim Jong-, and leap○

[Determination of Type] Fraudulent Crime, General Fraud, Type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)

【Special Convicted Persons】

- If committing repeatedly over a considerable period of time (aggravating factors, actors)

-where significant damage has been restored, (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

【General Adopteds】

- Serious reflective elements (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation ( Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four years but not more than seven years)

C. Defendant Gamb [Type] Fraud, general fraud, type 2 (at least 100 million won, and less than 500 million won)

【Special Convicted Persons】

- If committing repeatedly over a considerable period of time (aggravating factors, actors)

-where significant damage has been restored, (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

【General Adopteds】

- Serious reflective elements (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation ( Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than six years)

D. Defendant Kim○-○ (1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

[Determination of Type] Fraudulent Crime, General Fraud, Type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)

【Special Convicted Persons】

- If committing repeatedly over a considerable period of time (aggravating factors, actors)

-where significant damage has been restored, (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

【General Adopteds】

- Serious reflective elements (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four years but not more than seven years) (2) each of the crimes of uttering of forged official documents on November 2008

[Determination of Type] Type 1 (Non-Business, Non-Organizational, Non-Business, Non-Organizational, etc.)

【No Special Convicted Person】

【General Adopteds】

- If a person who made the above-mentioned, altered, etc. uses the above-mentioned or altered document (aggravating factors, actr)

- Serious reflective elements (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field (referring to the processing of multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 8 months but not more than 2 years) (3): From not less than 4 years to not more than 8 months [the scope of punishment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the judgment that is a basic crime according to the standards for handling multiple crimes] each of the following: (a) the scope of sentence shall be set by adding up 1/2 and 1/3 of the upper limit of the punishment for the uttering of forged public documents on November 208;

E. Defendant’s change (1) around November 2008, around September 2009, and around November 2009, each of the crimes of uttering of forged public documents [decisions], forgery, alteration, etc. of public documents, etc., type 1 (non-business, non-systematic)

【No Special Convicted Person】

【General Adopteds】

- Where a person who made the above-mentioned, altered, etc. uses the above-mentioned or altered document (aggravating factors, actr)

- Serious reflective elements (a mitigation element, an actor/other person);

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field (referring to a range of punishment for multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 8 months but not more than 2 years): From not less than 8 months to not more than 3 years and not more than 8 months (in accordance with the standards for handling multiple crimes, a concurrent crime in the upper limit of the scope of sentence for the crime of uttering of forged official documents on November 209,

On November 2008, 2008, 1/2 of the upper limit of the sentence scope of the crime of uttering of forged public document and 1/3 of the upper limit of the sentence scope of the crime of uttering of forged public document on September 2, 2009

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant Kim 00: Imprisonment for 5 years; and

B. Defendant Kim: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months;

(c) Defendant Park In space: One year of imprisonment and three years of a stay of execution; and

(d) Defendant Kim-○, and Maap○: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and three years of suspended execution; and

(e) Defendant’s change ○: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 years of suspended execution.

4. Reasons for sentencing; and

A. Defendant Kim 00, Kim

Defendant Kim, at his own initiative, did not replace various parts subject to maintenance, or replaced them with similar parts by means of manipulating a number of tax invoices, transaction specifications, etc., or submitting an import declaration certificate with a forged import declaration certificate, and acquired the cost of maintenance from a private country to the injured party as if they were replaced with a net government product. In this process, Defendant Kim Jong-sung, in collusion with Defendant Kim0, took part in the above disguised export and import declaration certificate, and took part in the disguised export and import process and received part of the price by fraud. In addition, in light of the above crime method and size, etc., Defendant Kim Jong-sung took part in the above disguised export and import procedure and received part of the price by fraud. The thorough maintenance and maintenance of military equipment such as military aircraft are indispensable elements for the maintenance of the military power of the national armed forces, but the Defendants were sufficiently maintained in accordance with the desire of the military forces, and caused large-scale accidents caused by a failure in performing military duties. Accordingly, it is inevitable to punish and punish the Defendants’ representative director of the instant case.

However, Defendant Kim00 has no record of crime other than the previous criminal records of a fine for a single time, and Defendant Kim Kim is the first criminal who has no record of crime, and efforts to recover damage to certain extent, and other factors of sentencing that are shown in the arguments of this case, such as the Defendants’ age, health status, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case.

B. Defendant Gamba, Kim ○, Lee Dong-○, and leap○○

The Defendants, in collusion with Defendant Kim 00, acquired the cost of maintenance by deceiving the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, the Air Force Headquarters, and the persons in charge of the Navy, etc., even though they failed to maintain or maintain the goods by using inventory parts. In particular, Defendant Kim ○, and the changed ○○○ in collusion with Defendant Kim 00, thereby causing substantial damage to the victims by forging and using an import declaration certificate or a tax invoice and a transaction statement for the sake of Kim 00. In light of this, the Defendants’ criminal nature is not somewhat weak.

However, the crime of this case was led by Kim 00 as a whole, and the defendants led to the crime of this case upon request or instruction by Kim 00 and the degree of participation in the crime of this case is relatively minor, all the defendants recognize the crime of this case as a primary offender in substitution for the crime of this case and reflect it in depth, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendants' age, health status, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by the order.

Judges Yoonn-heer of the presiding judge

Judges Su Young-young

Judges Jeong-he