(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2011.6.14.선고 2010고합1050 판결

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, he/she shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 1,000,000 into one day.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecution against the fraud of the victim's nameless wounded person is dismissed.

Reasons

Criminal History Office

The Defendant, one of the ministries with the ○○○○○○ Government, conspiredd to deduct the amount of money that ○○○○○ (O. ; hereinafter “O. ; hereinafter “OO”) was transferred to ○○○○○○○○○○○ (O00O), and OO(O3), an industrial trainee who works for our country’s private enterprises, in sequence, remitted money to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ under various titles, such as management expenses, fees, pension, etc.

On March 5, 2003, Defendant, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was established in Korea with the approval of the government of two countries in order to protect the rights and interests of the instant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was not approved by the government of the Republic of Korea and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Defendant was pretended to have been appointed as such.

However, the "OOO's office" of the above OOOO was without legitimate authority in subrogation of the transmitting agency of the foreign country, and furthermore, the defendant and LOOOOOO did not have any intent or ability to normally remit money to the designated account of its own country even if it receives such money. The defendant and LOOOOOOOO did not have any intent or ability to normally remit money to the designated account of its own country.

Nevertheless, when it is difficult to ascertain the accurate date and time prior to around May 2004, the Defendant misrepresented ○○○○○ (○○○○ - 000) etc. practically operating Kim○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ - ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ), and made a separate request for the transfer of the funds to a local financial account managed by the Defendant to an employee of the Defendant’s domestic financial institution under the name of the Defendant, and made a false request for the transfer of the funds to an official name of the Defendant ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

In addition, the management expenses, etc. of ○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on behalf of the Defendant or ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ at the time of around September 17, 2004, when the Defendant or ○○○○○○○○ was entitled to receive money under the premise that the money was remitted from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., as above.

The defendant is 2004 from the victim's OOO - OO, Kim ○○).

6. On or around 17, 200, transfer of KRW 58,000,00 from an account of ○○○○○○○ (OO - OO) in the name of “○○○○○ bank (Account Number 000 - 00 - 0000) managed by the Defendant, including transfer of KRW 58,00,00.

20. From October 28, 2004 to June 29, 2006, he/she received a total of 1,402,671,730 won from 44 times in total under the pretext of general expenses to be remitted to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the above basis.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the protocol of trial under subparagraph 8;

1. Statement of a witness Kim○-○ in the third protocol of trial;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Statement by the prosecution against Kim○-○;

1. Each police protocol of statement on Kim○-○, Gangwon-do, and Lee ○-○;

1. Judgment of OOO court on ○○○○○ (No. 111), and trial records (No. 112);

1. ○○○○○○○○’s decision to suspend an investigation by the Prosecution (No. 113)

1. A copy of the official document (such as sending a written decision on distribution), a non-official document of decision on distribution to the defendant by the ○○○ Prosecutors' Office, a copy of each document, a copy of remittance guide, a copy of each notice, a copy of the guidelines for the operation of the industrial training system, a copy of the investigation report (to track the target's concealed funds), a notarized document by the ○○○○○○○ Korean Embassy, an order by the OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO;

○ Order (in original text), ○○○○○○○○○○○ (Korean translations), English mail, English mail, English contract, Korean language contract, memorandum of understanding (Korean language), copy of the written ambassador of Ambassador ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in Korea (Korean language), content-certified mail, Kim○○), copy of the official report related to Sentent’s (police) and official report, investigation report (detailed description of suspect account), investigation report (report on confirmation of change of exchange rate); and (report on confirmation of change of exchange rate)

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1)2 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (victim ○○○○○○○○○○○○ (O-O) and OOOO(00-00) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, each of which violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the selection of each limited term and the concurrent imposition of fines: Provided, That the maximum sentence of imprisonment shall be 15 years prescribed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) in accordance with Articles 8

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act ( Victim ○○○○○○ ( Victim ○○○○○○ - ○○○○) fraud, choice of imprisonment, or choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, the severe victim ○○○○○○○ (○○○○ -○○○○) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes) for the crime committed)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. The assertion;

A. As examined below, the Defendant had been duly appointed as the head of the ○○○○○, Da○○○○, and the Defendant did not conspired with the instant crime.

1) On February 10, 2003, 0000000 OOOOO ○○○○○○ asked 00000 0000 on whether it is possible to establish the above ○○○○○○○ Department. The Defendant responded to ○○○○○○○○○ opened the above ○○ Department. During this process, the Defendant brought about all the answers that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ may open the said ○○○ Department by means of a notarial act at the Embassy in Korea.

2) The Defendant was appointed to ○○○○○○○ upon a regular appointment letter issued by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. Upon raising questions on whether the Defendant was a lawful entity, the OOOO embassy in Korea sent to Nonghyup an official door to confirm that the Defendant was a legitimate entity. In addition, even if the Defendant sent an official door to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (○○○) and a branch office, which is another personnel dispatching out of ○○○○○○○○○ (○○○○) and an OOOO○ to the Construction Association, on the premise that the Defendant was the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. Moreover, the Defendant did not appear to have been the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s head office on May 18, 2005, on the premise that the Defendant was the ○○○○○○○○○.

B. The Defendant merely received remittance under the direction of the head office or Ra○○○○○○○○, etc., and there was no room for deceiving victims in collusion with Ra○○○○○, and Ga○○○○○○○○, etc.). The management expenses per each trainee for the first trainee was set at USD 34 and US$ 36 and the head office was to be withheld from the monthly salary of the trainee. The Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperative Federation decided that the branch office be withheld from the monthly salary of the trainee.

By revising guidelines on the dispatch of human resources, so that ○○○○○○○○○○○ head office located in the dispatching agency directly send the management expenses for the trainees of the dispatching agency’s branch to the Korean branch office, and the defect that the training trainees in Korea could not walk from the trainees, and the agreement was concluded between ○○○○○ (OO) head office and OOOO (00 - OOO) that had the head office at the time of September 17, 2004 between OOOOO and OOOO (OOO) to collect management expenses from trainees and transfer them to a third country in order to avoid the above guidelines and then receive them again to the Republic of Korea. As a result, on October 4, 2005, the agreement was concluded between the head office and the branch office of ○○ (OOO) and the branch office of Korea to walk 300,000 won each other from the trainees who entered the Republic of Korea on June 28, 2005.

2) If a trainee returns to ○○○○○○, he/she was paid a monthly wage of KRW 3.6 million or the remainder of the money loaned from ○○○○○○○○, which was deducted from monthly wage, to 3.6 million won or the cost of leaving Korea during the 70th of a month, is merely a false statement as if the trainee was returned. 3) The Defendant only received USD 36 per head office management fee for a trainee who entered the Republic of Korea before he/she was dismissed on May 18, 2005 and remitted the money to ○○○○○.

4) Money deposited into an account under the name of ○○○○ (OO) established by the Defendant is deposited in accordance with an order of ○○○○○○ (OO)’s head office. 5) The Defendant only remitted money deposited from a foreign country to a foreign country under the orders of ○○○○○ or ○○○○○, etc., the head office of OO (OOO). USD 110,000 that was remitted to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the head office of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (OOO)’s head office. As evidence records were 1263,1264 pages and translation of 1264,00O’s delivery of clothing and clothing granted to O00.

C. Since the Defendant did not obtain personal benefit, there was no intention to obtain fraud.

D. On May 18, 2005, the Defendant did not intervene in remittance-related affairs after being dismissed from office at ○○○○○ Korea Branch ○○○○○○○○○○, and on October 4, 2005, 300,000 won per month that was paid as management expenses among the industrial trainees’ salaries pursuant to a self-agreement on October 4, 2005, which was paid to the Defendant. This part is irrelevant to the scope of the Defendant’s liability.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. The Defendant: (a) was a person who had the nationality of ○○○○○○ from Korea; (b) around 1996, the Defendant entered Korea and operated by ○○○ Resource Corporation, an overseas human resources controlled entity that had been operated by ○○○○.

In addition, there was an institution such as OOO 00000, which is dispatched overseas under the control of human resources of OOO 0000, and OO OO 2.5 million won per month for industrial trainees, and each of its Korean branches established ○○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○), ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○), OO - OO - - O - - O - ○, ○, and ○○○○ ○○ ○○○).

B. On February 10, 2003, 2003, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was requested to grant permission on the establishment of a branch office in the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, on February 25, 2003, the response was sent to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground that the establishment of a branch office of

C. Around March 5, 2003, the Defendant was ordered to appoint the Defendant to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Korean office (No. 44-E, hereinafter “44-E”) and around March 10, 2003, the Defendant was confirmed to have the English text of the appointment 44- E at the Embassy of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Defendant did not have authority to sign the official documents on the suspect examination 10534,194).

D. On April 28, 2003, around 2003, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s office supporting the Defendant’s pre-tax deposit, and sending a note of the fact that all financial support under the direction of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s head office is to support the Defendant’s head office of the OO (OO).

E. On September 16, 2003, the ○○○○ issued a written order (documents No. 131; hereinafter referred to as “order No. 131”) with the following content as indicated below to Kim○○. The above order No. 131 is a private person, as well as an A○○○○○ document officer’s signature.

1. 000- 000 (OO),O-O(O),O-O(O)-O(O(O) shall carry out all financial affairs, management - remittances related to the trainees of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, through a written consent of the Defendant, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○00 in Korea.

2. The supervision and problem-handling of the officials in charge of the management and branch offices of OOOOO in Korea shall be entrusted to the defendant who is an OOOOOOOOOO in Korea.

3. The Defendant of ○○○○○○○○○○ in Korea is obligated to perform as ○○○○○○○○○○○ on all financial affairs, as well as business affairs of branch offices, and on every three months. OOOO 0000 on every three months. Around three months, an OOOO 0000 on every further report. [Evidence Records 691, 692 pages - - ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ OO OO.

○ Order (original and translation)

In addition, when ○○○ has come into Korea, “○○○” is managed by the Defendant until the Defendant, Kim○, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Ma○○○, Ma00, and Ma00, when the Defendant transferred money to ○○○○○○○, all other agencies have deducted the money, and then transfers the money to ○○○○○○, and the remainder to ○○○○○○, and the Defendant created a separate order with a third country. In addition, ○○○ is also directed to ○○○○○, ○○, and ○00. (Evidence evidence record 715 pages - the police statement).

F. Around 2003, an OO (O-O) transfers money under the pretext of expenses directly for the account of the head office of the OOO (OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-one’s account under the order to transfer money to an account within the Republic of Korea designated by the head office of theO-O-O (O-O) or the head office of the O-O (O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-one’s account (O000 - 00 - 00 -O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-one.

G. Around December 23, 2003, 2003, Do○○○○○○ (○○○) was appointed as an OO (OO) ○ on April 23, 2004 (Evidence No. 9, 200). Around December 23, 2003, Do○○○○ (OO) was appointed as an OO (OO) ○○ (Evidence No. 20).

H. According to Article 18(1) of the Guidelines on the Operation of the Foreign Industrial Training System of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business amended on September 13, 2004, the transmitting agency may collect the transmitting fees from industrial trainees to the extent determined by the dispatching agency to cover the expenses for recruitment, selection, education, health examinations, entry, departure, management, etc. of the industrial trainees. However, the transmitting agency must report and consult the details of the dispatching fees to the National Federation Chairperson.", and Article 19(1) of the dispatching agency must establish a branch office in Korea to efficiently carry out the projects under this Guidelines, and the transmitting agency must provide the operating expenses of the branch office in Korea of the transmitting agency, and the transmitting agency must provide the dispatching agency directly subsidize the operating expenses of the branch office (where evidence is recorded 464 - a copy of the Guidelines on the Operation of the Industrial Training System).

I. Accordingly, on September 17, 2004, the Ra○○○○○ and Kim○○ concluded a memorandum of understanding with the following contents in order to avoid the guidelines of the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business, and the Defendant’s signature was made as a witness of the above memorandum of understanding (Although the Defendant denied the signature in this court, the Defendant did not intervene in the determination of the content of the MO during the 7th interrogation of the suspect, and was engaged in interpretation in the course of consultation, and stated as a witness at the last time that he signed the MO of understanding (Evidence No. 1208 page of evidence record).

“1. 1. ○○ shall adjust to stipulate the following matters in the contract to be entered into between trainees working in Korea and those employed in Korea and those scheduled to enter Korea:

The term "training students shall pay 280,000 won (US$ 240) per month for one year, and shall deduct the following matters:

(1) Management expenses (567,260 won per year, maximum one-month wage of the Republic of Korea in 2003), management expenses for the head office of the OOOO for three years, and USD 1,296 ($36 x 36 months) of the branch office of the OOO for three years.

③ ○○○○○ National Pension ($ 132 ($ 12 x 12 months) shall be paid monthly minimum wage of the Republic of Korea (2.5% of the minimum wage of the Republic of Korea). (hereinafter omission)

★ V. A. TAX 10 % 의 징수를 피하고 KFSMB의 규약을 ( 한국내 관리비 징수 금지 ) 이행하기 위하여 제3국으로 송금한다 .

4. Management expenses (OO) and pension money for the transfer time may be remitted to OOO or to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

5. In the event that the trainee/employee preferentially deducteds the management expenses for the three-year period, and paid the full amount of the management expenses, the Korean branch office ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in Korea will pay 10% of the management expenses for the branch office in order to maintain their office expenses.” [Evidence Nos. 779- - a copy of an Round (Mamoum)]. Pursuant to the above Round of Understanding, Kim○ remitted 10% of the management expenses acquired by the defendant to the account managed by the defendant to the account managed by the defendant for the Korean ○○○○○○.

C. Around May 18, 2005, the Defendant was dismissed from the office of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ branch. Afterward, ○○○○○○ was in Korea and caused ○○○○○○○○○ to misrepresentate the ○○○○○ branch, and around August 4, 2005, around August 4, 2005, ○○○○○○○○ (OO) changed from ○○○○ to ○○○○○○○ (Evidence No. 21).

(l) At the time of around September 27, 2005, another OO (OO) that was an OO (00O), OO (O-O) and OOO (O-O-O-O-O-O-O-(O--O--O--) respectively are entitled to sign on documents related to remittance to ○○○○○○○, and all the industrial trainees-related financial affairs, such as wages and expenses incurred after the issuance of the power of attorney, etc., sent a power of attorney to ○○○, who is in compliance with the direction of ○○○○○, respectively (Evidence-1071, 1076 through 1078 of evidence record).

(m) OO (OO, ○○○○○○○) and OOO - OO, OO, ○○ Kim○○○) entered into a contract on October 4, 2005, which includes the following:

Article 2 (Duties of ○○○)

2. 11. The expenses for the management of trainees shall be remitted from the head office to the branch office, but it is impossible to transfer the amount due to the foreign exchange management of the country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country's country'

Article IIIOO - Duties of OO

3. 10. 10. ○○ should deduct, through an employer, the following amounts from the basic salary of trainees:

c) ○○○ - With ○○○ along with an employer shall deduct 2.5% (2.5%) per month from the basic wages of trainees from the non-budgetary pension funds of the Republic of Korea of 0000 until the termination of the training contract.” (Evidence Record 694 to 706)

(n) On May 25, 2006, ○○○○○ has sent a notice of dismissal of the Defendant on or around the same day. Around June 1, 2006, 2006, ○○○○○○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

o. Around June 8, 2006, the Defendant and L○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ around May 18, 2005: (a) the Defendant exceeded the Defendant’s duties of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on May 25, 2005; and (b) transferred all rights, duties, and documents to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on May 25, 2005; (c) drafted a written contract for acquisition of rights with the content of “

(p) On September 14, 2006, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was at issue, and around the end of 2006, the ○○○○○○○○ branch was closed (Evidence Record 1196 pages - Prosecutor’s Examination of Evidence).

C. On the other hand, the defendant opened an account of Hong Kong ○ Bank 0000 with the direction of the head office (OO) around 2003 and transferred money received from the account of OO bank managed by the defendant from the branch of Korea to the account of OO bank in Hong Kong ○○ Bank 2007, and then transferred money again to OOOO) the head office or Ra○○○○○○, or to ○○○○, etc. (Evidence of evidence records 1198 to 1204, 125 to 125 to 1253).

(r) In addition, on May 21, 2008, the Defendant purchased the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 1.62 billion. On July 28, 2009, the Defendant purchased the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 1.4

(s) On September 25, 2008, the Defendant was appointed as the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was a part of the salary of the industrial trainees ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the grounds of having been arrested on November 17, 2009.

B. On the other hand, the Defendant always visited Korea at the time when ○○○○○○○○ visits the Republic of Korea, and while looking at the Embassy, she saw the higher level of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s high level of the road. (Evidence record 672 pages - Kim○○’s protocol of statement of police record).

3. Determination

(a) Whether the defendant has been duly appointed to the OOO Korea Branch ○○;

In light of the above facts, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, which was only one of the 0○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, which was merely a separate signature of the official in charge of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, which was merely a separate signature of the official in charge of 0○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, which was also a separate signature of the official in charge of 0○○○○○○ 2, which was a separate official in charge of an investigation.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and his defense counsel is without merit.

B. Whether the Defendant is merely an instruction given by the Ra○○○○○○ or an Ado○○○○○○

In light of the above facts, the Defendant wired large amount of money to an account under the name of a third party unrelated to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ by following the instructions of the head office of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (O). The Defendant was aware of the fact that some of industrial trainees’ wages were sent to an area unrelated to industrial trainees, and performed the instructions for remittance of money from the Korean branch office to 2003 to 2007, managing the account where money was deposited from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc.; ② ○○○○○○ was a witness of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s branch office for the purpose of avoiding management expenses that the Defendant had not lawfully participated in the ○○○○○○○○ branch office. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not lawfully received from ○○○○○ branch office’s instructions, the Defendant did not have been aware of their signature.

Therefore, this part of the argument by the defendant and his defense counsel is without merit.

(c)whether the person has committed fraud or not;

In full view of the above facts, the defendant purchased ○○ Car with a market price exceeding KRW 100 million in around 2007, and around May 21, 2008, an apartment house with a market price exceeding KRW 1.6 billion in the name of the wife, and the defendant did not disclose the source of the purchase fund from the investigation to the present, and the defendant merely received wages of KRW 2.5 million per month, and the defendant who did not have any other family member, has no other family member, and the source of the fund for purchasing high-priced apartment and motor vehicles is very doubtful. In light of these circumstances, it is recognized that the defendant acquired part of the money deposited in his own account and purchased it with the above apartment and motor vehicle, and that the defendant had an intention to acquire it.

Therefore, this part of the argument by the defendant and his defense counsel is without merit.

D. The scope of defendant's liability

According to the above facts, 1) ○○○○○○ was informed of the deprivation of the authority of the Defendant on May 25, 2006 to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

5. Even after receipt of the notice of dismissal from the A○○○○ upon receipt of the notice of dismissal on or around 18, 198, it is recognized that the Defendant: (a) misrepresented ○○○○○○○○○○○○○; (b) agreed on October 4, 2005 that the branch offices of Korea would have all the amount equivalent to KRW 300,000 per month being paid management expenses; (c) deposited money into the account managed by the Defendant as seen in the attached list of crimes (1) and (2); and (c) transferred the business to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○; (b) even after the Defendant transferred the business to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Defendant was deprived of the authority of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on or around May 18, 2005 and kept the remittance receipt directly. In light of these circumstances, the Defendant appears to have been deprived of the authority of ○○○○○.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is without merit.

The reason for sentencing is that the crime of this case was committed by the defendant in collusion with the ○○○○ upper level of high level of punishment and was committed as if he had no authority to receive and use some of the salaries of industrial trainees from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, thereby deceiving the victims, thereby inducing not only the victims who are in charge of the training and ultimately causing damage to the number of ○○○○○○○ industrial trainees working in the Republic of Korea beyond a high country, and ultimately, the crime of this case is highly bad. The amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is more than 2 billion won, and if the amount transferred to the Hong Kong account of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the defendant did not seem to have consistently committed the crime of this case, which appears to have been subject to punishment by the defendant, by taking into account all the circumstances favorable to the defendant, including the fact that the defendant acquired the above facts.

Non-Crime

1. This part of the facts charged

When the Defendant, as stated in the above facts constituting an offense, received money on the premise that an OO transfer was made in collusion with an AO○○○, ad○○○○, a UOO-OOO), etc., as set forth in the above facts, he deceivings the victim ○○○○○○ (O-OO) (O-OO), ○○○○○○ (○○○ - ○○○ -), ○○○○○○ (○○ - ○○), and ○○○○○ (○○ - ○○ - ○ ○○) and subsequently, deceivings the Defendant to transfer money to its home country as a normal way.

5. From around 25, 2000, the remittance of KRW 2,441,960 to ○○○○○ in the name of the Defendant, and the transfer of KRW 2,441,960 to ○○○○○○○ by means of an account 0000, and the transfer of KRW 2,441,960 to ○○○○○○○ by May 15, 2006, or instead of the transfer of all expenses to ○○○○○○○ in the name of the Defendant, as described in the attached crime list

A total of KRW 202,768, 469 won was remitted and fraudulently obtained through a total of 45 times under the pretext of all the expenses received by ○○○○○○○○ and the Korean ○○○○○○○.

2. Determination

According to the statement of the witness Kim○ in the third trial records, the statement of the investigation report (the account transaction records used by the defendant) by the witness Kim○, and the money sent to the personal account under the name of the defendant was the name of the defendant. Unlike the actual account opened in ○○ bank, the account opened in ○○ bank is the name of the defendant, and the account was paid in 2,441,960 won around the 25th day of each month from May to August, 2004. In light of these facts, the money received in ○○ bank account was deemed to have been paid to the defendant, or was in the name of the defendant, and there was no clear evidence that there was no other expenses to be transferred to ○○○○○○○○○○ by deceiving the victims, or that there was no evidence to support the receipt of ○○○○○ account under the name of the defendant, such as OO which subrogated the expenses to be paid to the defendant to the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime, but it is found guilty of each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the crime of fraud in the judgment that is related to this part

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. This part of the facts charged

The Defendant, as stated in the above facts of the crime, received money from an OOO (00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00,000 won) in collusion with an ○○○○○○, or a UOO (OO) under the premise that it would normally remit it to the home country as if he had been accused of the victim’s name in good faith, and deceiving the victim into the victim’s name and in lieu of the use of all expenses to be remitted from the victim’s name to the ○○○○○○○○○ (OO)’s home country on behalf of the victim, or all expenses to be received from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (OO) on May 28, 2004, received 400,0000 US dollars (468,520,000 won converted from the base exchange at that time) and received it from the victim on December 2, 2006 and entered it in the victim’s name 284.

2. Determination

In a case where a separate deception is made against several victims of deception, each victim's damage legal interests are independent even if the criminal intent is a single and the method of crime is identical, so the entire crime is not a single crime, and multiple frauds are established independently for each victim, and in such a case, the facts charged shall be stated to specify the amount of damage by each victim and each victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2390, Jul. 22, 2004, etc.).

In light of this part of the facts charged, it does not clearly specify who is the victim or several names. This part of the facts charged is null and void due to the lack of the specific facts charged as a crime of fraud in violation of the provisions of law. Thus, the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judges Lee Dong-hee

Judges South South-North Sea

Note tin

1) English translations of English is referred to as "OOOOO" of the Republic of Korea.

2) English translations in English: 'OO'

3) The translation of the "OO Ac" for the English invoice has been made.

4) The term "reative office" means "reative office". However, in principle, a public official of a foreign government is legitimate without recognition as a diplomat of the other foreign government.

may not exercise a public authority

5) The Korean branch office of OO (OO) which is an transmitting agency on the ○○○○ side, shall be ○○○○○○○○ (OO - OO), OOO (00; Taskian 00;

The branch offices of the Republic of Korea ○○○○○○○ (0) (0) (0)

- O O),OO (00 - OO). In fact, the branch offices of these transmitting agencies may enter into a contract with the transmitting agencies, the head office and branch offices.

Upon entering into a contract with a private enterprise established in Korea, the three domestic branches were actually controlled by the management of the 'Ma○', etc.

6) The accounts in the name of "OO (OO - OO)" are those operated by Kim○, etc. as domestic branch offices of OOO personnel dispatch agencies.

An OOO - OO - AO) in collusion with ○○○○ co-offenders in separate names, regardless of the name of each type, Kim○, etc.

A separate financial account established at will;

7) The evidence records 1221 pages 1221 include not A.O., but P.O., but P.O., but in all circumstances, it is sent by A.O., ○.

I seem to appear.