Defendant 1 and two others

Defilcing (prosecutions) and stuffing (public trial)

Attorney Kim Jong-hun et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for seven years, by imprisonment for four years and six months, and by imprisonment for three years and by imprisonment for three years, respectively.

Litigation costs shall be borne by Defendant 1.

Defendant 1 is the seller of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted) Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Do (hereinafter “the first Dol Dol Dol Dol 2 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted), and when Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Dol Does together, Defendant 2 is the buyer, Defendant 3 is the seller, and Defendant 3.

1. Fraud, etc. against Defendant 1’s victim ○ Savings Bank

(a) Forgery of private documents and the display of private documents;

Defendant 1, from the ○○ Savings Bank (hereinafter “○○ Savings Bank”), intended to forge a lessee’s lease agreement with a view to reducing the amount of deposit in order to use it as collateral to obtain a loan by using the primary ○○ Savings Bank as collateral.

On September 2014, at the office located on the Dogman 2nd Dog 7th Dog 2014, the Defendant entered, on a computer, the “1 Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog 3 omitted),” “10 million won in the contract amount column,” and “the lessee’s personal information” in the lessee’s column, affixed a seal on Nonindicted 16’s name.

As above, the Defendant forged one copy of the lease agreement in the name of Nonindicted 16, and around that time, forged three copies of the lease agreement, such as the attached Table 1 (1).

그 후 피고인은 2014. 9. 26.경 위 사무실 부근에서 ○○저축은행으로부터 감정평가를 의뢰받은 주식회사 ♥♥감정평가법인 직원에게 임대차 내용 확인서와 함께 위와 같이 위조된 임대차계약서 3장을 제출하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant, without authority, forged three copies of a lease contract in the name of tenant who is a private document on rights and duties, and used a forged lease contract.

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

On September 2014, the Defendant applied for a loan of KRW 3 billion to Nonindicted 5 in charge at the head office of the Victim ○ Savings Bank located in Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 5 omitted) on the security of the first ○○ Savings Bank, and submitted a written confirmation of free residence in the name of Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 21, as if only Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 21 were a free resident or a monthly lessee, and submitted a written confirmation of free residence in the name of Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 21 to an employee of the appraisal corporation around September 26, 2014.

However, in fact, the lessee of Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dogs has leased and resided in the first place, and the lease deposit amounts to KRW 620 million, and the submitted free residence confirmation and lease contract were forged.

Accordingly, on September 30, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 3 billion as a loan from the victim ○ Savings Bank, which was believed to be genuine in the certificate of free residence.

2. Defendants 2) Joint Offences

Defendant 1 pretended to have a debt exceeding the appraisal value of the instant building and receive additional loans as a collateral, or forged a lease contract, etc., Defendant 1 asked Defendant 3 to receive a loan under the name of the balance of sale and purchase, and requested Defendant 3 to provide a loan work, such as arranging a buyer.

Defendant 2 decided to receive KRW 600,000 out of the loan when the loan is a sex, and the de facto spouse was to purchase the instant building in the name of Nonindicted 4 and to receive the loan.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to borrow money exceeding the value of security by using forged lease contract, etc. as a balance for sale.

(a) Forgery of private documents and the display of private documents;

On August 2015, Defendant 1 sent a list of the names of lessees by each unit of office, lease period, deposit money, monthly rent, etc., which are necessary to forge a lease contract to Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 asked Nonindicted 12, etc., who was then asked Defendant 3 to forge a lease contract. Defendant 2 notified Defendant 3’s request that the telephone number to be entered in the lease contract be entered in the lease contract, and notified Defendant 2 of the telephone number of his children and their daughters.

공소외 12 등은 그 무렵 서울 동대문구 (주소 4 생략)에 있는 ♡♡♡♡ 사무실에서, 가짜 임대차현황표 등을 바탕으로 컴퓨터를 이용하여 임대차계약서 용지의 부동산 표시란에 ‘1차 □□□하우스 B1/(호수 1 생략)’의 소재지 및 호실을, 보증금란에 ‘오천만원’을, 차임란에 ‘사백만원’을, 임차인란에 공소외 13의 주민등록번호 등 인적사항을 입력하여 출력한 후, 임차인란에 기재되어 있는 공소외 13의 이름 옆에 무인을 날인하였다.

As above, the Defendants, without authority, forged the lease agreement in the name of Nonindicted 13 and forged the 27 Chapter of the lease agreement in the name of the lessee as shown in the attached Table 2 (2) by the same method.

After that, Defendant 3 had Nonindicted 12, etc. submit a forged lease agreement 27 to Nonindicted 12, etc. in charge of loans from △△ Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△ Savings Bank”) by facsimile.

As a result, the defendants conspired to use the 27th lease contract, which is a private document without authority for the purpose of exercising their rights and duties, respectively, and used the forged lease contract.

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

Defendant 3, around August 11, 2015, at the head office of the Victim △ Savings Bank located in Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 6 omitted), submitted a false report on the current status of lease to Nonindicted 1, who is in charge of the instant building at KRW 6.7 billion, and submitted Chapter 27, as stated in the lease agreement among August 2, 2015, to Nonindicted 1, who is in charge of the instant building, KRW 2,677,649,822, and KRW 375 billion as the lease deposit obligation. Since the transfer income tax, Defendant 3 was written with a cover of KRW 5 billion, and Nonindicted 4 was able to obtain the remainder of KRW 4.2 billion in accordance with the real estate sales contract.

On the other hand, around August 21, 2015, Defendant 1 performed as if the monthly price of the instant building was normally paid to Nonindicted Party 1, and taken management expenses as if he were the monthly account book and sent text messages as if he were the monthly account book. Defendant 2 received documents necessary for filing an application for a loan in the name of Nonindicted Party 4 and submitted them to △△ Savings Bank through Defendant 3.

However, in fact, most of the lessees of the building in this case were leasers, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 2.363 billion has reached the total amount of KRW 2,677,649,82, and there was a total of KRW 2,672,649,82, so it is not possible to receive additional loans from financial institutions, and the lease contract submitted was forged.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인들은 2015. 8. 21.경 허위의 임대차현황표 등 대출 관련 서류를 진정한 것으로 믿은 피해자 △△저축은행으로부터 대출신청금액 42억 원 중 30억 원의 대출승인을 받고, 피해자 △△저축은행으로부터 대출 관련 서류를 전달받은 피해자 주식회사 ◁◁저축은행(이하 ‘◁◁저축은행’이라 한다)으로부터 2015. 8. 26.경 나머지 대출금 12억 원에 대한 대출승인을 받았다.

피고인 3, 피고인 2는 공소외 4와 함께 2015. 8. 27.경 피해자 △△저축은행 본점을 방문하여 30억 원의 대출금에 대하여는 피해자 △△저축은행과, 12억 원의 대출금에 대하여는 피해자 ◁◁저축은행과 각각 공소외 4 명의의 여신거래약정서, 부동산담보신탁계약서 등 대출서류를 작성하였다. 피고인 1, 피고인 2는 2015. 9. 2.경 피해자 △△저축은행 본점에서 사채업자로부터 빌린 매수인 자기부담금 약 27억 원의 수수를 가장하였다.

피고인들은 위와 같이 거짓말 또는 거짓 행동을 하여 2015. 9. 2.경 이에 속은 피해자 △△저축은행으로부터 30억 원을, 피해자 ◁◁저축은행으로부터 12억 원을 각각 대출금 명목으로 공소외 4 명의 △△저축은행 계좌(계좌번호 1 생략)로 교부받았다.

[Defendant 3’s defense counsel asserts that Defendant 3 was omitted from the loan operation on September 1, 2015, which was the day immediately before the execution of the loan, and thus, Defendant 3 constitutes a requisite reduction or exemption reason. However, even if Defendant 3 voluntarily discontinued the crime, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, who is another accomplice, continued to commit the crime, so long as Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 continue to commit the crime, they cannot be recognized as attempted suspension. In addition, even if Defendant 3 escaped from the conspiracy relationship after the commencement of the crime, the co-principal’s liability cannot be exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2941, Jan. 31, 1984, etc.). Thus, the above assertion is rejected

[Fact 1]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 5

1. Protocol of seizure (number 175);

1. A letter of credit transaction (for the verification of free residence), confirmation (for the verification of free residence), approval letter (number 176-6), approval letter (number 176-7), application for credit approval (number 176-7), customer comprehensive transaction status (number 176-8), application form for loan (number 176-9), and written appraisal (number 176-9);

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Defendant 2 (only Defendant 1), Defendant 3 (only Defendant 1), Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 4’s respective statements in court.

1. Each protocol of seizure (number 97, 139, 140);

1. 부동산 전세계약서, 부동산 매매계약서(순번 1-5), 여신승인신청서(순번 1-6), 승인장(순번 1-7), 여신거래약정서(순번 1-8), 비용명세서, 대출금 인출 신청서, 수표 사진 출력물 1부, ♤♤감정원 작성 감정평가서, ◁◁저축은행 작성 대출품의서, 여신심의록, 여신심사체크리스트, 여신거래약정, 수익권증서, △△저축은행 명의 △△저축은행계좌 요구불거래기록 조회, ◁◁저축은행 명의 ◁◁저축은행 계좌 요구불거래기록 조회, 공소외 4 명의 ●●●● 관악지점 계좌, 참고인 피고인 3이 피의자 피고인 1로부터 받은 ‘□□□하우스 임대현황’ 이메일 출력물(2015. 3. 16., 2015. 8. 4.), 매매계약서(순번 37, 38), 첨부계약서, 은행 통장(순번 47), 입금영수증(순번 48), 은행 통장(순번 51), 각 전표, 피의자 피고인 1과 공소외 1 간에 주고받은 문자메시지, 수사보고(계좌추적 결과보고, 피고인 2, 피고인 3에 한하여), 계좌추적 흐름도, 수사보고(피고인 1 사무실 압수물 중 피고인 1이 이 사건 부동산매매에 깊히 관여하였다는 증거 확인 보고), 수사보고(임대차계약서 위조에 가담한 공소외 12 제출 이메일 자료 첨부), 부동산 매매계약서 및 신고필증(주소 1, 2 생략), 수사보고(피고인 1 노트북 등 분석 파일 첨부), 수사보고(피고인 1 usb 복구자료 첨부), 수사보고(피고인 3 휴대폰 분석결과 첨부 및 추출자료 첨부 등), 수사보고(피고인 2 휴대폰 분석결과 첨부 및 추출자료 첨부 등), 녹취서 작성보고(순번 185), 수사보고(압수물 사본 별첨), 계좌추적 출력물

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1: Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13719, Mar. 1, 201); Article 231 of each Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 1371, Mar. 2, 201); Articles 234 and 231 of each Criminal Act (the use of private documents related to ○ Savings Bank)

피고인들 : 각 구 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(2016. 1. 6. 법률 제13719호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1항 제2호 , 형법 제347조 제1항 , 제30조 (피해자 △△저축은행, ◁◁저축은행에 대한 각 사기의 점), 각 형법 제231조 , 제30조 (△△저축은행 관련 사문서위조의 점), 각 형법 제234조 , 제231조 , 제30조 (△△저축은행 관련 위조사문서행사의 점)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment imposed on the uttering of a falsified private document on the lease agreement under the name of Non-Indicted 16, which is the largest criminal situation among crimes of uttering of each falsified private document related to ○○ Savings Bank)

1. Selection of punishment;

Election of imprisonment with prison labor for all the crimes of forging each private document and the uttering of each private document;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the Victim △△ Savings Bank with the largest punishment and criminal administration)

1. Litigation costs;

Defendant 1: The main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s assertion

With respect to the USB found at Defendant 1’s residence when the warrant of search and seizure was executed, the prosecutor collected the stored files and confiscated the USB itself without seizing them as copies. Since the search and seizure procedures against the USB are unlawful, the part of the third protocol of examination against Defendant 1, which was conducted in the examination based on the materials restored from the USB (Evidence Nos. 179, 180 investigation report, No. 180 investigation report, No. 185 record, No. 189 investigation report, No. 189 investigation report), and the file restored from the USB, among the third protocol of examination against Defendant 1, which was conducted in the examination, is inadmissible as illegally collected evidence.

2. Determination

A. Facts of recognition

According to the search, seizure and verification warrant, certificate of submission of information storage device, etc., No. 115 information storage device, and investigation report No. 117, the following facts are recognized.

1) On April 30, 2016, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office issued a search and seizure warrant (hereinafter “instant search and seizure warrant”) to the Defendants from the judge of the Seoul Central District Court in relation to the suspected violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), etc. In the instant search and seizure warrant, where it is impossible to execute the warrant by printing or copying documents or where it is considerably difficult to attain the purpose of seizure, the search and seizure warrant of this case includes the limitation on the method of seizure that the original storage device is permitted only when it is impossible or considerably difficult

2) On May 9, 2016, the investigators of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office discovered two U.S.B in the Ansan-S., and started the search and seizure of the instant building (No. 4 omitted) at Defendant 1’s office in Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address 7 omitted). While executing the warrant of search and seizure of the instant case, the investigators of the Seoul Central Prosecutors’ Office seized and seized the digital information of No. 7’s employee Nonindicted Party 1’s employee, and seized their table calendars, multiples, and sets. On the same day, around 17:10, the investigators commenced the search and seizure of the instant building (No. 4 omitted)’s residence and started the analysis work to bring it to the office of the first floor below the ground.

3) Around that time, investigators informed Defendant 1’s Dongs Non-Indicted 8 of his cell phone used by Defendant 1 to be subject to seizure and requested to submit the cell phone. Non-Indicted 8 was transferred from Defendant 1 who had resided in his residence to the office of the first floor underground, and the cell phone was initialized.

4) The investigator who recognized the initial fact of the mobile phones determined that there may be deleted materials even from the USB discovered at the place of residence, and then notified Defendant 1’s defense counsel and Nonindicted 8 at the site, and seized two originals of the USB. Nonindicted 8 confirmed that the seized USB had no intent to be present at the process of securing evidence, such as Hadrid, Kadry, searching electronic information, copying, printing out, etc.

B. Relevant legal principles

In principle, the execution of a warrant of search and seizure of electronic information shall be carried out by means of collecting only the parts related to the suspected facts on which the warrant was issued as documents, or copying the relevant files into the storage device carried by the investigative agency. Even if the execution of the warrant is impossible or considerably difficult due to the circumstances at the execution site, in such cases, the storage device itself is entered in the warrant so that the relevant files can be seized and seized by being carried out to the investigative agency office, such as the office, either directly or in the form of hadrid or requisition, and it is exceptionally permissible (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do10508, Mar. 29, 2012, etc.).

C. Determination

In light of the situation where Defendant 1’s cell phone at the time of the execution of the instant search and seizure warrant, etc., the investigator’s determination that there may be deleted data even in the USB, which had been engaged in the analysis work, is reasonable. In such a case, technical recovery of the deleted data is required. As such, it is recognized that it was considerably difficult for the investigator to output only the part related to the facts charged in writing or copy them into the storage device carried by the investigative agency at the time of execution. In the instant search and seizure warrant, the investigator’s act of seizing the USB itself is deemed lawful as it is in accordance with the method permitted by the warrant, since the investigator stated that the storage device itself can be carried out directly to the investigative agency, such as the office, etc., and seizure and search of the relevant file may be carried out. Therefore, the digital information contained in the USB and its analysis result

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

1. Summary of the assertion

In the process of loan examination, there is a fact that the victim ○ Savings Bank prepared and submitted a written confirmation of free residence or lease contract without the consent of the nominal holders. However, the victim ○ Savings Bank evaluated the security value of the first Y○ Savings Bank, which is collateral in accordance with its own evaluation criteria, and it is merely a reference material for evaluating the value of collateral. Therefore, since it is difficult to view that the victim ○ Savings Bank decided to grant a loan by making an evaluation of the value of collateral because it is a free residence certificate or lease submitted by Defendant 1, it is difficult to view that it decided to grant a loan by making an evaluation of the value of collateral, there is no causation between the defendant's act

2. Determination

A. The elements of determining whether a loan is implemented by a financial institution are basically related to the preservation of claims, such as the value of the collateral, the possibility of appropriation for financial expenses, and the financing for the repayment of the loan. In addition, it is clear that the borrower is a person eligible for credit (in addition, whether the borrower is registered as a person eligible for credit management), procedural completion related to whether other documents necessary for the loan have been appropriately prepared, and the borrower’s credit and morality of the borrower are also important factors for assessment. This is not different from that of a loan as a security loan. It is more true if a loan and a credit loan are made together, such as this part of the loan.

B. In the instant case, the victim ○○ Savings Bank also assessed the value of the collateral in an important manner while examining whether to grant a loan, but it also confirms the following matters: (a) whether a non-eligible person is eligible for a credit extension, whether an illegal loan is made; and (b) whether an internal or external crime and the possibility of the occurrence of a civil petition is examined (Evidence 3: 1422 pages of evidence).

C. Defendant 1 submitted a forged and falsified a written confirmation of free residence and lease contract during the loan process, and the victim ○ Savings Bank believed that the above documents were genuinely prepared and paid loans. If the victim ○○ Savings Bank knew that a forged document was submitted, this constitutes a serious defect in the procedure, and thus, the loan would not have been implemented. Nonindicted 5 in charge also stated in this court that “If the submitted document was confirmed to be forged, the loan procedure itself will be interrupted by taking into account the moral hazard, etc.” (No. 5 transcript, page 10 page).

D. Ultimately, even if the submission of forged documents did not affect the valuation of the collateral, as alleged by Defendant 1, such act constitutes deception on other evaluation factors that determine the execution of loans, such as procedural completion, the borrower’s morality, etc., and the victim ○○ Savings Bank may be deemed to have disposed of property by mistake.

/ Criminal part 2

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 1’s profit out of KRW 4.2 billion is KRW 1 billion. However, since the market price of the instant building was 6.5 billion or more at the time, Defendant 1 was able to obtain the profit of at least one billion (the amount obtained by deducting the collateral and the deposit money from the sale price) even through normal sale. Accordingly, Defendant 1 did not have any motive to plan the loan fraud in order to obtain the profit of KRW 1 billion.

Defendant 1 has no connection with this part of the loan, but only been used for loan fraud during the process of disposing of the real estate owned by the Defendant.

2. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the deliberation, it is recognized that: (a) Defendant 1 was aware that there was a senior collateral security obligation and a lease deposit obligation exceeding the appraised amount in the building of this case, and thus, was unable to obtain a loan by a normal method; (b) Defendant 3, Defendant 2, and the building of this case; (c) offered the lessee’s personal information, form of lease contract, etc. necessary for forging the lease contract to Defendant 3; and (d) provided a loan by preparing for the buyer’s own share; and therefore, Defendant 1 is deemed to have a functional control over the functional act according to the division of roles in the whole process of committing the crime; thus, Defendant 1 can be deemed as a co-principal of the crime of fraud.

A. Whether the motive for the crime exists

The appraised value of the building of this case is KRW 5,002,684,130 (as of August 14, 2015, KRW 3,203,684,130, and KRW 1,799,000,00, and the market value of the building of this case) (Evidence 1:3,203,684,130, and KRW 2,000) (Evidence 1:3,79,00,000). If the building of this size is built solely on its own capital, it is ordinarily to obtain a loan from a financial institution rather than purchasing the building of this case. Defendant 1 introduced a financial institution while requesting Defendant 3 to sell the building of this case, or asked Defendant 3 about the amount available for the loan of this case (Evidence 2, No. 179/100, Defendant 1 was recognized as the situation where the loan of this case is necessary to sell the building of this case.

However, since the instant building bears a debt equivalent to KRW 5,040,649,822 in excess of the amount of appraisal and assessment, it was practically impossible to obtain a loan as collateral because it did not have the value of collateral. In such a situation, it is recognized that there was a motive to distort the value of collateral by setting the lease deposit as lower than the actual situation.

In addition, Defendant 1, as stated in the crime No. 1 of the facts constituting the crime in this part prior to the loan, submitted by ○ Savings Bank a forged and falsified the actual lease status or other gratuitous residence confirmation form or lease contract, and Defendant 3 also stated to the effect that “Defendant 1, prior to ○ Savings Bank, he could fully deduct the amount of monthly loan received from ○○ Savings Bank from ○○ Savings Bank, so he introduced and changed a person with good income (Evidence No. 3, 1606, Defendant 3’s transcript 13 of the evidence record).”

(b) Public offering relationship;

Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that abnormal loans are implemented based on the purchase price of KRW 6.7 billion, and it is recognized that Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 3 and Defendant 2 to distribute the remaining amount after deducting the senior collateral security obligations, etc. from the loans.

1) As to the purchase price

The loan amount of KRW 4.2 billion was determined on the basis of KRW 6.7 billion (Evidence Nos. 1 and 143 of evidence), and the loan-related documents are written on KRW 5.0 billion (Evidence No. 108, 109 of evidence, the review opinion of KRW 108, 109, and the calculation table of the loan amount of KRW 264 of evidence).

Defendant 3 and Defendant 2 consistently stated to the effect that “Defendant 1 requested that Defendant 1 prepare a package contract of KRW 5 billion as an issue of capital gains tax at the time of requesting a loan of KRW 6.7 billion in the purchase price.” Nonindicted 1 also stated to the effect that “The person in charge of the loan in △△ Savings Bank was heard on the preparation of a package contract directly to Defendant 1, and the person in charge of the loan in charge of the △△△ Savings Bank also made a consistent statement to the effect that “The loan was carried out on the basis of KRW 6.7 billion in the real purchase price, and the transaction was carried out

On the other hand, Defendant 1 argues to the effect that, in addition to a sales contract (Evidence No. 1, No. 485-488 of the evidence record, No. 3 of the evidence No. 1, No. 1318-1329 of the evidence record), all of the sales contracts (Evidence No. 1, No. 94-999 of the evidence record) submitted to △△ Savings Bank were forged by Defendant 3, etc., and thus, Defendant 1 was to receive KRW 1,00,000,000,000,000,000 won, and there was no sale of KRW 6,70,000,000,000.

However, in light of the following circumstances recognized as the result of the hearing, it is judged that the credibility of the statement of Defendant 3, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 1 is high.

A) Defendant 1 submitted to the prosecution an attachment agreement (Evidence 1, 496, 497 pages) based on the fact that the purchase price of the instant building is KRW 5 billion. The attachment agreement provides that Defendant 1 shall pay KRW 63 million to Nonindicted 4 (Defendant 2’s de facto spouse) who is the buyer, based on the premise that the purchase price is KRW 5 billion. However, for the following reasons, it is difficult to view the above content of the attachment agreement as genuine.

(1) On September 2, 2015, around September 15:46, 2015, the details of the transfer of KRW 63 million from the account number 6:3,000,00 from the account (Account Number 5 omitted) of Bilateral Bank (Account Number 6 omitted) in Defendant 1 is confirmed (Evidence 1: 499, Evidence Record 2: Evidence Record 775 pages).

(2) However, at around 16:02 on the same day, the above KRW 63 million was deposited in six cashier’s checks (number 1 to 6 omitted) and three million won cashier’s checks (number 7 omitted), three (4-6 omitted) among six cashier’s checks of KRW 10 million on September 3, 2015, Defendant 1’s bank account (Account Number 8 omitted), and the remaining three (1-3 omitted number 1-3 omitted) were deposited in Bilateral Bank account on September 4, 2015, Defendant 1’s bank account (Account Number 9 omitted); Defendant 1’s cashier’s checks of KRW 3 million were deposited in the relevant bank account (Account Number 9 omitted); and Defendant 275 (Evidence number 75 omitted); and Defendant 275 of the relevant cashier’s checks account account in the relevant name of Defendant 1 on September 21, 2015 (Evidence number 75).

(3) If according to the attachment agreement, the above KRW 63 million should be attributed to Defendant 2 (Nonindicted 4) as the settlement amount. Nevertheless, if the above amount was transferred from Defendant 1’s account to Nonindicted 4’s account, which was immediately deposited in the check and deposited in Defendant 1’s account, shows the possibility of the attachment agreement and the materials created with a specific intention in line with the above (1) financial transaction.

(4) As above, Defendant 1 stated in this Court that “The amount included in KRW 900 million against Defendant 2 or KRW 1 billion.” (No. 7 of Defendant 1’s transcript) is the purport that Defendant 1 was paid the test cost claimed by Defendant 1.

However, the prosecutor made a statement to the effect that “I have remitted KRW 63 million to Non-Indicted 4 in accordance with the attached agreement, and there is no fact that he has received it again” (Evidence No. 696, 947) and that “I have again recovered KRW 63 million remitted to Non-Indicted 4 as a result of the account tracking,” and the prosecutor made a statement to the effect that “I have no consistency in the attached agreement (Evidence No. 3: 1632 of the evidence record)” (Evidence No. 1, 1632 of the record), and it is difficult to accept the above legal statement as it is, in view of the following circumstances: (a) it appears that there is no reason for the prosecution to collect the test cost through a complex process of returning money from Defendant 1’s account to Non-Indicted 4 by sending it back to the check.

B) Defendant 1 knew that multiple sales contracts are prepared from the initial date of the instant loan application, and the circumstances in which the relevant documents were prepared to prepare for them are confirmed.

(1) Defendant 1 asserted that the sales contract submitted to the △△△ Savings Bank was forged at the prosecutor’s office and this court, and Defendant 1 first considered that “A certified judicial scrivener employee or Defendant 2 had a sales contract without any entry therein, around September 2, 2015, on or following the day on which the loan was executed. In the course of loan, he did not have submitted a sales contract to the △△ Savings Bank. Therefore, he considered Defendant 1 to be aware of the fact that the above sales contract was not true. Therefore, in order to specify the difference between the above sales contract and the fact, the portion of the bank loan loan funds that Nonindicted 4 would have to receive is irrelevant to Defendant 1 of the seller, and Defendant 1 of the seller cannot be recognized at the time of the occurrence of the sales contract that did not take the place with the seal imprint at the same time.” In addition, Defendant 1’s first statement to the effect that “The above part of the document directly presented to the prosecutor’s office is evidence No. 1588). 985.

(2) However, Defendant 1’s CD (Evidence No. 1515 page)’s data on analysis of Nowonbuk (Evidence No. 3 books) seized at Defendant 1’s residence had a file of “written confirmation (a certificate of delegation).hwp” written by Defendant 1 to the prosecution, and the last date of correction of the said file is around August 26, 2015: (a) around August 26, 2015. Therefore, the phrase “the foregoing attached document” can be deemed as being added before the loan was executed, and at least before August 26, 2015, the existence of the forged sales contract was first known in the course of settlement after the loan was executed; and (b) it is difficult to believe Defendant 1’s statement that it was added to the attached document is likely to contain a false recording of the contract that deemed Defendant 2 as a sales contract.

(3) In addition, the aforesaid analysis data CD contains a “written confirmation (a certificate of delegation).hwp” file, and its contents are as shown in attached Tables 4 and 8. The aforementioned confirmation document states that Defendant 1 added to the attachment contract to verify the forgery of the sales contract, the part of bank loan to be received by Nonindicted 4 is irrelevant to Defendant 1 of the seller, and that Defendant 1 of the seller cannot be recognized in the contract other than the actual transaction contract. The written confirmation states that “The last correction date of the said file is confirmed to be around 10:45, August 13, 2015, the said written confirmation can be deemed to have been written at least before August 13, 2015.”

On August 13, 2015, the appraisal of the instant building was conducted before the date of the loan. Defendant 1 was well aware of the fact that multiple sales contracts were prepared during the loan process, but it appears that the sales contract, other than the sales contract for reporting actual transactions with the sales amount of KRW 5 billion, was prepared for the purpose of remaining grounds for having no relation to himself/herself.

다) 한편, 피고인 1의 직원 공소외 7이 사용한 다이어리에 “피고인 3 이사 〈△△저축은행 대출용〉 (주소 1 생략) 42억, (주소 2 생략) 25억, 67억 매매계약서, 통합계약서, ※ ♤♤ 감정 〈내일 방문 예정〉”이라는 내용이 기재되어 있고, 그 작성일자는 대출 신청 이후인 2015. 8. 13.으로 주9) 추정된다 (증거기록 2권 1028면). 앞서 인정한 여러 사정에 비추어 보면, 위 메모 역시 피고인 1이 대출과정에서 67억 원 매매계약서가 제출된다는 점을 알고 있었다는 근거로 보는 데 무리가 없다.

2) Recognition of abnormal loan implementation

As seen earlier, it is difficult to execute a loan as security because there is an obligation exceeding the appraised amount. Nevertheless, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 3 for a sale and purchase request and received a loan under the actual transaction balance may serve as the basis for having known that an abnormal loan was executed by itself. Defendant 1 asserted that Defendant 2 believed that Defendant 2 would offer another building under his/her ownership as a joint collateral, but it is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A) Of the attached Form 4 written by Defendant 1 prior to August 13, 2015, the part of the bank right loan that Defendant 1 wishes to receive by Nonindicted 4 is the portion irrelevant to Defendant 1 of the seller and need to pay attention to the part of the “non-party 1........ In the event of a normal loan by using joint security, there is no reason to prepare a written confirmation that “the loan is not related to himself/herself” at the beginning of the application for the loan. Rather, it is natural to deem that Defendant 1 prepared a written confirmation in advance with a view to providing a basis to deny the relationship with the loan even though he/she is aware that the loan was made.

나) 또한 피고인 2 휴대전화 분석 결과 CD(증거기록 3권 1554면)에 의하면, 피고인 1은 2015. 10. 7. 11:36경 직원 공소외 7 휴대전화(전화번호 4 생략)으로 피고인 2에게“저도 법원 경찰에 알아봤더니 법정에서 다 같이 만나면 난 건물 돌려받고, ★사장(피고인 3) 사문서위조로 징역살고, ♥사장님(피고인 2)은 6억 오바대출 받은 것만큼 못 갚으시면 돈만큼 징역산다구 하더이다~ …”라는 내용의 문자메시지를 발송한 사실이 확인된다. 이는 피고인 2와의 다툼 과정에서 발송된 것으로 내용 자체로 피고인 1이 이 부분 대출의 위법성을 인식하고 있었다고 볼 수 있는 주10) 자료이다.

On September 3, 2015, Defendant 1’s defense counsel knew of the forgery of the 6.7 billion won fake sales contract that Defendant 2 presented in the course of settling the price for the settlement of the goods at home, and thought that there is a problem in the loans from that time. Thus, Defendant 2 sent the text message to the effect that Defendant 2 should be responsible for excess loans (as above, 6 pages) (as of October 14, 2016). However, the premise for the above assertion cannot be accepted is as examined in the above 19-20 pages (as of the written judgment) (as of the foregoing 19-20 pages).

C) After recognizing that there was a problem with loans around March 29, 2016, Nonindicted Party 1 sent a text message to the effect that, on March 30, 2016, at around 12:36, Nonindicted Party 1: (a) confirmed the fact that there was a problem with the loans; and (b) on March 30, 2016, Nonindicted Party 1 sent a text message to the effect that, “The receipt of KRW 2.3 billion is an issue in spite of the absence of the money to receive the lease deposit and the senior loans,” (Evidence 1, No. 611, No. 611 of the evidence record). If Nonindicted Party 1 was a normal loan by means of joint security as alleged by Defendant 1, it is a natural response to Nonindicted Party 1’s assertion with the same content. However, Defendant

3) As to distribution of loans

A) Defendant 3 consistently stated to the effect that “Defendant 1 paid KRW 200 million out of the loans as brokerage commission, and offered that the buyer would pay the price of KRW 600 million to the buyer, but was not paid the price that was promised in the loan procedure immediately before the loan was executed.”

B) Defendant 2 also consistently stated to the effect that “Defendant 1 received a proposal from Defendant 1 to pay KRW 600 million out of the loan, and received KRW 285 million after deducting various expenses out of the actual loan.” Of the loan, Defendant 2’s final deposit of KRW 285 million is confirmed in Bright Bank account (Account Number 5 omitted) in the name of Nonindicted 4 (Evidence Record 1: 276 pages, Evidence Record 2: evidence record 75 pages 75).

C) On September 3, 2015, the recording recording of the files in which Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 recorded conversations around September 3, 2015 (Evidence Nos. 111, 3, 1595-159 of the Evidence No. 1599 of the said recording) appeared as follows.

피고인 1 : 아, 근데 ★ 사장님하고는 어떻게 했냐면은 무조건 뭐 사장님이 6억을 얘기하시더라고.

Defendant 2: 600 million won?

Defendant 1: Hel. He celebly calculated the thickness of 60 million in a fluent farity, and he mared the farity of this direction. The president is more complicated from 600 million to 600 million, he must do so after deducting the President from 600 million to 600 million, from 100 to 100 to 600 to 100,000 to 60 to 60 times.

(b)

피고인 1 : 아이, 그거는 모르겠어요. 저는 무조건 사장님하고 나하고는, 그니까 그렇게 자꾸 하면 안 돼. 50억 외에서는 더 이상 그걸 논하면 안 되고 사장님 6억이잖아요. 6억 그거 외에는 얘기하면, 6억에서 그거 하는 거 계산을 하셔야지. 나머지 이제는 거기에 뭐 한 조금 남는 금액은 ★ 사장님하고 이제 계산하기로 했던 부분이었는데 ★ 사장님이 손을 뗐기 때문에 저는 더 이상 그거는 사장님이 저, 저한테 자꾸 얘기를 하시면 안 되지. 사장님은 6억에서만 계산을 하셔야지.

Considering the possibility of the transfer of liability among accomplices, even if it is difficult to accept Defendant 3 and Defendant 2’s statement that “Defendant 1 actively promised to pay the price,” it can be sufficiently recognized that at least there was an agreement among the Defendants to distribute loans, in light of the content of the above record.

(c) Recognition of and participation in forgery or use of a lease contract;

In light of the following circumstances recognized as the result of the hearing, Defendant 1 is recognized to have provided Defendant 3 with necessary data on the lease agreement in order to disguise the current status of lease deposit.

1) Defendant 3 consistently stated from the investigative agency to this court that “Nonindicted 1 requested to submit a lease contract of the building of this case, Defendant 1’s submission of the form of lease contract from Defendant 1 to the main day, other lease status, lessee’s personal information, Defendant 1’s seal, etc., was delivered to Kwikset service, and submitted to Nonindicted 1 by forging the lease contract through Nonindicted 12, etc., around August 19, 2015.”

2) On the other hand, Defendant 1 asserts that, although Nonindicted 7 provided Defendant 3 with the form file of the lease contract and the current status of the lease, Defendant 1 provided it in the process of requesting the sale of the building of this case regardless of the forgery of the lease contract, and that he did not send the documents stating the lessee’s personal information to Kwikset

3) Chapter 27 of the lease contract (Evidence No. 1:67-93 of the evidence record) that Defendant 3 forged and submitted to the △△ Savings Bank entered the resident registration number of the lessee of the instant building. This is the same as the resident registration number stated in the actual lease contract (Evidence No. 1:37-6 of the evidence record). Unlike the address, if Defendant 1, who is the lessor, was not provided, the lessee’s resident registration number is not known as Defendant 3, and Defendant 3’s credibility is added to Defendant 3’s statement that “Defendant 1 received materials necessary for this Article from Defendant 1, as Kwikset service.” In addition, it is difficult to view that the lease model file was sent around August 18, 2015, which was sent around August 18, 2015 (Evidence No. 23124 of the evidence record).

However, if Defendant 3 received the original or copy of the lease contract before forgery, it may be deemed that Defendant 1 forged the lease contract regardless of Defendant 1. However, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 3 at the time of the provisional contract to provide the copy of the lease contract on August 3, 2015, “Although there was a fact that Defendant 3 provided 18 copies of the lease contract on the second Dol Dol Dol Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don, it was not provided due to a change in the first Dol Don Don Don Don Don.” (Evidence record 2:635,636 pages) and this court stated that “The original 27 Chapter 27 was transferred on September 3, 2015, after the execution of the loan, and that Defendant 1 did not accurately explain Defendant 1’s resident registration number on the first Don 16th Don Don 1.

4) 공소외 1은 2015. 8. 19.경 피고인 3으로부터 임대차계약서를 제출받은 다음, 2015. 8. 21.경 피고인 1에게 월세가 지급되는 통장내역 사진을 요구하였다. 이에 대하여 피고인 1은 “월세가 밀리면 목돈으로 부칠 때도 있습니다.”, “월세 통장입니다”, “정확한 금액은 안 들어올 때가 많고 되는대로 부칠 때가 많습니다. 그래도 한 달 안에는 다들 관리비까지 잘 부치곤 한답니다.”는 내용과 함께 본인 명의 ●●은행, ▲▲은행 계좌 거래내역을 첨부한 문자메시지를 발송하였다(증거기록 1권 579~589면).

당시 이 사건 건물 27채 중 월세 거주자는 단 4채에 불과함에도 ‘월세 통장’이라는 내용의 문자를 보낸 점, 이 사건 건물과는 전혀 관계가 없는 ▲▲은행 계좌의 거래내역 사진을 첨부한 점[이 사건 건물의 실제 임대차계약서(증거기록 1권 37~66면)에 는 월세 및 관리비 입금계좌가 모두 ●●은행 계좌로 기재되어 있다], 월세 금액이 정확하지 않을 수 있다는 내용의 문자를 반복하여 발송한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 위조된 임대차계약서 내용과 같이 이 사건 건물에 월세 임차인이 다수 거주하고 있는 것처럼 가장하기 위한 목적으로 위와 같은 문자메시지를 발송하였다고 볼 수 있다.

D. Defendant 1’s role in the course of loan implementation

1) Facts of recognition

A) The subject matter of the loan is to be loaned by the buyer as a security to the seller in the form of the balance in which the buyer would pay the remainder of the subject matter of the loan to the seller. Therefore, KRW 2,776,763,590 (the details of the loan are the same as the statement of expenses on the face of 143 pages) plus the commission and other expenses shall be prepared by the buyer. However, since the subject matter of the loan was arranged in the document at KRW 5 billion, the above KRW 2,776,763,590, after deducting the purchase price from KRW 6.7 billion from KRW 6.7 billion, KRW 1,76,763,590 from KRW 2,76,763,590 from KRW 2,76,590 from KRW 6.7 billion from the purchase price to the seller, and the remaining KRW 1.77 billion from the buyer's direct payment to the seller can be verified.

B) On August 28, 2015, when the first scheduled date of the sale and purchase prohibition rate, Defendant 3 was expected to implement loans, but it was not carried out because Defendant 3 did not communicate (No. 28,29 pages 1). Since then, the loan schedule was extended on August 31, 2015, but the loan schedule was also extended on that date, but the loan was also executed upon Defendant 3’s contact two pages (No. 29,30 pages 1, No. 29, No. 728 of the evidence record, No. 728 of the evidence record, No. 297-802 of the evidence record, No. 1 and Defendant 3).

C) On September 1, 2015, around 14:57, around 14:58, Nonindicted Party 1 sent a text message requesting Defendant 2 to prepare for his/her own charges (Evidence 2’s cell phone analysis result) and around 15:28 on September 1, 2015, Nonindicted Party 1 sent the same text message to Defendant 1 (Evidence 2:34 pages).

라) 사채업자 공소외 3은 공소외 2로부터 대출을 위한 선말소 용도의 자금을 빌려달라는 부탁을 받고, 2015. 9. 2.경 피고인 1, 피고인 2, 공소외 4, 공소외 2, 사채업자 일명 ▼여사와 함께 △△저축은행 사무실을 방문하였다. 공소외 3은 그 자리에서 대출 실행 여부를 확인한 뒤, △△저축은행 예치금계좌(계좌번호 1 생략)에 10억 7,700만 원을 입금하고(증거기록 1권 274면, 증거기록 2권 775면), 약 13억 원 상당의 자기앞수표를 확인시켜주기 위해 공소외 1에게 교부하였다. 공소외 1은 위 자기앞수표를 촬영한 뒤(증거기록 1권 178면), 공소외 3에게 반환하였다.

(ii) review;

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the examination together with the above facts, Defendant 1 is recognized as having been able to implement this part of the loan by preparing for the buyer’s own share through Nonindicted 3 through the bond business operator introduced by Defendant 2.

A) Statement of relevant persons

(1) In this court, Defendant 3 made a statement to the effect that “I would prepare to explain to Defendant 1 the self-paid amount, but I would like to inform Defendant 1 of the corporate office that I would not know, and asked to change the name. During that process, I discussed whether Defendant 1 and the corporate interest are to be borne by Defendant 1, and thus, I would like to be omitted from the loan.” (No. 44-47 pages of Defendant 3’s transcript).

(2) Defendant 2 stated in this court that “Around September 1, 2015, Defendant 3 did not bring money to Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 did not dispute. After that, Defendant 1 was affiliated to Nonindicted 2, and Defendant 1 was contacted with Nonindicted 2, and Defendant 1 borrowed money to the effect that “A loan was concluded in the name of Nonindicted 4, the nominal owner of the building: Provided, That the loan agreement was concluded in the name of Nonindicted 4, the nominal owner of the building.” (Defendant 5-7 page on September 28, 2016).

(3) 공소외 2도 이 법정에서 “2015. 9. 1.경 평소 알고 지내던 피고인 2와 건물의 매도인이라는 여자(피고인 1)를 만나 대출에 필요한 자금을 빌려달라는 부탁을 받았는데, 당시 변제 및 사채이자는 매도인이 책임지겠다고 하였다. 그래서 사채업자 공소외 3과 ▼여사를 소개시켜 주었다.”는 취지로 진술하였다(공소외 2 녹취록 3, 4면).

(4) 공소외 3 역시 이 법정에서 “2015. 9. 2.경 피고인 1이 공소외 2, 이름을 알 수 없는 여성(공소외 4)과 함께 찾아와 자신의 건물을 파는 데 필요한 돈을 빌려달라고 하였다. △△저축은행에 동행하여 직원이 지정하는 계좌에 10억 7,700만 원을 입금하였고, 별도로 준비한 자기앞수표는 직원에게 보여주고 나서 곧바로 돌려받았다. 대출금이 나오고 나서 피고인 1, 피고인 2 등과 함께 교대역 근처 ♠♠은행으로 이동하여 10억 7,700만 원을 변제받았는데, 피고인 1이 입·출금 과정을 주도하였다.”는 취지로 진술하였다(공소외 3 녹취록 1~3면, 8, 9면).

(5) The above statements made by Defendant 3, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 3 are consistent with their contents in an important part, and are not found to have any other circumstances to suspect the contents of the statements. In particular, in the case of Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3 is in an objective position without any relationship with the Defendants, and the credibility of the statements is high in light of the attitude of testimony in the court.

B) Other circumstances

(1) On August 30, 2015, Defendant 1 sent a text message to Defendant 3 on August 13:03, 2015, which read, “I am Doctrine to resolve before the closure of the Bank from August 31, 2015,” and at around 13:06 on the same day, Defendant 1 sent a text message stating, “I am Doctrine, I am Doctrine, I am Doctrine, and I am Doctrine, I am Doctrine” (Evidence 2: 1080, 1081 of the evidence record). This can be viewed as having the effect that Defendant 1 prepared his own expense through the bond company to conclude the extended loan on August 31, 2015, and is consistent with Defendant 3’s statement related thereto.

(2) 2015. 9. 2. 12:27경 대출금 42억 원 중 선순위 근저당채무 등을 공제한 2,322,350,178원이 매매잔금 명목으로 피고인 1 명의 ♠♠은행 계좌(계좌번호 4 생략)에 입금되었다(증거기록 1권 274, 519면, 증거기록 2권 775면). 피고인 1은 위 2,322,350,178원이 입금된 직후인 2015. 9. 2. 12:52경 ♠♠은행 교대역지점에서 출금전표를 직접 작성하여(증거기록 1권 524면) 공소외 3 명의 ◀◀◀◀증권 계좌(계좌번호 2 생략)로 10억 7,700만 원을 이체하였다.

이에 대하여 피고인 1은 전표에 이름과 계좌번호를 기재한 사실은 있으나, 당시 은행 업무는 매수인 측이 알아서 진행했으므로 그 의미를 전혀 몰랐다고 주장한다. 그러나 피고인 1의 과거 금융거래 경험, 당시 ♠♠은행에 방문하게 된 경위, 위 공소외 3의 법정 진술 등에 비추어 보면, 공소외 3으로부터 빌린 매수인 자기부담금 명목의 대여금을 변제하는 의미로 10억 7,700만 원을 이체하였다고 볼 수 있다.

1. The scope of punishment;

From 3 to 45 years of imprisonment

2. Scope of recommendations;

A. Defendant 1

【Determination of Punishment】 Determination of Type 4 of General Fraud> (The amount of profit shall be added to the amount of profit according to the method of processing the same concurrent crimes, and the amount of profit according to the method of processing the same concurrent crimes)

[Special Sentencing] Where the Act on the Acceptance of Crimes is very poor (the crime concerning documents shall not be treated as a majority crime, and it shall be considered as an aggravated sentencing factor)

[Scope of Recommendation] 6 years to 9 years (Aggravation)

B. Defendants 2 and 3

【Determination of Punishment】 Determination of Type 3 of the General Fraud Group ‘(20 million won or more, less than five billion won, and the amount of profit calculated by summing up the amount of profit according to the method of dealing with the same concurrent crimes)

[Special Sentencing] Where the Act on the Acceptance of Crimes is very poor (the crime concerning documents shall not be treated as a majority crime, and it shall be considered as an aggravated sentencing factor)

[Scope of Recommendation] Four to Seven years (Aggravated Zone)

3. Determination of sentence: Defendant 17 years, Defendant 24 years and Defendant 3 years.

A. Common reasons for sentencing

이 사건 각 사기범행은 금융기관에 대출을 신청하면서 관련 서류를 위조하여 제출함으로써 담보물의 가치나 절차적 완결성 등 대출 실행 여부를 결정하는 요소에 대한 평가를 그르치게 한 것으로, 범행수법이 지능적·전문적이어서 죄질이 무겁다. 피해자 △△저축은행, ◁◁저축은행에 대한 사기 범행의 경우 위 은행들이 이 사건 건물의 수익권을 보유하고 있어 일부 피해를 전보받을 수 있는 것 외에 따로 피해회복이 이루어지지 아니하였다.

B. Individual grounds for sentencing

1) Defendant 1

[불리한 정상] 편취금액이 합계 72억 원으로 대단히 큰 금액이다. 피해자 △△저축은행, ◁◁저축은행에 대한 대출금 중 약 10억 원을 취득하였다. 이 사건 건물의 임대인이자 매도인으로서 범행 과정에서 임대차계약서 위조에 필요한 자료를 제공하거나, 대출 실행을 위한 매수인 자기부담금을 준비하는 등 중요한 역할을 수행하였다. 범행을 반성하는 태도를 전혀 보이지 않고 있다.

[Free circumstances] In the case of fraud against the victim ○ Savings Bank, it is recognized that there is no substantial damage due to the repayment of the loan at least two months after the loan was executed. This is nothing more than a sentence imposed on a fine of KRW 300,000 as a result of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on May 29, 190.

2) Defendant 2

[불리한 정상] 편취금액이 합계 42억 원으로 큰 금액이다. 피해자 △△저축은행, ◁◁저축은행에 대한 대출금 중 2억 8,500만 원을 취득하였다. 2007. 10. 17. 사기죄 등으로 징역 2년 6월의 실형을 선고받은 동종전력이 존재한다.

[Free circumstances] Defendant 3’s introduction recognizes the fact that he participated in the crime. Nonindicted 4, the de facto spouse, as the purchaser of the instant building, was the nominal owner of the loan, and Nonindicted 4, the de facto spouse, was the nominal owner of the loan. In addition to the provision of his own child to be entered in the forged lease agreement and his telephone number, it is recognized that there was no active action for the crime.

3) Defendant 3

The amount of fraud is a total of KRW 4.2 billion. The victim △△ Savings Bank's staff member in contact with Nonindicted 1, led the process of lending, and directly participated in the forgery of the lease contract, etc. In addition, there are five years of imprisonment with prison labor due to the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on December 5, 2000, five years of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud on August 13, 2007, and two years of suspended execution. Furthermore, the above criminal records are all crimes related to the loan of financial institutions as in this case. Considering the above, Defendant 3's liability is not less than that of the foregoing.

However, taking into account the fact that he/she participated in the crime, taking into account the fact that he/she is not a direct lending party, there is no profit from the loan, the fact that he/she deserts from the crime with Defendant 1 before the loan is implemented, the fact that the scope of the punishment is not less than three years, a punishment lower than the scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing guidelines is imposed.

In addition, all elements of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as per the order, comprehensively taking into account.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-won Kim Siwon

(1) The facts charged are that the lessee submitted a certificate of free residence under the name of Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 18, and Nonindicted 16. However, the nominal owner of the certificate of free residence is Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 21 (Evidence Nos. 3398-1405).

2) Part of the facts charged was revised to the extent that the Defendants’ exercise of the right of defense was not hindered.

3) Of the loans of KRW 3 billion, KRW 2 billion was a secured loan secured by the first L/C Y, the remainder of KRW 1 billion was implemented as a general credit loan (Evidence Record 3: 1414, page 1414).

4) The sum of the lease deposit’s total amount of KRW 2.370 million (i.e., KRW 1.175 million in the first △△△△△ 2,677,649,822 in the aggregate of the senior collateral security obligations (i.e., KRW 1188,00,000 in the second △△△△△) plus the amount of KRW 2,677,649,82 in the aggregate of the senior collateral security obligations (i.e., KRW 1,967,094,72 in the first △△△△△ KRW 1,967,094,72 in the second △△△△△△△△△△△ 710,55,100, September 2, 201

Note 5) The recording book of a file recording a conversation between Defendant 2 and the date and time of the conversation is September 3, 2015.

Note 6) 1 Doz. Doz. 1 Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz., Doz., Do., Do., Do.,

Note 7) 1 Doz. 1 Doz. (name 1 omitted) documents Doz. (name 1 omitted) Doz.) 1 Doz. Doz. (a certificate of delegation).hwp

Note 8) A written confirmation of Attached Form 4 is similar to the previous part (other than paragraphs 1 through 3) of the Attached Form 3 attached hereto, and the file name of the attached contract and the file name of the attached document are identical. The above written confirmation is prepared first, and it appears that the details of the settlement of purchase price were added.

주9) ♤♤ 감정평가법인의 현장실사일은 2015. 8. 14.이므로(증거기록 1권 217면), ♤♤감정 ‘내일 방문 예정’이라고 기재된 내용에 비추어 위 메모의 작성일자는 2015. 8. 13.으로 볼 수 있다.

(10) Defendant 2 asserted that “after the instant crime was committed, there was a dispute on the grounds of the payment of the price for Defendant 1 and Defendant 1’s loan sexual intercourse, the settlement of the office of the first floor restaurant, etc., and at that time, Defendant 2 sent the above text message to the effect that “I would be held liable when the owner of the fluor real estate was found to be aware of the instant crime and later, he would be held liable for the occurrence of the instant crime. I would be able to do so first. I did not err by the fluor himself, and if Defendant 2 would be punished by Defendant 3 and Defendant 20,000 if he would be punished by the width of the instant crime, I sent the above text message (Defendant 2’s summary of the pleadings and page 17).”

Note 11) Seized Defendant 1’s restoration from the USB of the seized Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 prepared a record of a file recording the same conversation as a record of recording (No. 132 evidence records No. 132, No. 986-988) submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office. However, there is no content deleted differently from the record of recording submitted by Defendant 1, and there is no record of the conversation.

Note 12) Although Nonindicted 3 made a somewhat unclear statement as to whether Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 4 entered the corporate office, it mainly explained the reasons why Defendant 1 borrowed funds, and the contents that Defendant 1 led to the process of entering and withdrawing funds are consistent.

13) As alleged in Defendant 1, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 2 made a false testimony for the purpose of undermining Defendant 1 on the grounds that the details of telephone conversations with Defendant 2 are confirmed at the time of Nonindicted 2’s investigation by the prosecution, as alleged in Defendant 1.