2013Gohap1430, 2014Gohap176(combined)

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

(b) Fraud;

1.(a) A

2.(a) B

Lee Jong-dae, Kim Young-tae (Public Prosecution), and Lee this at a public trial

Attorney C (for the defendant A)

Attorney D (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

2014, 6.17

The punishment against Defendant A shall be seven years of imprisonment and six years of imprisonment, respectively.

Criminal facts

1430

Defendant B was a person who was working for the chairperson of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) established for the purpose of housing construction (execution) business from January 1, 2002 to September 23, 2003 as the date of departure from Ghana. Defendant A was a person who was working for the president of E from January 8, 200 to June 13, 200, and the Defendants were the vice president from July 12, 2002 to the date of departure from Ghana, and operated E by dividing the “F” into the vice president or vice president from July 12, 2002.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Victims G;

On October 9, 2002, Defendants and F told the victim to sell the apartment in the five-story office of the H building in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “E wishes to sell the apartment in the first unit of the Haak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Haak-gu I to sell the apartment in the amount of KRW 33 square meters much higher than the surrounding market price.”

However, in fact, Defendants and F did not have been granted the right to sell the apartment, but did not purchase the land necessary for the new apartment construction project, and did not have obtained approval from the competent authorities, and there was no reason to obtain approval from the competent authorities. Since there was a need for funds to continue to return the existing debt amount borrowed to use for the land purchase fund and the company operation fund, even if they received the sale price from the victim G, there was no intention or ability to sell the apartment, even if they did not receive the sale price.

The Defendants and F, immediately from the victim, received KRW 210,000,000 as apartment sale price, and around October 28, 2002, received KRW 2220,000,000 from the victim, and received KRW 80,000,000 in total, around November 6, 2002.

Accordingly, the Defendants received property by deceiving the victim in collusion with F.

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against victims J, G and K, and victims L;

On March 20, 2003, the Defendants and F issued the BP apartment sales contract form to the victim J at E office, stating that “E is in the process of implementing the construction of the BP apartment on the land outside the land outside the land outside the Han-gu, Young-gu, the company's funds are required, so if the company's funds are leased KRW 130 million, it will offer the BP apartment sales contract form as security and the interest will be paid in total as much as the apartment project approval is completed.”

However, the Defendants and F had no intention or ability to repay money even if they borrowed money from the victim J because they were faced with the circumstances such as Section 1-A.

Defendants and F received from the victim J immediately a total of KRW 130,000,000 from June 23, 2003 in the same manner as the list of crimes (1) in the attached Form No. 1 in the same manner as the list of crimes (1), from the victims listed in the attached Form No. 970,000,000 in the name of the borrowed money.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with F and received property by deceiving the victims stated in the attached list of crimes (1).

(c) Fraud against the victim M;

On May 2, 2003, Defendants and F stated that “The victim, in the case of E-False, shall be paid KRW 60 million the right to operate the apartment construction brine, which is enforced in the Gluri-gu Ilil-gu Glung-gu Ilil-gu in E.”

However, in fact, Defendants and F did not have any intention or ability to grant the right to operate the restaurant at the site of apartment construction even if they received the payment from the victim, because they did not have the right to operate the restaurant at N corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “N”) but did not have obtained the approval of the business plan from the competent authorities. Since there was a need for funds for the purpose of continuing to return the existing debt to be borrowed for the purpose of using the land purchase fund and the company's operation fund without any capital, there was no intention or ability to grant the right to operate the restaurant at the site of apartment construction even if they received the payment from the victim.

Defendants and F received KRW 5 million in total at the same place on August 11, 2003 and received KRW 55 million in total at the same place on August 11, 2003.

Accordingly, the Defendants received property by deceiving the victim in collusion with F.

(d) Fraud of the victim;

On August 28, 2003, Defendants and F stated that “The owner of the land is paying compensation to the owner of the land in order to newly build and sell an apartment and commercial building in the Ieung-gu Ieung-gu, Young-si, and the apartment is sold in lots without a molding framework three months after the date of the sale. It would sell the whole commercial building in the apartment complex for KRW 900 million.”

However, in fact, the Defendants and F entered into a contract for the apartment construction project with N, but did not complete the purchase of the site necessary for the apartment construction project, and did not have obtained approval from the competent authorities. The Defendants and F did not have any intent or ability to sell apartment commercial buildings even if they receive the price from the victims because they did not have any intent or ability to sell the apartment commercial buildings even if they receive the price from the victims, because there was a need for funds to continue to return the existing debt funds borrowed to use as the purchase fund of the site and the company operation funds, etc. without any capital.

The Defendants and F received 300 million won as the down payment for apartment commercial buildings from the victim immediately.

Accordingly, the Defendants received property by deceiving the victim in collusion with F.

(e) A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

On August 28, 2003, Defendants and F stated that “The purchase of land is being carried out in the 1st unit of the Sink-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E Office, and the purchase of land is completed and the permission of the competent official name is made within 4 months, so the size of the commercial building in the apartment complex will bring profit to the number of households after purchasing and selling it into the 2nd floor building. The entire commercial building in the apartment complex will be sold to KRW 1.6888,00,000,000.”

However, as the Defendants and F entered into a contract for the building of apartment buildings on the same day as the preceding paragraph, even if they receive the price from the victim, they did not have the intention or ability to sell apartment buildings.

The Defendants and F, immediately from the victim, receive KRW 200 million as the down payment for apartment commercial buildings, KRW 400 million as the part payment around September 1, 2003, KRW 300 million as the part payment around September 10, 2003, KRW 100 million as the part payment around September 24, 2009.

Accordingly, the Defendants received property by deceiving the victim in collusion with F.

2. Defendant A

A. Fraud against the victim Qua

Around September 30, 2003, the defendant and F stated that "Around September 30, 2003, the victim's husband R will pay off the amount calculated at the rate of 10% per month if the victim's husband R newly constructed an apartment as N in the Han-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, the land is urgently needed, and if it is leased KRW 100 million, it is urgently needed to live into the land, and if it is not possible to grant the right to sell it, it will be paid with interest calculated at the rate of 10% per month."

However, the defendant and F had no intention or ability to sell in lots, even if they borrowed money from the victim, because they were faced with the situation such as Section 1-d. (1).

The Defendant and F received KRW 100,000 from the victim immediately.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim in collusion with F.

B. Fraud against the victims listed in the attached list of crimes (2) such as victims S, etc.

Around March 10, 2004, the Defendant and F stated that “Around March 10, 2004, the Defendant and F would sell an apartment at a price much higher than the surrounding apartment sale price if the company’s financial conditions are difficult to sell the apartment between the time and the payment is made in lump sum, as the company’s financing conditions are difficult to sell the apartment between the time and the time is paid.” If the sale of the apartment becomes known,

However, in fact, the defendant and F had no intention or ability to sell apartment because they were faced with the situation such as Section 1-d. 1.

The defendant and F received from the victim S immediately a total of KRW 1630 million in the name of apartment sale price from the victim S, and from that time, from June 8, 2005, the defendant and F received from the victims in the attached list of crimes (2) in the same manner as shown in the attached list of crimes (2) in the same manner, from June 8, 2005, a total of KRW 1.63 billion in the name of apartment sale price.

Accordingly, the defendant was provided property by deceiving the victims stated in the attached list of crimes (2) in collusion with F.

C. Each fraud against the victim T, G, U, and V

Around July 17, 2004, the defendant and F stated that "The defendant and F will give the victim T the right to sell the above apartment as a security deposit to purchase a site of approximately 16,000 square meters which is approximately 16,00 square meters out of 1,00 square meters and enter into a construction contract with N Co., Ltd. and execute the construction of W apartment 550 households."

However, as the defendant and F did not have been delegated with the right to sell apartment units from N, even if they did not have the right to sell apartment units to others, they did not have the intent or ability to allow the victim to sell apartment units, even if they did not have the right to sell apartment units.

Defendant and F received KRW 200,000 from the victim T immediately, as the right to sell apartment units, from the time to June 1, 2005, the sum of KRW 550,000,000 as the right to sell apartment units in the same manner as the list of crimes (3) in the attached Form No. 4 times from the victim T, from June 1, 2005.

Accordingly, the defendant was provided property by deceiving the victims stated in the attached list of crimes (3) in collusion with F.

(d) Fraud against victim X and Y;

Around July 19, 2004, the Defendant and F stated that “The victims would sell 300 square meters, including 150 square meters, 150 square meters, 150 square meters, 150 square meters, and 150 square meters, to the victims at the E office, the second apartment complex of the two housing association, which is newly constructed in the Han-gu Ilung-gu Il-gu Il-gu, and would allow them to sell commercial buildings until October 30, 2004.”

However, in fact, the defendant and F merely entered into a contract for the NN and apartment execution project and did not have obtained the approval of the project plan from the competent authority. On April 14, 2004, the defendant and F applied for the approval of the project plan with the design drawings attached to the design drawings except the commercial buildings which were first installed in the Gamto-si viewing around April 14, 2004, and there was no intention or ability to sell apartment commercial buildings to the victims because there was a need for funds for the purpose of continuing to return the existing debt amount up to a hundred

The defendant and F received 300 million won as the down payment for apartment commercial buildings from the victims immediately.

Accordingly, the defendant was provided property by deceiving victims in collusion with F.

(e) Fraud against the victim AA;

Around October 17, 2004, the Defendant and F stated that “E and AB jointly proceed with the apartment project in the AC at Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and that “E and AB will have the right to operate the 200 million won in the State.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant and F did not receive money from the victim due to the lack of funds, the defendant and F did not have the intent or ability to grant the right to operate the Hab restaurant even though they did not receive money from the victim, the defendant and F were transferred from the victim the sum of KRW 80 million, including KRW 10 million around October 21, 2004, KRW 30 million around December 1, 2004, KRW 30 million around December 13, 2004, and KRW 40 million around January 13, 2005.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim in collusion with F.

2014 Gohap176

3. Defendant B

On May 4, 2004, the defendant called "I will pay the 10 times the amount of profit from the investment to the victimJ" by phoneing the victimJ on May 4, 2004.

However, while the Defendant was running a multimond business in Ghana on October 2003, the Defendant suffered not only 50 million won but also the multimond business from Ghana, but also did not properly proceed. As such, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the principal of investment or its profit to the victim even if he received money from the victim J as the investment fund in relation to the multimond business.

On May 13, 2004, the Defendant received a total of 650,103,715 won from the victim, including transfer of KRW 25 million from the Defendant to the national bank account in the name of the mother AD, from that time until March 25, 2005, as shown in the list of crimes (4).

Summary of Evidence

[No. 1]

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused A and F by the prosecution;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant A and F;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning G, AE, AF,O, and P;

1. Statement by the police against J and M;

1. Investigation report (to hear the statements of the E employee AG) and investigation report (to report telephone conversations with the K of Victims);

1. Copies of the protocol of examination of each witness to the Seoul Central District Court 2010Gohap435, 800 (Joint) G, L and J;

1. Registration of bonds and application form for admission to a bond group, receipts, etc., commercial building sales contract, deposit slip, receipts, payment without passbook, authentic notes, promissory notes, written decisions, and certified copy of the register;

【Paragraph 2 of this Article】

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of accused A and F by the prosecution;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant A and F;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of AH;

1. Each prosecutor's statement about AI, AJ, K, AL, G, AM, T, and Y;

1. Each police statement on Qu, N,O, U, V, AP, AH, AA, and Q;

1. AR's statement;

1. Each complaint filed by Qu, N, AR, and AO;

1. Investigation report (to hear the statements of the E employee AG);

1. A copy of the examination record of the witness examination of Q in Seoul Central District Court case 2009Da6063, 8535 (Merger), a copy of each police protocol of the suspect examination of AS, and a copy of the police protocol of the J police protocol;

1. A copy of a loan certificate, each contract for sale in lots, cashier's checks, copies of passbooks, promissory notes, promissory notes, notarial deeds, supply contract, etc., each sales agency contract, each deposit passbook, receipts, sales contract, cashier's checks, cashier's checks, certificates, copies of receipt, etc., copy of a check of request for non-disclosure transaction, copy of the check of request for non-disclosure transaction, copy of passbook, copy of passbook of passbook for national bank, copy of receipt, each foreign exchange account, copy of passbook for each period of receipt, and copy of passbook for Japanese bank;

【Paragraph 3 of this Article】

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. AS a copy of the second police interrogation protocol;

1. AT. Copy of each police statement made to J;

1. Copies of receipts, such as receipts, copies of a list of crimes, copies of the inquiry sheet requesting unaccompanied details of transactions, copies of transactions by period of receipt, copies of bankbooks, copies of foreign exchange account statements, copies of bankbooks, agricultural cooperatives copies, copies of bankbooks, copies of bankbooks, copies of bankbooks, reference documents, and

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including fraud of KRW 510 million against Victim G, fraud against Victim L, and fraud against Victim P, each of them is selected for a limited term: Provided, That the upper limit of a limited term is governed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259 of April 15, 2010), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, each of them is fraudulent, and the choice of imprisonment (including fraud against Victim A))

B. Defendant B: Each of the following facts: Fraud of KRW 580,00 for the victim G, fraud of KRW 10,000 for the victim L, fraud of the victim L, fraud of the victim P, and fraud of KRW 650,103,715 for the victim J, respectively, and the choice of a limited imprisonment by comprehensively taking account of the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010); the upper limit of the punishment is governed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act; Articles 347(1) and 30 (B money fraud; choice of imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) shall

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and Defense Counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

① All of the crimes described in Paragraph 1 of the judgment were committed by Defendant B and F, and all of the crimes described in Paragraph 2 of the judgment were committed by F solely by the Defendant F. In particular, the contract with the Victim AR was concluded on June 17, 2005, which was after the departure of Defendant A, and thus, Defendant A did not have committed each of the crimes in this case, and the statute of limitations has expired.

2. Determination as to the part concerning the assertion (1)

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts may be acknowledged:

1) At around 202, the Defendants and F, together, purchased E corporation and its neighboring land after acquiring an apartment construction project from AU, which had been implementing the new construction project in the Handong-gu I. In order to build an apartment in the Handong-gu I. In addition, on July 21, 2003, the Defendants and F borrowed an amount of KRW 80 billion from the financial institution, such as the New Bank of Korea, for the implementation of the new construction project. The above borrowed amount was limited to the purpose of use by securing the project site, concluding construction contract, acquiring the project related authorization and permission. However, on July 18, 2003, E was selected as the contractor to construct the apartment in the Handong-gu I. The construction site was not secured, and the company failed to obtain the construction site in the construction project site, and the company did not have the right to purchase the existing loan and made an application for change of the construction site at 10 billion won in the construction project site and did not have any interest on the construction site in the construction site.

2) All of the instant crimes were committed in the name of F, who is the representative director, and Defendant A and F have discussed with Defendant B or F to manage the funds, and the Defendants and F have divided that they should sell apartment buildings, commercial buildings, etc. in advance by means of financing. Defendant A introduced himself/herself as the president of E and provided explanation on the business of newly building and selling apartment buildings and commercial buildings to Defendant B or FO, and provided an explanation for the victim G,O, P, AI, T, and Y to the president of E, and made an explanation on the business of building and selling apartment buildings and commercial buildings. Defendant A also signed the victim B or FO as a joint and several surety, and the victim P, P,J, and Y signed the commercial building sales contract and each letter with the victim P as a joint and several surety.

On June 13, 2005, after departure from the Republic of Korea on June 13, 2005, the victim, AH, AJ, T, Y, AR, etc. made the above purport by telephone, and made it possible for AH to make the name of the vice-chairperson of E and to find out the person who entered into a contract for the right of sale as a sales agency. The prosecutor made a statement that he/she was aware of the fact that money was deposited in the company in the name of the sale price.

3) Although N is the representative of N in the prosecutor's office that the E is the F, in fact, the defendant A made all decisions as the president and the F is the vice president. AV, which sought to share the projects with the defendants, stated in the prosecutor's office that all the apartment project was conducted by the defendant A and the F was merely a person in compliance with the direction of the defendant A, and the victim G asked the defendant at the prosecutor's office that he asked F to confirm all the things. The victim Y used F's office at the time of the contract at the prosecutor's office and did not know about the contents of the project, but the defendant's office was larger than two to three times the F office at the time of the contract at the prosecutor's office and did not know about the overall contents of the project, and the defendant's office had been working at the investigative agency and the representative director at the time of telephone communications from 2003 to 206, and the chairperson at the time of the defendant's office and the president at the time of the defendant's office made the defendant's overall management of the work.

4) The victim AR consistently entered into a complaint and a written statement with the date on which the contract was prepared on June 7, 2005, and Defendant A told that there was no problem in the performance of the contract by telephone from AR abroad.

5) Q appeared as a witness of the Seoul Central District Court case 2009Da6063, 8535 (Joint) case, and stated that A was Defendant A by a person who had the right to operate the brin restaurant, and the F had the victim A with the seal impression affixed on the brine business license, and the victim A used KRW 30 million out of KRW 80 million paid by A with the operating fund of E.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, ① Defendants and F planned the apartment and commercial building sales business, but did not have any intent or ability to sell apartment and commercial buildings or to conduct related business because they did not have any systematic business plan or profit in the situation where they could not cover the purchase of the project site and the construction cost. Defendant A was involved in the apartment and commercial building sales business since 2002, when he was well aware of the aforementioned circumstances with the president of E. At the time, E was continuously required due to the repayment of the existing debt, the payment of interest, the company operation funds, etc., and ③ Defendant A did not know the victims of the crime of purchase of apartment and commercial buildings even if the victim AR et al. entered into a contract with F and others, it is reasonable to recognize that the relationship between Defendant A and the victims of the crime of purchase of apartment and commercial buildings did not affect the right to purchase apartment buildings or the right to purchase the apartment buildings under the name of the victims of the crime of purchase, the right to purchase apartment buildings and the right to use the apartment buildings under the name of the victims.

Therefore, this part of the argument is not accepted.

3. Judgment on the part concerning the assertion ②

According to Article 249 (1) 3 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), each of the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and each of the crimes of fraud constitutes imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of not less than ten years. In this case, if the statute of limitations has not been suspended in this case, the period of the statute of limitations has been seven years. Thus, from November 6, 2002 to 7 years after the last day of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim G of this case, which was first committed from November 5, 2009 to 10 years after the last day of each of the crimes in this case, Defendant AW (AJ, and the Attached Form No. 3 of the indictment appears to be a clerical error) and the statute of limitations has not expired from June 8, 2005 to 2017.

In addition, "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment" under Article 253 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not limited to the only purpose of staying in a foreign country, but it is sufficient if it is included in several overseas stay purposes of the criminal, and if the criminal's staying in a foreign country was a tool to escape criminal punishment, "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment" is to keep "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment" during the period of staying in a foreign country unless there is any objective reason clearly expressing the criminal's subjective intent that is incompatible with "the purpose of escaping criminal punishment" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4101, Dec. 11, 2008).

The evidence duly adopted and examined by this court is as follows: Defendant A had already left the Republic of Korea on September 23, 2003, prior to his departure from the Republic of Korea; Defendant A had a creditor's objection against the unauthorized Sale of the apartment and commercial building; Defendant A had received a complaint against Defendants and F in relation to the implementation of the apartment in this case from the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office on July 2, 2005, immediately after his departure; Defendant A stated that Defendant A had entered the Republic of Korea to extend the term of validity of the passport in an unlawful way without following lawful procedures such as the renewal of the passport, etc.; Defendant A had not claimed that Defendant A had left the Republic of Korea for raising funds; Defendant A had not raised funds for the purpose of raising funds for the period of seven years or more; Defendant A had no specific plan to raise funds; Defendant A had no criminal intent to commit the crime of fraud in this case for each of the following reasons: it was reasonable to view that each of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

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

(a) Determinations of types: organized fraud, Type 3 (at least KRW 500,000, but less than KRW 500,000), aggravation (at least 6 years to 9 years of imprisonment);

(B) A person under special jurisdiction: Where the victims are responsible for the occurrence of a stop or the probability of damage (requirements for mitigation).

In the event that he/she led and led to the commission of fraud, he/she has committed the crime repeatedly for a long time against many victims (aggravated factor).

2) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to six years up to 16 months;

(b) Determination of sentence;

There are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the attitude of victims to easily collect money was part of the damage, and the fact that victims' damage and damage to K, L, G, AO, P, U, AA, and Q appears to have been partially repaid.

However, when the Defendant was unable to meet a large amount of debt in the course of carrying out the apartment execution project with a large amount of loan without any particular capital, the Defendant planned and led the instant crime to commit the instant crime by deceiving the large amount of money from many unspecified victims to approximately KRW 5.5 billion by selling the apartment or commercial building at a price much lower than the market price or selling the related business rights, etc. for the purpose of treating the debt, and the Defendant continued to commit the instant crime of defraudation for a long time without paying damages to the victims even though there were a large amount of damage, and even if there were many victims, the Defendant, an accomplice, who was the accomplice, continued to commit the instant crime of defraudation after the Defendant left the Republic of Korea.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, means and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the sum of KRW 750 million from the victim G, KRW 200 million from the victim K, KRW 250 million from the victim L, KRW 300 million from the victim X, KRW 300 million from 34 persons such as the victim S, and KRW 4.45 billion from the victim M, respectively, shall be taken into account all the circumstances of which the judgment was finalized, such as the victim Q, KRW 130 million from the victim Q, KRW 150 million from AY, KRW 150 million from the victim Q, KRW 150 million from the victim T, KRW 130 million from the victim's 7 persons, and KRW 130 million from the victim's JJ from the victim T, KRW 130 million from the victim's crime, and KRW 400 million from the victim's pleading and other circumstances of this case.

2. Defendant B

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

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

(a) Determinations of types: organized fraud, Type 3 (at least KRW 500,000, but less than KRW 500,000), aggravation (at least 6 years to 9 years of imprisonment);

B) A person under special circumstances: Where the victims are also responsible for the occurrence of a crime or the expansion of damage (affirmative)

In the event that he/she led and led to the commission of fraud, he/she has committed the crime repeatedly for a long time against many victims (aggravated factor).

2) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to six years up to 16 months;

(b) Determination of sentence;

There are circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized each of the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that the victims were easily able to punish money, and the fact that the victim K., L, G, and P appears to have been partly repaid.

However, when the defendant was unable to meet a large amount of debt in the course of promoting the apartment execution project in an unreasonable manner without any particular capital, he planned and led the crime of this case in which many victims receive a large amount of money from 2.8 billion won by selling the apartment house or commercial building at a price much lower than the market price or selling the related business rights for the purpose of making a debt, etc., and he planned and led the crime of this case in which many victims receive a large amount of damage, even though there were a large amount of victims, and even if there were a large amount of victims, he had escaped abroad for a long time without paying damages to the victims, and even after departure from the Republic of Korea, the defendant did not pay damages to the existing victims, and up to the crime of new defraudation under the pretext of investment. The fact that

In addition, the punishment shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, means and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the fact that the defendant suffers from strokes.

The transfer of judge and judge

Judges Kim Dong-dong

Judges Guide-in

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.