Defendant

Kim Yong-American

Gyeong Law Firm, Attorney Hwang Sung-sung et al.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

Defendant,

1. On November 6, 2006, at the office of a certified judicial scrivener in Nam-dong, Incheon Metropolitan City, without authority, the defendant designated as his agent by using a computer, etc., for the purpose of uttering at the office of non-indicted 3, a certified judicial scrivener located in Nam-dong, Incheon District Court, the Incheon District Court issued a power of attorney stating "I will delegate to the defendant all the acts of receiving a decision on commencing auction and delivery documents, and all other acts incidental thereto." After printing out the power of attorney stating "I do.", the delegating non-indicted 1, who received from the non-indicted 1, and then affixed his seal imprint on the name of the non-indicted 1, which was kept under custody, a letter of

2.In the same day, in the Incheon District Court, submit to the public official in charge of the above-mentioned auction sale of nameless items to the extent that the above-mentioned power of attorney has been duly formed;

3. Although the non-indicted 1 did not have been delegated to the act of receiving the decision on commencing auction from the non-indicted 1, he submitted the forged power of attorney at the same time and place as mentioned in the above Paragraph 2, and had the judicial assistant officer in charge of the case No. 77083 at the Incheon District Court 2006ta-do, 7083 on behalf of the non-indicted 1, who is aware of the fact, proceed with the auction procedure. On April 2, 2007, Jung-gu, Jungdong-dong, Incheon, which decided to permit the sale of the land and the above ground buildings in KRW 1.5399,00,00 to the non-indicted 4,55,000, and attempted to have the non-indicted 2, who is the right to collateral security, distributed the dividend amount of KRW 30,000,000,000 in the distribution procedure, but the non-indicted 1 failed to bring the immediate appeal against the said decision

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 6’s witness

1. Part concerning the cross-indicted 1 among the protocol of interrogation of the police against the defendant

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 1 and 6

1. Complaint;

1. A copy of the immediate appeal petition, a copy of power of attorney, a copy of power of attorney (50 pages of investigation record), a certificate of personal seal impression, a copy of order of correction, a copy of the application for extension;

1. ① The act of the Defendant explicitly delegated by Nonindicted 1 is limited to the act of trading each of the instant real estate; ② The real estate of this case, the ownership transfer registration for which was completed in Nonindicted 1’s name without Nonindicted 1’s delegation, cannot be sold or purchased to another person; but Nonindicted 2, the mortgagee, applied for voluntary auction of each of the instant real estate and received dividends in the distribution procedure, do not require in principle delegation from Nonindicted 1. Thus, even if Nonindicted 1 had expressed his intention not to raise any special objection against the request for voluntary auction in the case where each of the instant real estate is not sold or sold to another person, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 1 expressed his intention to delegate his authority as the debtor in the auction procedure to the Defendant. Furthermore, in light of the need for delegation, it is reasonable to view that the interested parties in the auction procedure did not have a significant influence on the legitimate execution of auction; ③ It is recognized that there was no specific authority for the Defendant to change his authority in the auction procedure as the owner of the instant real estate, and thus, it cannot be seen that the Defendant 1 and the owner did not have any specific authority.

1. In addition, even if there was a monetary claim against Non-Indicted 1 against Non-Indicted 2, who is the right to collateral security, and even if the defendant's deception was a tool for repayment of the claim, the act of deceiving the auction court and carrying out the auction procedure cannot be deemed as a legitimate exercise of the right that is justified (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1679, Sept. 14, 1982, etc.). Therefore, it is reasonable to view that there was an intention to acquire illegal profits.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 352, 347(2), 231, and 234 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Kim Jong-soo