(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.2.1. 선고 2014고합49 판결

On February 10, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for breach of trust, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 13, 2012.

Criminal facts

[2014Gohap49]

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

The Defendant, on January 13, 2010, at the voluntary auction procedure for storage on G and one parcel of land outside G (U.S. District Court H) (the remainder, a joint bid price was awarded with G and the bid deposit was paid, but the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder by March 3, 2010, which is the due date, was not paid until March 3, 2010. The court, upon making a decision to re-sale on April 6, 2010, set the first sale date designated as the date of April 20, 2010 and set the bid deposit that was paid to the said court, was placed in the place where the said court would be subject to forfeiture, agreed to distribute the proceeds from the resale of the said real estate and agreed to pay the balance by providing funds rapidly.

The defendant raised funds from the victim L, running at L, a credit business chain Co., Ltd. (former, K, hereinafter referred to as "J") on March 31, 2010. The defendant did not have any money invested in the auction at this case. On November 3, 2009, the defendant agreed between I and I to take this responsibility for the bid deposit, and divide the proceeds from selling the above real estate into 50 to 50,000. However, on March 3, 2010, the balance was not paid until March 3, 2010, due to the failure to demand the repayment of the deposit and the payment of the balance. The balance was divided into 50,000 and 50,000 won on March 31, 2010. The borrower did not receive 6.5 billion won loan from Solomon Savings Bank under the name of I and to notify the victim of the loan of the additional share in the name of 40,000,0000 won or more.

Nevertheless, around April 1, 2010, the Defendant concealed the aforementioned circumstances at the JJ office of the victim L, located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and did not pay only KRW 507,277,90,00 as bid deposit to the victim who was awarded a successful bid of KRW 12.3 billion under a joint name other than A, but also KRW 7.27,90,000. The Defendant was not obliged to pay KRW 213,722,100 as joint bidders, KRW 50,00 as joint bidders reorganization expenses, KRW 40,00,000 as a loan institution, and KRW 1.45 billion as the principal, part of the balance, and KRW 1.4 billion as the loan institution’s principal, KRW 1.4 billion as the loan institution’s loan, KRW 5,000,000,000 as a total, KRW 1.4 billion as a loan to the joint debtor.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim L to receive property.

2. Fraud;

At around April 19, 2010, the Defendant did not intend to use the name of successful bid of I to transfer to the victim even if he received additional money from the said L, and the Defendant thought that he will use it in the bid deposit, etc. of Gangnam-gu Seoul apartment building 6 Dong 902, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, which was individually awarded a successful bid, but the Defendant concealed such circumstance and demanded the victim L to pay the money more than that of this land as a joint successful bidder. It means that “The money may be paid in the name of the first share.” The Defendant received a delivery of KRW 250 million from L on April 19, 2010 from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim L to receive property.

3. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

On April 6, 2010, the Defendant received a successful bid from the above L in the name of the company on behalf of the J of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Q 302, which is the object of the auction case of the Seoul Central District Court, and the Defendant received 30% of the profits from selling it, and paid 50% of the profits from selling it to J, and paid 20% of them to R as the introduction expense.

around April 6, 2010, the Defendant received the award of Q Q 302 in the name of J in the auction court of the Seoul Central District Court at KRW 3,101,50,000 on behalf of J.

Accordingly, the defendant, not an attorney-at-law, promised to receive money and other valuables and acted as an agent for non-contentious cases

[2014Gohap263]

The Defendant received a successful bid on August 22, 201 and paid KRW 525,873,90 as bid deposit to the said court on August 22, 201, but failed to pay the remainder on the date of payment, which was September 29, 2011, on the date of re-sale of the said real estate, due to the fact that the Defendant failed to pay the remainder on September 29, 201.

At the new auction procedure, W, X, the representative director of the victim company V, was selected as the successful bidder on January 30, 2012, and the bid bond that the defendant paid to the above court was put in place to be confiscated.

On April 16, 2012, the Defendant issued a false statement to V, the representative director of the victim company, in the Myeongyang-ro, Seoul detention center, which was located in 143, in the Myeongyang-ro, 2012, “525,873,90 won, which was paid at the court when a branch of the new company paid the auction proceeds for the land awarded by auction, will be revoked as he paid to the court. On the other hand, the Defendant would recover the bid deposit and offer 262,936,950 won, which is a half of the amount of the bid deposit. On the other hand, the Defendant concluded that the criminal agreement was transferred separately from the amount transferred to the mother and child, and that the Defendant borrowed 50,000 won, which is a half of the amount.”

However, the fact is that the defendant borrowed from Y Co., Ltd. the bid bond, which the defendant paid to the above court, and the amount of the bid bond was returned to Y Co., Ltd. when the successful bid is not awarded or re-auctions is not awarded, and the defendant did not have the right to the bid bond. Thus, even if the defendant withdraws the auction, he did not have the intent or ability to pay half of the returned bid bond to the victim Co., Ltd.

On May 24, 2012, the Defendant had the victim company repay the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the said real estate to the creditor withdraw the auction. On May 25, 2012, Y Co., Ltd. prepared a written consent to refund the total amount of the bid deposit and provided Y Co., Ltd. to refund the total amount of the bid deposit.

As a result, the defendant deceiving the victim company, caused the victim company to repay the debt that was the cause of the above voluntary auction, thereby withdrawing the voluntary auction, and let the Y corporation acquire the property profit that can receive the full amount of the bid bond.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal facts 2014Gohap49】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each statement of a witness in the fourth trial records, L, R and the fifth trial records;

1. Each protocol of examination of the accused by the prosecution (including I substitution among the interrogation protocol of the second prosecutor's office)

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning L/R;

1. Each police statement of the Z, L, R, and I;

1. A complaint, a cash loan contract, a copy of a judgment, a certified copy of AA registry, a certified copy of the case of Suwon law, a certified copy of register of Q 302, and a record book;

1. An investigation report (Submission of reference evidence I), an investigation report (Attachment of a certified copy of register), an investigation report (information on the case of auction, the date of order for resale, the date of sale order, the date of sale order, etc.), an investigation report (report accompanied by a certified copy of Q

【Criminal facts 2014Gohap263】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of witness V in the sixth trial record;

1. Some statements in the police interrogation protocol of AB;

1. Statement of the police concerning V;

1. A certified copy of corporate register, documents of auction bid, document of W, X auction, written agreement of the complainant and suspect, written agreement of the complainants and suspects, application for refund of money in custody of the court, contract for transfer and takeover of claims, notice of transfer and takeover of claims (for submission of court), written consent of the person holding a delay, written consent to acceptance of money by the person holding a delay, detailed report on auction articles, contract for acceptance of claims, receipt, confirmation, details of account transactions, record

1. Investigation reports (Submission of contracts on acquisition of claims by a suspect), investigation reports ( telephone conversations of a witness AC), investigation reports ( telephone conversations of a witness AD);

【Criminal Power at the Time of Sales】

1. In the case of 2014 Gohap49: The Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office's inquiry, resident inquiry and criminal records, judgment of the first instance court, judgment of the second instance, and judgment of the third instance;

1. Case 2014Gohap263: A copy of the judgment (the intermediate land Act 2011Gohap1256), inquiry report and investigation report (the confirmation of a case, etc. in which a suspect has been sentenced to a punishment for breach of trust due to a breach of trust);

Application of Statutes

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

Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (including the fraud of 1.4 billion won for the victim L; including the fraud of 1.4 billion won for the victim L; Provided, That the upper limit of the punishment shall be governed by the proviso to Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 347(1) (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010); Article 347(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 201)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Aggravation of concurrent crimes prescribed by the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is the largest penalty]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against victim L

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that only borrowed 1.4 billion won from the victim L as the interest of high rate of 39% per annum to receive a successful bid, and that there was no promise from the victim L to change the name of the joint bidder to J, or to deliver the proceeds of resale after the resale of the real estate in the facts stated in the judgment. The Defendant and the defense counsel claimed that they did not commit the act of deception and the act of deception.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, even if the defendant borrows money from L, it can be recognized that the defendant provided the I's share of real estate in the criminal facts in the judgment, or sold real estate in the criminal facts in the judgment, within a prompt time, and received considerable profits, and that he/she acquired it by deceiving L by deceiving the victim as if he/she provided an amount equivalent to such profits. The defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) A statement of the victim L.

As to whether the defendant deceivings the victim L, the terms and conditions of the loan, or the statements made by the defendant at the time of the loan are valuable evidence, and in light of the following circumstances, the victim L's statement is considered to be considerably high in credibility.

① From the police investigation stage to this Court, L is relatively consistent and detailed to the effect that “When the Defendant lends KRW 1.4 billion to I under the name of expenses related to the right to retention of real estate at the time of sale, expenses incurred in the future transfer, partial balance, and registration tax, the victim’s share shall be changed to J’s name, and after the completion of the transfer of ownership, etc. in the name of the Defendant, documents related to the ownership shall be provided to L with the remainder of the successful bid price, and KRW 50 million shall be paid within one month, and KRW 1.4 billion shall be lent to L if he/she sold the remaining part of the criminal facts in his/her name, and the remaining part of the money shall not be resolved by the victim’s remaining interest because he/she has been awarded the remainder of the money in his/her name.”

② According to the monetary loan agreement dated April 1, 2010, which the Defendant borrowed KRW 1.4 billion from L from the victim, and entered into between J on April 1, 2010, the period for repayment of the above loan is one month after the date of borrowing, and the Defendant was obligated to provide the victim with registration-related documents after receiving a successful bid for real estate in the criminal facts stated in the above loan and completing registration in its name. The content of the above agreement is consistent with the victim L’s statement that the Defendant planned to recover the principal and profits within a short period, and that the Defendant offered the documents related to the real estate in the judgment. On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that the documents related to the registration that the Defendant offered are the purpose of securing the amount of the loan, and that the Defendant borrowed money at a higher rate of 39% per annum from L, and that the Defendant did not provide the security. This is difficult to believe this assertion.

③ The victim stated that “When the Defendant borrowed money, the Defendant would make payment of KRW 50 million to a joint bidder (I) for the purpose of securing his/her share, and would make a change in the name of J for the purpose of securing his/her share.” On the other hand, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant would additionally pay KRW 250 million for the purpose of changing the name of “the Defendant would not need to pay these money.” The Defendant promised to change the name of I out of the real estate in criminal facts as stated in the judgment in return for the borrowing of money to J for the purpose of transferring the name of KRW 40 million among the real estate in exchange for the borrowing of money. It is difficult for the investigative agency and this court to view that the Defendant had already made a statement of KRW 150 million from the date of borrowing the above KRW 400 million to the Defendant at the time of borrowing the real estate under the name of KRW 500,000,0000,000,000 from the date of borrowing the loan.”

④ The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that only borrowed money on the condition that he will pay 'interest rate' from L, and that there was no talk about the transfer of real estate resale profit or about the collateral. However, according to the fact that L can resell the real estate facts stated in the judgment at an early time by the Defendant, and that there was an agreement on interest between the Defendant and the victim at the time of delivery of money, it is difficult to say that the Defendant and the victim did not sell the money for the purpose of acquiring the resale profit. However, according to the fact that the Defendant and the victim stated that there was an agreement on the interest rate at the time of delivery of money, it is difficult to say that the Defendant and the victim did not sell the money for 39% per annum on April 1, 2010 as stated in L, and that it would not be easy for the prosecutor to offer the money for 140 million won at the time of delivery of the money to the Defendant and the victim under the conditions that the Defendant would not have sold the money for 36% interest rate at the time of delivery of the money.

2) Other circumstances

① In order to purchase real estate under the criminal facts stated in the judgment, the Defendant borrowed KRW 720 million equivalent to bid deposit from I out of KRW 7.21 billion. However, the Defendant borrowed money from Solomon Savings Bank without entirely investing its own property, such as obtaining loans of KRW 6.5 billion from Solomon Savings Bank, and paying the balance, etc. Accordingly, the Defendant agreed to divide profits by selling real estate and selling it to others. Thus, insofar as the Defendant did not resell the real estate under the criminal facts as stated in the judgment within a prompt period of time at a higher price than all the above investments and expenses, the Defendant would have been liable for heavy debts. However, the Defendant would have been able to pay considerable amount of the proceeds from the sale of real estate as a re-power, but it would have been unreasonable for the Defendant to resolve any balance and taxes, expenses necessary for the settlement of lien, etc., and the Defendant would have not sold the above money to the Defendant with the money borrowed from the victim to a high price of KRW 314 billion.

② As recognized by the investigative agency, the Defendant appears to have paid the Defendant’s debt in the form of so-called “fortune,” such as continuing to participate in a new auction or repaying the existing debt by borrowing money from another person as well as it is unclear whether the economic value substantially attributable to the Defendant is certain. Furthermore, as seen in the instant criminal facts, the Defendant’s creditor attached the Defendant’s share among the real estate constituting an offense as indicated in the judgment with monetary claim of KRW 70 million against the Defendant on May 13, 2010 and the Defendant’s claim of KRW 50 million was seized as the preserved claim, and as seen in the instant case, the Defendant failed to prepare a criminal compensation of KRW 50 million and intended to borrow it. In light of the above, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion that the Defendant was sufficiently able to pay the Defendant cannot be accepted.

③ Even though there are some circumstances consistent with the Defendant’s argument, such as the agreement by the victim L to purchase the shares of the real estate in the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment after the crime of this case, or the sale of the Defendant’s shares to the victim, the intention to acquire by deception and the existence of deception shall be determined at the time of the crime. However, all of the above circumstances are nothing more than an ex post facto occurrence in the process of endeavoring to minimize damage to I and the victim L to minimize the resale of the real estate in the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment after the Defendant acquired 1.4 billion won from L from the victim. Therefore, it is insufficient to prosecute the facts supporting

2. As to the fraud of victim L

A. Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel have sufficiently explained that the defendant borrowed the amount of KRW 250 million to the victim L in order to use the apartment in obtaining the successful bid for the apartment, and argued that the crime of fraud is not established because the defendant obtained the consent from the victim L.

B. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the victim L, from the investigative agency to the court, stated that "the defendant requires additional money in return for the transfer of his/her share", and further loans of KRW 250 million,000,000 from the investigative agency to this court. It consistently stated that apartment talks does not have any opinion, and R and Z, which were present at the scene of delivery of KRW 250,000,000,000,000, requires additional money as they require money from the investigative agency and this court to the effect that "the defendant requires money to obtain one's share." The victim's statement was consistent with the victim's statement, as seen earlier, with the purport that "the defendant did not have any opinion on auction of other real estate." The victim's statement is highly reliable in light of the related person's statement and other objective data, even if the defendant's assertion was made, there is no need to obtain additional money from the victim's bank for the purpose of selling 200,50,00,00,00,000,00,000 won.

3. As to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

A. Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, on behalf of J, the defendant participated in the auction procedure for Q 302 in Gangnam-gu Seoul and had the above Amart awarded a successful bid in the name of J, the defendant and his defense counsel did not agree to receive money and valuables in return.

B. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly selected and investigated by the court, i.e., L, the J, consistently in the investigation agency and this court, consistently stated that "the defendant participated in the above Q Q auction procedure on behalf of the J and was awarded a successful bid, and then pay 30% of the profits to the defendant if the profits are sold back," and R also stated in this court that "the defendant and J would like to divide the profits into 50:50 while conducting an auction analysis of Q," and that there was an agreement for distribution of profits as a price for an auction agency, the defendant and J agreed to divide the profits into 50:50." As seen above, L's statement is consistent with L's statement to the effect that its credibility is considerably high, and unlike the record, it does not appear that there are any other circumstances to dismiss its credibility. In light of the above facts, the defendant not only in this case but also in the ordinary court, but also in the auction procedure of others on condition of distributing the proceeds of resale, etc., the defendant's attorney's voluntary auction and the above non-contentious case can be sufficiently justified.

4. As to fraud against the victim company

A. Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below that the defendant stated that the defendant had the actual right to 1/2 out of 525,873,90 won of the bid deposit, but the defendant first agreed to return half of the bid deposit to the defendant, but the defendant did not comply with the promise, so the defendant could not make half of the bid deposit to the victim company. The victim company also knew that the Y corporation took a reserved attitude on the issue of paying half of the bid deposit to the victim company. Thus, the defendant did not have the intention of deception, as well as there was no deception itself, and there was no causation between the defendant's act and the act of disposal of the victim company.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by this court, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize that even if the voluntary auction procedure (U) on the Gyeonggi-gun T and 26 parcels of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court was terminated due to the withdrawal of the request for auction, the Defendant had no right to receive half of the bid deposit which the highest purchaser would have to return, and that he/she would have the right to receive, and would have the trusted company (representative) by deceiving the victim company (representative), as if he/she would pay it to the victim company, thereby having the victim company (representative), withdraw the request for auction by allowing the creditor to repay the caused debt of the said voluntary auction, thereby having the victim company suffer damage equivalent to the amount of contribution necessary for the repayment of the obligation, and thereby, Y Co., Ltd. receive the full amount of the bid deposit. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion in this part is without merit.

(1) The total amount of KRW 525,873,90 for the bid deposit is the money contributed by Y corporation. On August 19, 2011, the respondent borrowed the said money from Y corporation to participate in the auction procedure for real estate facts stated in the judgment of the court below, and issued a receipt to Y corporation to verify that the said money was received for the same purpose.

② On November 16, 2011, the Defendant made a joint bid with Y Co., Ltd. with Y Co., Ltd. to be liable for forfeiture of bid deposit already paid on the wind that had been selected as the highest purchaser but failed to pay the purchase price thereafter. Accordingly, on November 16, 201, the Defendant prepared a letter of confirmation stating that “I will compensate for the amount of money deposited and compensate for the amount of money deposited in Y Co., Ltd., and deliver the same to Y Co., Ltd., by December 15, 201, all liability for re-auction will be borne by the Defendant and any loss incurred by Y Co., Ltd., Ltd., and will deposit the principal amount of KRW 525,873,90 until December 15, 201.”

3) From the investigative agency to this court, V, a representative director of the victim company, promised to give half of the bid bond in the event of withdrawal of voluntary auction from the investigative agency to the effect that “I would have the right to half of the bid bond so that the defendant would withdraw the voluntary auction procedure,” and the victim company believed to have consistently performed the obligation which caused voluntary auction by lending and borrowing from the financial institution, etc. The victim company stated that the defendant and the victim company met. The confirmation written on May 2, 2012 stated that “If voluntary auction is withdrawn, I transfer the entire shares of the defendant ( approximately KRW 262 million) out of the bid bond to the victim company without any condition, the entire shares of the defendant ( KRW 525,873,900 among the bid bond) are owned by the defendant and the defendant has a legitimate right to receive half of the bid bond,” and further, the defendant's statement that the defendant would have no legitimate right to receive the share of the defendant in the auction contract as stated in V, V, 250% of the tender bond and other circumstances.

④ Even according to the recording of conversations divided by the Defendant’s wife AB and V after confinement in Ansan prison, the Defendant had the right to receive half of the bid bond from the beginning and could have been distributed to the victim company. In other words, according to the recording of conversations dated 2012,4.13 between the Defendant and V, the Defendant responded to the question, “The right to receive a refund of the auction deposit from the court next is legally organized?” It is obvious that V’s right to receive a refund of the auction deposit from the court next is legally organized?” Even in the conversation made over several days thereafter, the Defendant again confirmed that the Defendant could receive half of the bid deposit if the auction is withdrawn, without any problem. However, even if voluntary auction was withdrawn and YB Co., Ltd. received the entire deposit, the Defendant did not know that it was the last resort to the conversation between the Defendant and the AV, and the Defendant did not know that it was in the first place.

⑤ On May 24, 2012, the injured party’s company believed the Defendant’s undertaking and repaid the obligation that was the cause of voluntary auction, and thereby, voluntarily withdrawn the auction on May 24, 2012. The Defendant’s wife agreed on behalf of the Defendant to receive the bid deposit by visiting the Suwon District Court’s surplus support on behalf of the Defendant, such as Suwon District Court. However, the Defendant intentionally avoided the contact between the Defendant and V on May 25, 2012, and the person in charge of the Y Co., Ltd., a joint purchaser, who was the joint purchaser, received the entire bid deposit. The injured party did not receive the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the bid deposit from the Defendant.

④ The Defendant asserted that the Defendant had the right to half of KRW 525,873,90 of the bid bond on March 28, 2012, on the ground that he/she transferred the claim amounting to KRW 800,000,000, which he/she had against I at the investigative agency, to Y Co., Ltd.,. However, it cannot be ascertained that the above transferred claim is related to the obligation to return the bid bond, and the Defendant’s lending the deposit to the Defendant from the beginning, was returned to Y Co., Ltd., with the entire amount. However, there is no other circumstance to acknowledge that Y Co., Ltd. has the right to dispose of half of the bid bond, such as that he/she donated part of it to the Defendant

7) Meanwhile, the victim company had reviewed both the methods of withdrawal of auction and auction bid prior to the Defendant’s deception in order to secure the ownership of the real estate in the instant case. Since Y company voluntarily withdrawn the reserved position regarding the delivery of half of the bid bond to the victim company, there was a fact that V prepared the draft of the first notification dated April 25, 2012 to the effect that, in a case where the victim company is unable to receive the refund of the bid bond because it did not withdraw auction, it is not responsible for the Defendant. However, as seen earlier, as long as the Defendant could have verified the victim company as if the half of the bid bond amount would have been certain, and the trusted company would have selected the methods of withdrawal of auction, it does not interfere with recognizing that the victim company conducted the act of disposal by deception of the victim company due to the Defendant’s act of deception, so long as the victim company had discharged its obligation to the creditor.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for a year and six months to eleven months; and

2. Sentencing criteria: One shall not apply; and

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for 2 years; and

The Defendant, without any particular property, provided considerable security for the purpose of acquiring profits from the resale of the auction object by receiving a successful bid price with another person’s money, or by deceiving the victim L as of the date of a large profits, and by inducing the victim company to deliver half of the bid bond to the victim company for the purpose of avoiding one’s own losses, and thereby allowing Y Co., Ltd., a third party to acquire pecuniary profits. In addition, the Defendant agreed to receive money and valuables, even if not an attorney-at-law, and acted on behalf of another person for non-contentious cases.

The money and valuables directly acquired by the Defendant as a result of the crime of fraud reach KRW 1.65 billion, and the damage suffered by the victim company cannot be deemed to be less and less. Moreover, the method of the commission of the crime of this case is also good. Nevertheless, the Defendant denies all the crime of this case and does not properly repent his fault. Nevertheless, even in the past, the Defendant again committed the crime of this case even though he had had had a history of causing property damage to another person by means of auction, thereby causing property damage again. The Defendant did not appear on the date of the previous sentence of this court and brought about considerable hindrance to the progress of the criminal justice procedure, such as escape and escape for about two years. In light of this, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant with liability.

However, it seems that a significant portion of the amount of damage to the victim L has been recovered) The victim L expressed his/her will to take the defendant's prior action within the scope of the actual repayment of damage, and the fact that the defendant is making efforts to pay additional damage is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering various factors of sentencing, such as character and conduct, family relationship, motive of crime, circumstances after crime, etc. as shown in the argument of this case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of equity with the case of judgment concurrently with the crime of the criminal records of which judgment has become final and conclusive.

Judges

The judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Domen

Judges Go Young-han

Note tin

1) Since each of the instant crimes constitutes a crime of breach of trust and another concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

2) As to the criminal facts of the case 2014Gahap49 (1) in the holding, ① an appellate court (Seoul High Court 2016Na2041904)’s lawsuit against AG for the first instance court (Seoul High Court 2016Na2041904) the adjusted amount of KRW 620,000,000 that the Defendant paid to L, ② the amount of KRW 290,000 that the Defendant paid to L, ② the amount of KRW 147,000 that the Defendant paid to R and the amount of KRW 1,77,000 that the Defendant paid to R, and ② the amount of the marina vehicle transferred to R, appears to have been substantially

참조조문

-경매법

-변호사법

-변호사법 제109조 제1호 가목

-특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

-특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제2호