(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.8.31. 선고 2017고합1282 판결

Imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of subparagraphs 2, 5 and 6 of the holding of the defendant, and for the crimes of subparagraphs 1-A, 2, 3 and 4 of the holding of the defendant, each of them shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to two years and six months.

Reasons

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On January 18, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Incheon District Court, and the judgment was finalized on May 20, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

2017Gohap1282

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes of Victims B;

The Defendant was granted property by deceiving the damaged company as set forth in the following A. B.

(a) Purchase in the name of the bankruptcy plan C;

On July 25, 2012, the Defendant leased part of the office in Kimpo-si D, Kimpo-si, and established a plan to operate the company by selling the gold bars purchased from credit without any particular funds.

On August 2012, the defendant made a false statement to the F, an employee of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., to the effect that the defendant would pay the full amount of the price in cash on the face of a week by supplying the steel and H beam to F, an employee of the Dispute Resolution Co.

However, as the Defendant planned to sell the steel bars, etc. supplied by the victimized company at a lower price than the purchase price, even if all the sales proceeds of the said steel bars, etc. were paid to the victimized company, it could not be paid in full. Moreover, due to the situation where the sales proceeds of the said steel bars, etc. have to be disbursed as the sales proceeds of the said steel bars, etc. due to the absence of any other funds or incomes, and there was no intention or ability to pay in full the price to the victimized company, as the Defendant continued to receive the steel bars,

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victimized company from August 22, 2012 to June 30, 2013, received 2,616,083,879 won in total and sn beam 2,920,115kgs of total market price from August 2, 2012 to June 30, 2013, and paid 652,378,128,128 won in total, as shown in attached Table 1.

(b) Purchase in the name of the Bank G;

As stated in the preceding paragraph, the defendant continued to be supplied with the unpaid price by the damaged company, and the unpaid price increases, and it is difficult for the victimized company to be supplied with the iron bars.The defendant's representative director's corporate office shall not engage in the credit transaction, such as issuance of bills, due to the defendant's default experience, and the fact that the defendant acquired the credit transaction, such as issuance of bills, etc., by the defendant's corporate office of the representative director, and the fact that the plaintiff continued to be supplied with the gold bars, etc. in the name of the Dispute Resolution Company G.

On February 2, 2013, the Defendant concluded that the Defendant would supply the steel bars and the sn beamline to F in credit at the office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and would pay the full amount of the price in cash on the face of the week. However, the fact that the Plaintiff continued to be supplied with the iron bars, etc. by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and was planning to sell the steel bars, etc. supplied by the victimized company at a lower price than the purchase price as described in the preceding paragraph, and there was no intention or ability to pay the full amount of the price to the victimized company as the deficit accumulated.

The Defendant deceptioned the victimized company as above, from February 4, 2013 to April 18, 2013, the Defendant received a total of 20 times total of 963,937,216 km and H beam 1,069,365 km amounting to KRW 684,437,216 among them, as shown in the attached Table 2 of Crimes List 2, from February 4, 2013 to April 18, 2013. The Defendant paid 684,437,216 won.

2. Fraud against victim H;

The defendant, as the representative director of the I in charge of wholesale and retail business of construction materials, called the victim H, a construction business operator introduced by the J, which is a land owner, around June 5, 2012, that "it is possible to lower the number of iron bars than the time, so 20 million won may be supplied in advance in advance to 28 tons of the iron bars."

However, even if the defendant receives the pre-payment of the pre-payment from the victim, he thought that he will use the pre-payment for his other debt and the office operating expenses of another company in the operation of the defendant. On March 8, 2012, I would not have any intention or ability to return the pre-payment amount if he would not supply the pre-payment amount or if he would not so supply the pre-payment amount as promised by the victim. On June 2012, I would not have any intention or ability to return the pre-payment amount if he would not do so.

On June 7, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, acquired 20 million won from the victim to the account in the name of one bank for the settlement of disputes.

2018Gohap232

3. Fraud against victims L;

The Defendant accepted M Co., Ltd., a company that engages in agricultural products supply business, issued with a bill that can be issued by M Co., Ltd., and asked N to introduce and request N to discount the bill of exchange. N is entitled to receive a promissory note with face value of 25 million won from the Defendant in the name of repayment of its obligation, and accepted the Defendant’s proposal.

According to the above public offering, N was introduced on April 11, 2014 to the victim L, which was introduced through 0 on or around April 1, 2014, the representative of M Co., Ltd., and M Co., Ltd. is the representative of M Co., Ltd., and there is no risk of failing to pay the credit rating 2.5% per month. The Defendant and N pursuant to the above agreement, introduced the Defendant from the notarial office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, the first floor to the representative of M Co., Ltd., on April 16, 2014, the Defendant and P Co., Ltd., introduced the Defendant from the notarial office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, as the representative of M Co., Ltd., Ltd., and conducted notarial acts as to the payment of the said promissory notes at the discount on the date of payment on January 1, 2014.

However, the Defendant did not prepare for a set of funds for acquisition of M Co., Ltd. due to the fact that the Defendant operated a large number of construction materials wholesale and retail companies, and due to the fact that the Defendant did not pay the said promissory notes within the due date, and N did not have the ability to pay the said notes.

all of them were known.

The Defendant, in collusion with N, by deceiving the victim, and then deceiving the victim from the victim to the account in the name of T to be used by 0 on April 16, 2014, acquired KRW 25 million from the victim. 4. Fraud with the victim U.S.

The Defendant, while operating a wholesale and retail company on the ground that he or another person as the representative director, was supplied with building materials such as steel bars and jointboards from many customers and sold them, sold them, and operated in the manner of failing to pay for the business. On March 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) acquired the company W in the office located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, in X’s name; and (b) acquired the construction materials such as steel bars and jointboards without any particular funds, and (c) sold them.

On April 2015, the Defendant presented the name cards of AA, a director of the Z, to the business personnel of the victim U corporation, at the second office in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, that the Defendant would make payment in cash by providing the joint board to the business personnel of the victim U corporation.

However, in fact, the Defendant planned to sell the Gohap supplied from the damaged company at a low price, and due to the reason that the financial situation of the company at the time was difficult, it was required to disburse the operating expenses of the company as sales proceeds of the said Gohap. At the time, the Defendant continued to receive the Gohap supplied from the victimized company due to the fact that the company was operating other construction materials wholesale and retail companies, and there was no intention or ability to pay the price in full to the victimized company, as the van continued

The Defendant deceptioned the victimized company as above, and was supplied by the victimized company from April 2, 2015 to June 12, 2015 with a total of KRW 388,520,000, total market price of KRW 17 times as shown in the attached Table 3, as shown in the annexed Table 3, and paid the amount of KRW 102,720,000 among them.

2018Gohap417

5. Fraud to AB by a victim;

The defendant, as the representative director of the K in charge of the wholesale and retail business of construction materials, called "AB, around November 201, the victim state) to the AB, who is an employee of the AC, would pay the price in full by the end of the following month by advertising to the K in charge of the credit settlement."

However, at the time, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to pay the normal price as promised to pay the damage company even if the damage company received the test board from the damage company because K was not in a financial situation to the extent that it was in the crisis of the defendant's operation and was paying the debt to the other transaction parties.

As above, the Defendant, as described in the attached Table 4 from November 18, 201 to January 27, 201, by deceiving the damaged company, and then, from November 18, 201 to January 27, 201, acquired 53,524 ggg of the total market price of 233,907,08 won in total on five occasions, as shown in the attached Table 4 of Crimes. 6. Violation of the Act on the AD Operational Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim AD Co., Ltd.

The Defendant, as described in the preceding paragraph, at the risk of the bankruptcy by KK, was supplied with building materials, such as ice products, by many customers, sold dumping, and thereafter, the Defendant did not pay for K, and thereafter, he did not pay for the company in the same manner as he accepted or established a new corporation, such as the I (Representative A).

On December 28, 2011, the Defendant called “AF by telephone to the victim AD Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. AF, who is an employee of K, to pay the price by the end of the following month if it is supplied to the AG, an employee of the Defendant.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the normal price as promised to pay the damage company even if the damage company received the sate products from the victim company, because the K did not have any financial condition to the extent that it was in the crisis of the due date and was paying the debt to the other transaction parties.

As above, the Defendant deceptioned the victimized company from December 28, 201 to June 22, 2012, and acquired 822,10,100,246 kg of total market price of 16 times from around 28, 201 to around 22, 201, and acquired 159,482 kg from the victimized company. On December 7, 201, the Defendant received 82,10,100,246 kg of total market price of 16 times as shown in

The Defendant, while operating a wholesale and retail company under the name of its own or another person as representative director, was supplied with building materials such as steel bars and ice plates from many business partners, sold them, and sold them, and was operated in the manner of failing to pay for the business. On August 2016, the Defendant: (a) established and operated an AI (Representative AJ) in the same manner; and (b) received checks without any transaction relation from AK; and (c) decided to receive steel materials from the victim AH as collateral.

On November 2016, the defendant called "around November 2016, 2016, the defendant made a false call to AM, who is an employee of the damaged company, through an AI, to supply steel materials and pay the price in cash. If there is a shortage of cash, the defendant would make an endorsement of the two copies of the electronic bill issued by the KN Bank of Bank."

However, in fact, since the above electronic bill issued by the KN Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. is a bill without any transactional relationship, the defendant could not expect the issuer to pay the bill, and even if the defendant is endorsed in the name of the AI in the name of the defendant's management AI, the defendant did not have the ability to pay the bill in the payment date, and since it was thought that the steel materials supplied by the damaged company were sold to the other company, the sales proceeds were paid to AK after dumping to the other company, or used for the purpose of full repayment of the existing debt of the AI Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., so there was no intention or ability to pay other damage company if the electronic bill is not settled due to default, etc.

The Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the damaged company, and then deceiving the victimized company from November 11, 2016 to January 13, 2017, the Defendant received 182,048,141 kgs and acquired 247,683 kgs of the total market price of seven times, as shown in the attached Table 6, from November 11, 2016 to January 13, 2017.

J. 1-A, B (2017 High Gohap1282)

1. Court statement of the defendant (the tenth court date);

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

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the defendant, AO, F, AP, Q, and R;

1. Each police statement on AS, AT, AU, and AV;

1. Books from August 22, 2012 to June 2, 2013; the current status of accounts in each bank for the settlement of accounts; records of accounts opened at the original location as of July 1, 2013; records of transactions in cash distributed accounts; each commodity supply contract; each cash deposit company; current status of G sales in each bank for the settlement of accounts; records of deposits in each bank for the settlement of accounts; records of accounts; records of deposits in each bank for the settlement of accounts; records of deposits in each bank for the settlement of accounts; records of deposits in each bank for the settlement of accounts; records of deposits in each bank for the settlement of accounts; records of accounts; records of accounts accounts; records of account transfers; records of transactions in free savings deposits; records of transactions in steel transactions; records of accounts transactions;

1. The transaction statement in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. in the year 2012, the transaction statement in the year 2013, the transaction statement in the passbook in the year 2012, the transaction statement in the passbook in the year 2013, the purchase data in the year 2012, the purchase data in the year 2013, the purchase data in the year 2012, the sales data in the year 2013, the purchase data in the year 2013, the transaction data in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., the purchase data in the Dispute Resolution Co.

1. The unit price for purchase and disposition of the credit rating company;

Facts of Decision 2 (2018Gohap24)

1. Court statement of the defendant (the tenth court date);

1. Each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol of the accused (including each substitute part);

1. The police statement of H;

1. A certificate of remittance, a statement of transaction by account, a statement of account transaction by the I current account, a list of electronic tax invoices, a copy of the I ordinary deposit passbook, and a copy of the passbook;

Facts of Nos. 3 and 4 (2018, 232)

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The defendant's written statements in part of each interrogation protocol of the prosecution (including the substitute part) against the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol of the police officer's interrogation of AW, N, L, R, and N (including each replaced part) 1. Each police protocol of the AX, AY,O, and AU;

1. A copy of a detailed statement of transactions, current status of revenues by transaction partner, electronic tax invoice, and name tag;

1. Payment confirmation of a bill, settlement confirmation, copies of outstanding promissory notes, notarial deeds, certificates, certificates of confirmation on the transfer of stocks, and certificates of transfer confirmation;

Facts of Nos. 5, 6, and 7 (2018, 417)

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some statements of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused (including each substitute part of the interrogation protocol for the accused);

1. Each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol against AL and AJ (including each substitute part);

1. Each police statement concerning AC, AG, AM, AK, and AZ;

1. Registration certificates of rights, a statement of each transaction, a copy of each promissory note, a certified copy of each real estate register, each real estate register, each fact-finding record, each fact-finding document, a statement of real estate auction progress, the statement of deposit in the K Bank of Korea, the list of electronic tax invoices, each list of tax invoices, investigation report (verification of the certified copy of the sold commercial

1. Copy of the current number of units, the details of sales revenue, each tax invoice, each transaction statement, and each transaction statement of the current account in the International Bank of Korea; 1. Electronic bills, electronic tax invoices, electronic bills and electronic tax invoices, case papers, investigation reports ( telephone conversations with BA of the plan for the settlement of accounts) and the list of tax invoices, the list of total tax invoices, and account transaction statement;

Criminal Records

1. A written inquiry report on each criminal history record, etc., results of inquiry, references to the summary agreement of the case, references to the disposition, and reporting on the results of confirmation;

1. Each judgment;

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. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (including each victim’s two types of frauds against AH), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (including each victim’s H, U, and U.S., AB, and the Dispute Resolution), and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (including each victim’s H, U, and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.), each victim’s U, AB, and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.), Articles 347(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (a)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the crime of fraud against victim H in Section 2, 5, and 6 in the market, each of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) to the Dispute Resolution Bank and the crime of violation of the Act on the AD Resolution and the crime of fraud that has become final and conclusive on May

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Article 50 [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against each crime of fraud against the victim H in No. 2,

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Code (the following circumstances of sentencing)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. In relation to the crime of fraud against the victim U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”), the defendant paid KRW 355,760,000 as the sum of the market price of KRW 458,480,00 from U.S. to the sum of the market price of KRW 355,760,000. Considering the fact that the defendant's sum of the market price of KRW 458,780,00 was supplied by the victim U.S., the defendant is merely KRW 102,720,00,000, it is deemed that this constitutes a non-performance under civil law

B. In relation to the crime of fraud against the victim AB(hereinafter referred to as the "AB"), the defendant provided real estate worth security to the victim AB as security by being supplied by the victim AB, and the victim AB recovered approximately KRW 68,000,000 from the auction procedure for the real estate. It is difficult to deem that the victim AB had a criminal intent to acquire the money. In addition, the bill issued by the defendant to the victim BB (hereinafter referred to as the "B") was delivered by the defendant to the victim AB due to the debt repayment from N, the defendant could not have anticipated the refusal of the payment of the above bill, so it is difficult to view that the above bill also had the criminal intent to obtain the money from the defendant. The victim AH (hereinafter referred to as the "H") of the judgment, in relation to the crime of fraud against the victim AH (hereinafter referred to as the "AH"), and the defendant directly designated the victim AH or the defendant to supply the bill to the victim AB.

In case where two copies of the electronic bill in the name of the defendant were endorsed and delivered to AH again, the defendant is merely merely a connection or intermediary between AK and AH for transactions of steel plates and reinforcing bars, and at the time, the defendant could not have anticipated the refusal of payment of the said electronic bill. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have deceiving AH.

2. Determination as to the assertion regarding fraud against U.S. victim No. 4 of the judgment

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) The certified transcript of the corporate register of W Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “W”) is recorded as the representative director, and AW is registered as the in-house director, but its actual operation was made by the Defendant (No. 26, 119, 120, 120, 135, 196, 197 of the investigation records of the case No. 2018, 232), and “Z below the Z” is a company in which AW is the representative director (No. 28 of the investigation records of the case No. 2018, 232).

2) On April 2015, the Defendant: (a) stated that “the Defendant shall exercise overall control over W and Z while making the name cards in the name named “AA” (hereinafter “the instant name cards”) to BC of the victim U, who visited the Z office by introducing N, etc.; and (b) stated that “the Defendant shall exercise overall control over W and Z” (as for the witness BC, the record of the examination of the witness), 5, 6 pages, 2018 Gohap232, title 1, title 39, 122, 204, 206 of the investigation records of the instant case, No. 1, 206).

3) At the time, the instant name was written with the cell phone number that the Defendant was actually used, and the victim U contacted with the Defendant using his cell phone number (4 pages of the witness examination record of the witness AY, 4 pages of the witness examination record of the witness BC, 136, 205-207 pages of the instant investigation record No. 136, 205-207 pages, and 3rd page 56 of the instant investigation record).

4) Upon receipt of the Defendant’s order from April 2, 2015 to June 12, 2015, the victim U supplied 38,520,00 won in total over 17 occasions as shown in the attached Table 3. At the time of the Defendant’s order, the sum of 239,85,000 won in the market was supplied to the 239,85,000 won in W, and the 148,665,000 won was supplied to the 239,000 won in each of the 148,665,000 won in W, and the Z issued a tax invoice to the 20134,980,50,500 won in April 24, 2015, 200,000 KRW 5,000,000,000 from June 25, 2015 to 319, 2015.

A person shall be appointed.

5) The injured party or U did not receive the sum of KRW 41,525,00,00 among the total purchase price in W, and KRW 61,195,00,00 among the total purchase price in W, and KRW 61,195,00 among the total purchase price in W.

1) The crime of fraud is established when deceiving another person to receive property or to acquire pecuniary benefits based on the defective intent resulting from the deception, and the deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to abide by each other in property transactional relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do1013, Jun. 28, 1983). In addition, insofar as the defendant does not confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element for the crime of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial power before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, process of the transaction, relationship with the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014).

2) Examining the instant case in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, in full view of the above facts recognized and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had the criminal intent to obtain deception along with the deception. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not acceptable.

① The Defendant has established or acquired a number of companies, including K (hereinafter referred to as "K on August 6, 2007; hereinafter referred to as "K"), K (A) (hereinafter referred to as "C") and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "C"), G (A) and C (A) (Around December 25, 2012) and C (A) (Around January 10, 2015), AI Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd (AF (hereinafter referred to as "AI"), 200 to 9, 207, 200 to 29, 207, 207, 20 to 97, 207, 200 to 64.7, 207, 197, 200 to 64.67, 207, 207, 205 to 61.67,207, 207, 6197, 201.27, 207, 201,207.6.2, k

② At the first time of the Gohap transaction with the Defendant, the victim U.S.: (a) Gohap supplied in W on April 2015, i.e., prepaid trading or cash trading; and (b) Gohap supplied in W on March 2015, 2015; (c) Gohap supplied in W after May 2015; and (d) Gohap did not receive the Gohap payment. As a result, as of June 2015, 2015, the cumulative accounts for W was 41,525,000 won, and the cumulative accounts for Z were 61,195,000 won. As such, insofar as the Defendant did not pay the Gohap payment on several occasions at the beginning of the Gohap transaction with the victim U.S., and the Defendant did not pay the remaining accounts due to the continuous pressure of the Defendant during the transaction, it is difficult to view that the accumulated accounts were not paid to the victim.

③ The Defendant supplied a joint plate equivalent to KRW 458,480,000 in total market value from U.S. and paid KRW 355,760,00,000, which is a substantial portion of the market value. However, 102,720,000, which the Defendant was not finally paid to U.S. is a considerable amount in light of the transaction period, frequency, and scale between the Defendant and U.S.

④ The Defendant began to take over and operate W without raising any particular funds. The Defendant dumpedly sold the Gohap supplied by the victim U, and the sales proceeds were not recovered from time to time, and the financial situation was not good from the beginning of the company’s operation. The Defendant did not pay the outstanding amount of KRW 30 million to other companies and taxes of KRW 50 million (No. 120, 121, 208 of the investigation records of the case No. 2018Gohap232). If such circumstance is, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the full amount of the price of the Gohap supplied by U.S. to the Defendant.

⑤ The identity or personal information of the other party to whom the joint board is supplied from the U.S. perspective should be considered as an important standard for determining the commencement, trading volume, settlement time, and terms, etc. of the transaction. Nevertheless, the Defendant, without disclosing his/her own name from the U.S. members, mistaken the name of this case, which is described as 'A director of the ZA', into the name of the victim's business members, that the person to whom the joint board is supplied is 'AA' of 'A'.

④ With regard to the process of putting the instant name name out to the victim U’s business members, the Defendant asserted that it was only the fact that he had been engaged in two offices immediately after having taken over W, and that he had not yet been produced with his name. However, the instant name was stated in the mobile phone number at the time when the Defendant was actually used, and the victim U was contacted with the Defendant by his cell phone number, and the Defendant himself was also unable to engage in a transaction under his own name because he was designated as another case.” The Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant was able to engage in a transaction under the name of another person and was engaged in a transaction under the name of the company by hiding the fact that he was designated as the Defendant.” (Article 1st of the investigation record of the case No. 2018 Manhap232).

7) On the other hand, the Defendant requested around May 2015 to provide the victim U as security of forest land located in Thai-gun, Thai-gun, Thai-gun, and to supply the jointboard continuously. However, the owner of the forest was not the defendant, W, and Z, and the Defendant did not perform his/her duties despite having offered the jointboard as security with the consent of the owner. The Defendant continued to receive the jointboard (5 pages of the examination record of the witness AX, 6, 7 pages of the examination record of the witness AY, and 12 pages of the examination record of the witness AY, 2018 Gohap232, and 3rd of the investigation record of the case, 209-211, 3rd of the investigation record of the case, and 50 pages of the investigation record of the case).

3. Determination as to the assertion regarding fraud against the victim AB in Article 5 of the judgment

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) On October 201, the Defendant, as the representative director of K, requested the Victim AB to supply the Switzerland, but the victim AB refused the request on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any transaction record with K and did not seem to have any records of cash transactions with K.

2) On November 1, 201, the Defendant: BG No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial buildings”) owned BG No. 2 in Ansan-gu No. 2, B, No. 1, 36, 200, 100, 200, 36-1, 66-1, 26-1, 36-1, 36-1, 47, 66-1, 5-1, 6-1, 67, 27-1, 67, 30-1, 66-1, 9-1, 6-1, 6-1, 27, 30-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-2, 36-1, 36-1, 47, 208-1, 36-1, 47, 208-14, 37, 2011.

4) However, the Promissory Notes issued by BH Company BI was dealt with as an accident bill due to the reporting of alteration and alteration by BI (the injured Party AB filed a claim suit against K and BI on June 21, 2012 (the Busan District Court 2012Gadan52096) and withdrawn the claim on the Promissory Notes on December 7, 2012, and the Promissory Notes issued by BB was in bankruptcy at the end of February 2012, and as a result, the injured Party B was unable to receive at all the amount of the Stetra ethylethyl ethyl ethyl was not paid (50-52, 64, 67, 20, 21, 23-25, 174 of the investigation records of the instant case No. 417).

5) Meanwhile, the appraiser of the instant commercial building was assessed as KRW 97.5 million in the auction procedure (U.S. District Court) for the instant commercial building. On November 8, 2012, the instant commercial building was awarded a successful bid of KRW 68.25 million and around that time, the victim AB recovered approximately KRW 68 million (90-92, 64-71 pages of the investigation records of the instant case No. 2018, Apr. 7, 2017).

B. Specific determination

Examining the reasoning of the judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion in the instant case in accordance with the legal principles as seen in Section 2-B(1)(b)(1) of the judgment, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant and the defense counsel had the intent to commit the crime of deception as well as the crime of deception against the Defendant and the defense counsel, in full view of the above facts of recognition and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence as seen earlier, and the victim AB collected approximately KRW 68 million in the auction procedure for the instant case. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by the Defendant and the defense counsel is rejected.

1) As seen in paragraph (1) (2) of the part on the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel, the Defendant established or acquired a large number of companies in his or another’s name, and sold the building materials to others, and operated the company in such a way as to discontinue the business without paying the price for the supply thereof properly.

2) On the condition that K grants full approval for the following month, as between January 1, 201, 18, and January 27, 2012, as shown in the annexed Table 4, K had not paid the price at all on five occasions a total of KRW 233,907,08 on a five-time basis, as shown in the annexed Table 4, while having been provided with Switzerland ethyl plate 53,524 km in total. It is difficult to view that K had not paid the price at all due to temporary pressure of funds during continuous transactions.

3) At the time, the Defendant had no particular real estate or movable property owned by himself, and instead, the Defendant was liable to pay approximately KRW 10 million as interest on KRW 300,000,00,000, and Korea also was unable to pay the amount from transaction partners, such as BM and BD, due to the lack of funds. K was paying KRW 1 billion per month by issuing a per unit and promissory note, which was 20,000,000 won per month, but it was able to prevent the Defendant from returning the amount of 20% of the per unit and promissory note, as it was issued for cash lending, and even under such circumstances, the victim AB did not pay the amount of the Stetrare ethyl (22,23,31-60,179 of the investigation records of the instant case, No. 2018Da41799). In view of the fact that the instant promissory note was disposed of, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the price of ethyl, supplied from the victim AB.

4) The Defendant alleged that the Promissory Notes issued BB was a rush Promissory Notes which received as debt reimbursement from BB and could not be anticipated at the time. However, considering that the Promissory Notes were issued by NB’s actual inspection according to the amount requested by the Defendant, and that the Promissory Notes did not take any measure against NB despite the default of the Promissory Notes, and that the Defendant had no effect on the settlement of the Promissory Notes with BB and B. It is difficult to say that the said Promissory Notes were issued 60 million won or less than the Defendant’s 60 billion won, and that the Defendant had no effect on the settlement of the Promissory Notes. The Defendant’s assertion that the Promissory Notes were issued 60 billion won or less at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes was 150 million won or less than the Defendant’s 60 billion won, and thus, it was difficult to say that the said Promissory Notes was 60 billion won or less than the Defendant’s 600 billion won.

5) The establishment registration of the instant shopping district, which was completed before the victim AB supplied the instant shopping district to K, was first supplied to K for the purpose of securing the payment of the price for the instant shopping district during the following month, and under the premise of credit transaction with K, it cannot be deemed that the price for the instant shopping district was paid. The establishment registration of the instant shopping district, in itself, has a certain amount of security value. However, even if the victim AB recovered part of the price for the instant shopping district supplied to K during the auction procedure for the instant commercial building, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s establishment of the crime of fraud was affected even if the victim AB recovered part of the recovered price for the instant commercial district.

6) On March 7, 2012, the Defendant issued a promissory note No. 80,907,088 won to the victim AB who resisted to the settlement of the instant promissory note on March 7, 2012, “80,90,000 won,” “the issuer,” “victim AB,” “the due date for payment”, “date for payment”, “date for payment”, “date for payment”, “date for payment,” and “date for payment,” and did not receive the said promissory note No. 27-32, on March 15, 2012 (No. DuO No. 1222, No. 2012, No. 2018, Apr. 417, 201).

4. Determination as to the assertion regarding fraud against the victim AH in Article 6 of the judgment

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) The certified copy of the corporate register of AI is registered as the representative director, but the actual operation of the company was the defendant (2018 high Gohap417 investigation records of the case 7, 19, 120, 121, 218, 220 pages), and AK, a business director of the BP (hereinafter referred to as "BP") corporation, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "BP"), is the business director of the company (hereinafter referred to as "BP"), the defendant was in custody of the defendant as a collateral for the debt to AK and BP, and the electronic bill of KRW 8,50,000,000 and the electronic bill of KRW 94,00,000 (each bill number: 40,000 won, each of the electronic bill of KRW 2,000,000,000,0000,000 won, and the defendant was able to trade in steel with each of the electronic bill of KRW 1,2501,35

3) On November 28, 2016, AZ issued 1 electronic bill of this case to AI on November 28, 2016; on December 6, 2016; AL 1 and 2 electronic bill of this case were endorsed and delivered to AI respectively (29-32, 37-40, 53-55, 11-7, 113, 8, 13, 13-8, 13-5, 27-1, 27-1, 27-1, 29-7, 27-1, 27-1, 37-1, 25-1, 27-1, 37-1, 25-1, 27-1, 25-1, 37, 37-1, 25-1, 207, 47-15-1, 267, 47-1,36-1, domestic market value of the iron.

5) However, the electronic bills of this case Nos. 1 and 2 were all insolvent on or around January 18, 2017 (2018 high Gohap 417). As a result, the victim AH did not receive at all the steel plates and steel bars supplied as above.

B. Specific determination

Examining the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel in accordance with the legal principles as seen in Section 2-B(1)(b)(1) of the judgment, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant and the defense counsel had the criminal intent to commit fraud together with the deception, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts of recognition and the evidence as seen earlier. Thus, this part of the argument by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted.

2) The Defendant stated to the effect that "AK had the source of the electronic bill Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and "AK has received part of the face value of the electronic bill as payment, and some of the face value has been received as payment," "AK has received part of the face value of the electronic bill as payment for the goods, but it has not been confirmed whether the amount of the electronic bill was paid as payment for the goods." "AK had the face value of the electronic bill as payment for the goods." "AK had the face value of the bill sent money and affixed the bill, and some of the bill did not have the face value of the bill." The first bill stated to the effect that "the second bill was 60 million won and did not have the remainder, and that the second bill was in full in payment for the entire amount of the bill, and that the Defendant was aware of or did not have been aware of the fact that there was a normal endorsement from the investigation record No. 2018,417, 136, 137, etc.).

3) Nevertheless, the Defendant ordered AL to deliver the instant 1 and 2 electronic bills to the victim AH, and the Defendant did not at all confirm whether the issuer of the electronic bills was issued, endorsed, or issued in a normal transactional relationship, and whether the electronic bills can be settled on the due date (137 pages of the investigation records of the instant case No. 2018Dahap417). In fact, the electronic bills of KRW 400 million prior to the issuance and endorsement of the instant 1 and 2 electronic bills in installments are issued and delivered to BT with the representative director of BR, but the Defendant agreed to use the electronic bills at a discount and make payments against the due date on a half-yearly basis if they were issued and delivered to BT with the representative director of BR, which is the main agent of BR, but the electronic bills were not discounted as above (2018DaDa4178382, Apr. 17, 208, etc.).

4) At the time, the Defendant had no particular real estate or movable property owned by the Defendant, and as examined in the following 5) above, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the steel plates and the sales price of the steel plates provided by the Victim AH and the sales price of the steel plates and the sales price of the steel plates paid by the Co., Ltd., Ltd., the final delivery of the steel plates and the sales price of the steel plates and the sales price of the sales price of which was paid by the Victim AH, and the remainder is transferred to the account designated by AK for the repayment of other obligations of the AI (141, 249-251, 254-28 of the investigation records of the instant case, No. 2018Da417, the investigation records of the instant case No. 2017).

5) Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted that the transaction between AK and the Victim AH was connected or mediated. However, the instant electronic bill was endorsed and delivered to the AI operated by the Defendant, and again endorsed and delivered to the Victim AH. ② AL prepared an order form stored in the AI’s computer and sent it to the Victim AH upon confirmation of the Defendant (129,130 pages of investigation records of the instant case No. 2018Dahap417), ③ the above order form was written by the BU factory designated by AK to the delivery place, and accordingly, the victim AH delivered the steel board and steel scrap immediately to the BU factory (2018 Gohap417 129,130,132,1337, 137, 1387, etc.). Considering the fact that the Defendant’s final transaction between the victim and the AP or the Defendant’s final transaction between the BU factory and the AP and the AP, the Defendant could not be seen as a buyer of the BU or the BP.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Each crime under subparagraphs 2, 5, and 6 of the holding;

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months from June to twenty years; and

B. The sentencing guidelines do not apply to the relationship of concurrent crimes under the preceding and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, as the judgment of the scope of recommendation based on the sentencing guidelines became final and conclusive

2. The remaining crimes 1);

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months from June to twenty years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] The amount of not less than 50 million won for general fraud, and less than 5 billion won for fraud (Type 3)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 3 years to 6 years

3. Determination of sentence;

After establishing or accepting a large number of construction materials wholesale and retail companies, the Defendant: (a) dumped the supply of construction materials from customers and sold them; and (b) discontinued the company with no payment of the price of the supplied goods; and (c) committed several frauds against many victims; (b) the victim is a majority and the amount of damage is considerable to the extent that has not yet been recovered so far; (c) the Defendant committed another fraud in the situation where the Defendant was locked after the commission of the fraud and the issuance of a designated number of copies; (d) the Defendant committed another fraud. Considering these circumstances, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant with heavy penalty corresponding to the liability

However, the sentencing conditions in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and method of committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, shall be determined as ordered by considering the following factors.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

On April 2015, the Defendant presented the name cards of AA, a director of the Z, to the employees of the victim U at the Z office in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and falsely concluded that the Plaintiff would pay the face value in cash by supplying the joint board to the members of the Z office.

However, in fact, the Defendant planned to sell the Gohap supplied by the victim U at a low price, and due to the difficulties in the financial situation of the company at the time, it was required to disburse the operating expenses of the company as sales proceeds of the said Gohap. At the time, the Defendant continued to receive the Gohap supplied from the damaged company due to the fact that the company is operating other construction materials wholesale and retail companies, and there was no intention or ability to pay the price in full to the damaged company as the van continued to be supplied

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim U, was supplied by the victim U.S. on April 18, 2015 and April 30, 2015 at each market price of 34,980,000 won.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

It is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the criminal intent of deceiving the Defendant with respect to the sum of 34,980,000 won at the market price supplied by each victim U on April 18, 2015 and April 30, 2015.

3. Determination

As seen earlier, the victim U was paid KRW 34,980,00 in advance by the Defendant on April 17, 2015, and the victim’s U supplied 34,980,000 to W on April 18, 2015 on the following day. The victim U supplied 34,980,000 won to W on April 30, 2015, and the victim U was paid KRW 34,980,000 from the Defendant on the same day. As such, it is difficult to acknowledge that the payment of 34,980,000 won was made in advance by the Defendant on April 18, 2015, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant immediately supplied 34,980,000 won in advance, and there was no intention or ability to pay 34,000 won in advance on April 30, 2015.

Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of each crime. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of a crime under Article 4 of the judgment in relation to a single comprehensive crime, the sentence of innocence should not be rendered separately.

Judges

The presiding judge, the Kim Jong-dong

Judge Political decoration

Judge Lee Sang-hoon

Note tin

1) Since the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and each crime of fraud are in the relationship of concurrent crimes, the aggregate

The standards for punishment shall apply.