2019 Highest 3819 Highest 40

Kim Jong-Un (alias), 61, South and North Korea, and Company Board

Residential Ulsan

Reference domicile

Jinho (prosecution) and Park Jin-Jin (public trial)

Attorney Jeong-hwan

April 10, 2020

Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of three million won. If the Defendant does not pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined to the head of the Nowon Station for the period converted by B/L into one day.

An order to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine shall be issued.

Criminal History Office

Defendant, at the time of July 2009, took out a loan of KRW 49,80,000 from the financial institution on July 29, 2009 to Kim Dok- (Gai), who was a pet at the time, Kim Don (Gai) and transferred KRW 5,00,000 from the financial institution on July 29, 2009, to the seller of the land, and Kim Don directly prepared a contract for the sale of Nreal estate and real estate, and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership of the said land in the name of Kim Don on October 20, 209.

Defendant 1, while he continued to pay interest on the above loan even after Gindo and Gindo in 2013, was unable to cope with interest, he sold the above land to Kim Do and paid interest on behalf of Kim Do governor. However, in order to not pay interest on the occurrence of profit from the sale of the above land, Defendant 1 was fluent to make a false complaint as if he stolen the land he purchased in his name and would bring about the illegal use of the name of Kim Do governor. Accordingly, on July 29, 2019, Defendant purchased the above land by using a computer at the Defendant’s residence located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul, and 19, but did not request the public service center to purchase the land under the name of Kim Do-U Kim Kim Kim, working for the company Kim Do, and did not purchase the land under the name of the government service center up to 90,000,000,000 won.

However, in fact, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of Kim Dol and Kim Dol, and there was no fact that the Defendant intended to purchase the above land in his own name, or Kim Dou did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of Kim Don Kim Don. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a false complaint against the public office for the purpose of having the Kim Don-do punished criminal punishment. The summary of evidence ( omitted)

Application of Acts and Subordinate Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions and selection of punishment on the facts of crime;

§ 156 of the Criminal Code, Selection of a fine

1. Invitation in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2)1 of the Criminal Act; Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

Judgment on the motion of the defendant and his defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

Since the contents of the complaint against Kim Do-in are based on objective facts, only the circumstances of the reported fact are somewhat exaggerationd, and the contents of the complaint were confessioned as false during the investigation process by the investigative agency, so the defendant is not guilty of a false accusation.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had awareness of false facts, such as the record of the crime, and the intention and purpose of the purchase of land shares (hereinafter referred to as “land of Heunghae-Eup”) were sufficiently recognized. Accordingly, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted.

① In this court, Kim Do-man (hereinafter referred to as "the person without intention") appeared as a witness and purchased the land at his own expense for the defendant to avoid living together with his intention to avoid. The person without intention to buy the land at his own expense, and the conclusion of the sales contract and the conclusion of the sales contract with the Nreal estate company (hereinafter referred to as "Nreal estate") was made by the defendant, and there was no entry to which the defendant was involved, and thereafter, the interest he received and paid for the loan was paid several times after the purchase of the land by the Eup in this interest, but as the defendant asserted, he will sell the land within three years after the purchase of the Eup in this court and will pay the principal and the proceeds to the defendant. If the sale is not made, the statement made to the purport that the above Nreal estate will take over if it was not made, or that there was no entry into such an agreement. The statement made by the person without intention is consistent with the important purpose and content from the investigation agency and the purchase of the land of the Eup in this interest.

The details of the circumstances are clearly detailed, and the credibility of the statements and intention of the employee is sufficiently recognized, because the statements and intention of the employee are inconsistent with those of the latter.

② At the time of the purchase of land by a person who was an employee of the N real estate at the time of interested party’s interesting, this employee (a person who was an employee of the N real estate) was also a real estate purchased from an investigative agency to this court in order for the Defendant to avoid, and the Defendant told himself/herself to the effect that whether the Defendant was involved in the preparation of a sales contract or not has been involved in the preparation of the sales contract. Such employee’s statement can be believed in line with the statement from the investigative agency to this court in relation to the process of the purchase of the land by interested party, while there is no other circumstance to deem it false.

③ On the other hand, the Defendant, while claiming that he directly verified and purchased the land of Heung-gu, did not specify the exact location and lot number of the land of Heung-gu, and did not have any consistency in the process of examining the existence of the sales contract written by the Defendant as the contracting party, and the background leading up to the formation of the contract. The Defendant did not know of the division of the land of Heung-gu in the process of undergoing the prosecutor’s examination, and, in the process of undergoing the examination of his replacement with the prosecutor, revealed the fact that the Defendant did not request the return of the land of Heung-gu to the person who did not request the return of the land of Heung-gu before that time, and made a statement to the effect that he purchased the land to the extent that the content of the accusation was false and that he did not request the prosecutor to inquire into the facts of the accusation. After that examination process, the Defendant asserted that he did not make a statement on the above purport, and that he purchased the land again by the public prosecutor’s rebuttal and did not cause any damage to the Eup, thereby assertinging the truth.

④ In light of the above Defendant’s investigative agency’s statement process from the investigative agency to this court, ordinary real estate trading process, general common sense, etc., it is difficult to believe Defendant’s statement related to the purchase of the land in Hean-Eup. Moreover, there is no evidence suggesting that there was an agreement that the Defendant would sell the land in Hean-Eup within three years after the purchase of the land in Hean-Eup and pay the principal and profits to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not present it.

The crime of this case with the reason for sentencing was filed with the investigative agency with false statement that, while the defendant intended to purchase the land in the name of the person who would not receive the land in order to avoid punishment at the time of living together with the defendant, the defendant would purchase the land in the name of the person who would not receive the land in order to avoid punishment.

From the fact that the crime of false accusation is a crime that interferes with the proper exercise of the state's criminal justice power and infringes on the legal stability of the State, the crime of this case is deemed to be bad, and is also highly likely to be subject to criticism. Nevertheless, the defendant did not recognize mistake while denying his own criminal act, and the defendant seems to have committed bullying to continuously avoid criminal complaint against the defendant in addition to criminal complaint filed against him/her. Accordingly, the person against whom the crime of false accusation is sought to be punished against the defendant while complaining for considerable mental distress caused by the defendant. Considering such unfavorable circumstances against the defendant, it is necessary to sentence a severe punishment against the defendant.

However, there is no record of punishment exceeding a fine against the defendant, and the fact that the defendant's criminal punishment was not imposed due to the defendant's complaint, etc. shall be considered as favorable circumstances to the defendant, and the defendant's punishment shall be determined as ordered in excess of the punishment of the prosecutor (one million won of fine) in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

Judges Yu Jong-woo

1) Defendant 2019da5986, as the recipient’s order, sought a loan of KRW 31,568,073 as a loan to Defendant 201da5986, and 2019 Ghana13929

each lawsuit seeking 11,485,000 won of joint and several security deposit was filed, but all of the lawsuit was ruled against it, and the judgment was ruled against it.

The Defendant became final and conclusive as is, on the basis of the substance of the instant complaint, against the Defendant who seeks to re-beed.

A person who claims that he/she was entrusted to a deceased person and sought a refund of KRW 49,00,000,000 from the proceeds of the disposal of the land in He/she;

The lawsuit is currently pending by filing a lawsuit (2019dada119007).