The case holding that a crime of fraud is established in case where a person receives money from an investor as a loan or a loan for investment because he did not provide accurate information about the possibility of investment success while soliciting investment in a project that belongs to the loan use or has a strong speculative nature.

The case holding that a fraud is established on the ground that, although a company was established for the purpose of investing in, acquiring, etc. a company subject to restructuring and was paid money as a loan or a loan on the condition of paying interest at a short rate from investors for a short time, it is unreasonable to repay the money through the feasibility program because there is no possibility of success in a restructuring project, and if part of it was used in the existing personal debt repayment, etc., the deception on the intent

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Freeboard Kim Byung

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a director of the cream Partnership Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of investing in, acquiring, etc. a company subject to restructuring.

1. The facts are as follows: (a) around April 2002, at a high rate of 4.5 billion won from many investors, such as the Non-Indicted 2, and (b) was invested in money equivalent to 3.5 billion won, and (c) was considered to have suffered loss equivalent to 2.5 billion won, and (d) was repeated in the malicious cycle, such as again paying interest at a high rate of 400 million won from others; (b) there was no special property or certain income; and (c) there was no investment of 40 million won for the acquisition price of new stocks in the name of the Defendant, and there was no investment in the Non-Indicted 2 in the Non-Indicted 4.5 billion won for a short period of time on condition that she would pay high rate of interest to the new name of the victim and offer new stocks in the name of 200 billion won to 300 billion won in the name of 300 billion won in Seoul, 200,30000 won in the name of the victim and 203 billion won in the name of new 3.7.7.3 billion.

2. Even if a person borrows money from the victim's Jinyoung with respect to the restructuring of the Maddong Industrial Co., Ltd., the above restructuring project is unreasonable to be successful, and as such, some of the borrowed money was used only for the defendant's personal debt repayment, etc., and did not intend to pay the full amount as operating funds to the above company, despite the intention to pay the above company's personal debt repayment, it is false to the effect that, around February 15, 2003, at the office of the Dakdong-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the above victim "if it is lent money in need of advance, it shall be paid within one week or one hundred percent of interest and ten percent of interest shall be paid." Accordingly, the above amount of KRW 100 million shall be remitted from the victim on March 7, 2003, and around October 10 of the same month by taking over 200 million won from the bank account in the name of each defendant (592-264-26584 of the same month) under the name of the defendant.

3. In fact, the victim was trying to use money for debt repayment, etc., even if he was to obtain money from the M&D Co., Ltd. as a purchase price for the company's shares, and did not intend to use the money for the above company's purchase of shares. Despite the fact that there was no specific property or income, such as Paragraph 1, the above victim was obligated to make a restructuring of the above victim's office around March 24, 2003 at the above defendant's company's office in order to make the above victim's "Madungsan Co., Ltd." to purchase shares in order to secure voting rights in the course of the normalization of Madungsan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Madungsan Co., Ltd."), and the victim did not have the intent to use the above company's shares as debt repayment, etc., and there was no intention to use the above company's shares for the above company's share purchase, and even if there was no other specific property or income, it was no intention or ability to return the above victim's investment money in the above.

4. On February 6, 2003, the defendant transferred 400 million won to the above victim's last 6 billion won and invested 400 million won as the acquisition price of new shares in the crowdfunding corporation under the name of the defendant, and on March 24 of the same year, the defendant transferred the above investment bond to the non-indicted corporation designated at the victim's request: the amount of the transferred bond: gold billion won; the third party's right to request the return of the transferred bond amount; the third party's right to demand the delivery of shares; and the right to demand the above transfer of the bond amount to the above non-indicted 60 billion won; the defendant's right to demand the above transfer of the bond amount to the above non-indicted 40 billion won was transferred to the above non-indicted 60 billion won; the defendant's obligation to receive the loan amount to the non-indicted 60 billion won under the defendant's name to the above non-indicted 400 billion won; and the defendant's obligation to receive the above investment bond amount from the defendant's defendant.

Summary of Evidence

○ case No. 2004 Highest 440

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement in the name of the witness, the final return, the current and present name of the witness;

1. Examination protocol 2 and 3 of the accused by the prosecution (including each part of the statements made by the second and the third interrogation protocol of the accused, the second and the second interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each protocol of examination of suspect on the presentation of remains by prosecutors;

1. Statement of the prosecutor's office concerning the last return;

1. A final written petition;

1. A certificate of borrowing;

○ 2004 Highest899

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The final statement of each court on the witness's return to the witness or the witness's return;

1. A copy of the third protocol of interrogation of the accused accused by the prosecution (a copy of investigation record No. 183);

1. The final statement of each prosecutor's office with respect to crypology, cypology, maximum crypology and well-time

1. Investment contract and assignment contract;

○ case No. 2004 Highest 4435

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement in the custody of a witness;

1. Second written examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A copy of the second examination protocol of suspect against the accused at the prosecution (a copy of investigation record No. 164);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 347 (1) (Fraud) and 355 (2) and (1) (a) of the Criminal Act;

2. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Fraud) of the Criminal Act.

Judgment on the Issues

1. Facts No. 1 of the judgment: According to each statement of the victim's new name statement and the current and final return, the defendant provided the defendant with new shares in an amount equivalent to KRW 800,000,00 of KRW 800,00 as collateral from the victim. However, the defendant's right to new shares to be offered as collateral can be acknowledged as having no right to dispose of the defendant, and the defendant's own statement can be acknowledged as having extremely weak ability to repay the principal and interest of the borrowed money until the due date for payment, even if the defendant voluntarily made a statement. Thus, the defendant's act of deception on the security and ability of repayment can be recognized.

2. The facts set forth in Article 2 of the Decision: The defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office, and the statement at this court of the injured party's advanced ruling, can be acknowledged that the defendant used part of the money received from the injured party to repay his personal debt, not the restructuring of the Maduk Water Industry, and that the possibility of success in the restructuring of the Maduk Water Industry is not clear, and that the victim's ability to repay the principal and interest by the due date of the promised repayment is extremely weak. Thus, the defendant

3. Facts No. 3: According to each statement of the victim Mami and U.S., the defendant can be recognized as having the fact that the defendant used the money received from the victim to pay his/her personal debt, and not only belongs to the use of the borrowed money, but also can be offered as a security because he/she has the right to the purchase of Maduk Water Products. Thus, the defendant can be recognized as having the intent and ability to pay the borrowed money.

4. Facts in the decision No. 4: According to each statement of the victim's final return and the recall, the defendant's share among the rights to professional crowdfunding, Co., Ltd., the victim's ownership, is not recognized, and even if there is a certain share of interest, it is a right that can be asserted by the victim, and it cannot be viewed as a right that can be directly disposed by the defendant, and thus, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of breach of trust.

Grounds for sentencing

1. Preferential terms and conditions;

It appears that the first offender, the victim's new statement and agreement, the victims could have known of the risk burden while lending money for the purpose of interest at a high rate, and the defendant did not have any ability or possibility to repay.

2. Unfavorable conditions;

The amount of damage exceeds KRW 900 million, the amount of unpaid damage exceeds KRW 600 million, and all risk risks of crime by borrowing money from victims through the transfer of all the risk risks of restructuring projects, and not recognizing his/her mistake.

Judges Kang Tae-tae