Defendant 1 and six others

Maximum Decree

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Young-cheon et al.

Defendant 1, 2, and 6 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, by imprisonment for a term of eight months, by imprisonment for a term of eight months, by imprisonment with prison labor for a term of four and five years, respectively.

The number of days of detention prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be 44 days for defendants 1 and 2, and 71 days for defendants 6 shall be included in each of the above punishment.

However, for the defendant 1, 2, and 6 from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for 3 years, and for 3, 4, 5, and 7 years, respectively.

1. The point of title trust held by Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6

No person, although the real right to real estate was not registered under the name of the title trustee under the title trust agreement, shall not be registered:

A. In collusion with Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and Nonindicted 2, on May 27, 2004, Nonindicted 2 made a registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonindicted 4 under a title trust agreement with Nonindicted 4, who purchased approximately KRW 3 billion from Nonindicted 9, etc. and purchased approximately KRW 3 billion from Nonindicted 2, the mother of Nonindicted 2, and completed a registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonindicted 4 pursuant to a title trust agreement with Nonindicted 4, who is the mother of Nonindicted 2, pursuant to a title trust agreement with respect to the horizontal city development area (hereinafter 4 omitted);

B. Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 conspireds on February 25, 2004 that the Defendant et al. would have the same shares of forest land in Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter 5 omitted) and purchased at KRW 160 million and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonindicted 10 under a title trust agreement with Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 10 according to a title trust agreement;

C. Defendant 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 conspired,

On November 20, 2003, the registration of ownership transfer is made in the name of Non-Indicted 2 according to a trust agreement entered into with Defendant 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and the above Non-Indicted 2 after purchasing KRW 188,850,00 and purchasing KRW 188,50,000,00 in which the Defendant, etc. had the same share at the site of Jung-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter 6 omitted).

D. Defendant 6 in collusion with the above non-indicted 2:

On May 2005, according to each of the statements in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter 1 omitted), the Defendant would have 1/3 shares, and the ownership transfer registration is made in the name of Nonindicted 4 according to a title trust agreement with Nonindicted 4, the mother of Nonindicted 2 (the mother of Nonindicted 2) after purchasing KRW 2.5 billion (the prosecutor prosecuteds that the shares trusted in trust by Defendant 6 are 1/2, but the above shares are based on the parties’ agreement. The above shares are based on the legal statement, investigation report (the report on the execution of the warrant of search and inspection - the details of the real estate purchase price, the details of the real estate purchase price and the agreed documents, the legal relationship and agreement documents, the number of 604 pages, the number of 2,3, and 604 pages), and there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts that the shares of the Defendant 6-1/2, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts that the shares of the Defendant 6-2, 3, and 63).

E. Defendant 6:

On or around September 7, 2004, at a place non-indicted 2, a public prosecutor charged for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-indicted 2 pursuant to the title trust agreement between the defendant 6 and the non-indicted 2 (the public prosecutor charged for the shares held in title by the defendant 6 as 1/2). However, the above shares are based on the parties' legal statement, the statement of the third protocol of examination of the defendant 6's suspect's suspect's interrogation of the defendant 6 on the third time (the result of the execution of the search warrant - details of the purchase of real estate - details of the purchase price and the relation of the land, the relation of the rights and obligations, and the fact that the shares of the defendant 2 are 1/464, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the shares of the non-indicted 2 are 36/64, 208, 364, 206).

2. Defendants’ occupational embezzlement

From around 1996 to July 2006, Defendant 1 worked as a certified public appraiser and the head of a branch office of the non-indicted 1 Stock Corporation (△△ Corporation before May 2004). From July 2006 to July 2006, Defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, and 5 worked as a certified public appraiser belonging to the sports branch of the 1996 to April 2006, respectively. From around July 2006 to around July 2006, Defendant 1 worked as a certified public appraiser belonging to the non-indicted 1 Stock Corporation (△△ Corporation before May 2004) and from around July 2006 to around the date, Defendant 7 works as a certified public appraiser belonging to the Mandong Securities Corporation (Defendant 3 is a certified public appraiser belonging to the Mandong Securities Corporation) and from around September 2004 to July 206, 2006, Defendant 7 was a certified public appraiser belonging to the sports branch of the company.

The Defendants listed Non-Indicted 5 (Defendant 1’s wife), Non-Indicted 6 (Defendant 3’s wife), and Non-Indicted 4 (Defendant 3’s mother), the relatives of the appraisers who do not actually work at the appraisal corporation of Non-Indicted 1, and then accounted as if they were paid wages to these false employees, then deducted the above amount of the said wage from the actual appraiser’s wages, or deducted the difference from the wage paid to Non-Indicted 7 (Defendant 2’s husband) and Non-Indicted 8, and then deposited the difference into the borrowed account managed by Defendant 2 of the appraiser. In short, the Defendants conspired to arbitrarily withdraw the funds deposited into the said account and use them in the name of purchase funds for the illegal joint purchase of real estate, incentives for the appraisers, etc.

around May 15, 2003, the Defendants deposited KRW 9,695,500 from May 15, 2003 to May 31, 2004, in the Gyeonggi branch office of △△ Appraisal Corporation located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter hereinafter 3 omitted), to the next borrowed account in the name of Defendant 1 managed by Defendant 2, such as deposit of KRW 9,695,50 to the next borrowed account in the name of Defendant 1, the Defendants made up of KRW 169,263,97 from May 15, 2003 to May 31, 2004, with the creation of KRW 169,263,97 of the aggregate of the non-funds as indicated in the attached Table 1-1, and keep it for △△ Appraisal Corporation using the second

From June 15, 2004, the Defendants conspired with the above 1 appraisal corporation No. 1 (hereinafter the above 3 omitted) to use the 302,063,063,876 won as stated in the annexed Table 1-2, and to use the 306th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 66th 6th 66th 6th 66th 6th 66th 6th 66th 96th 6th 96th 6th 96th 6th 96th 6th 66th 96th 6th 66th 96th 6th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 96th 200 206th 96th 96th 206.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants and Nonindicted 2

1. An investigation report (report on the seizure of passbooks presumed to be a non-funds account of △△ certified public appraisal corporations and non-indicted 1 certified public appraisal corporations), investigation report (report on the result of analysis of passbooks presumed to be a non-funds account of △△ certified public appraisal corporations and non-indicted 1 certified public appraisal corporations), investigation report (report on the completion of a copy of the register of △△ certified public appraisal corporations and non-indicted 1 certified public appraisal corporations), investigation report (report on the acquisition and transfer of real estate by non-indicted 2, etc.), real estate acquisition and transfer status (report on the confirmation of the status of the acquisition and transfer of real estate by non-indicted 2, etc.), a copy of the register (number of 401-423 pages), investigation report (report on the result of execution of a search and inspection warrant - details of the purchase price of real estate, the details of the distribution

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

(a) Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6: Articles 7(1)1 and 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (each title trust point, each choice of imprisonment with labor)

B. Defendants: Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of each occupational embezzlement, each choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Aggravated Punishment and Punishment)

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Defendant 1, 2, and 6: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendants: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1148, Apr. 1,

The Defendants asserted that the funds of each of the above sports branch offices against the Defendants cannot be the crime of embezzlement because they cannot be the other's property, which is the object of the crime of embezzlement, because all of the appraisal corporations established a joint investment by the appraisers with the main axis of the Defendants, separate business registration from the main office of the above appraisal corporations, and separate management of their business and profits. Thus, the above business contract with the parties to a joint investment with cash and land to jointly establish and operate a joint investment company, and the sharing of expenses and profits to the joint management of the company should be based on the share ratio among the parties to the joint investment, and its legal relation should be made in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Act, etc. as to the legal relations of the corporation, separate from the external relations and internal relations (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7340, Apr. 15, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2003Do73840, Apr. 23, 2012).

Defendant 7 asserted that the Defendants’ act of raising funds alone did not constitute embezzlement, and the Defendants’ act did not constitute embezzlement since the Defendants’ act did not constitute the crime of embezzlement because the funds raised by certified public appraisers’ benefits or outing equipment, etc. were disbursed. However, as long as the Defendants’ purchase funds and loans were used for personal purposes, such as funds, etc. after raising the so-called funds, Defendant 7’s assertion cannot be viewed as realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition solely on the ground that some of them were disbursed by using the name of wages or outing equipment

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

【Crime Disturbing Table】

Judge Credit Card (Presiding Judge) Chang-won