2018 Highis611, 2018 Highis680 (Joint), 2018 Highis739 (Joint)

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

(b) Fraud;

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

1. A. B.

2.(a) B

3.(a)(b) C

4. (b) D.

5. (a)(c) E;

6.2 b.F

7.(b) G.

Transition and Democratic (Public Trial)

Law Firm Isi (Representative) (For Defendant A, B, and C)

Attorney Lee Han-ok

Law Firm Fence (for Defendant B)

Attorney Yoon Tae-sik, Lee In-bok, Lee Dong-sung, Lee Dong-hwan, Lee Dong-ho, and Seo-ju

Law Firm Seop (for Defendant B)

Attorney Lee Jae-soo

Law Firm ELDB Partners (for Defendant B),

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm Staff (for the defendant B and C)

Attorney Lee Dong-hwan

Attorney Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice for defendant D)

Law Firm LLC (For Defendant E)

Attorney Kang Tae-sung

Law Firm Seobu (for the defendant F and G)

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

December 19, 2018

[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

[Defendant B] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

[Defendant C] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

[Defendant DI Defendant is punished by imprisonment for one year.]

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment. The probation and community service for 120 hours shall be ordered to the defendant. [Defendant E] shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

45,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

An order to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge to a defendant (Defendant F) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive. The probation and community service for the accused shall be ordered for 120 hours.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Criminal History Office

【Criminal Power】

On July 23, 2009, Defendant B was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court. On August 19, 2011, Defendant B was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the same court. On April 22, 2013, the enforcement of the sentence was terminated, and on October 11, 2018, Defendant B was sentenced to three months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court for fraud, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 19, 2018.

[Public invitation of Defendant A and C are co-representatives of Suwon-gu H apartment and Hoho Lake Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "J") used for money laundering purposes. Defendant E, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant A, Defendant D, Defendant G, Defendant F, and K are enormous inheritance funds, and in the process of bringing the above funds deposited into a foreign account into the Republic of Korea, they intend to acquire money under the pretext of taxes and expenses. Defendant B, while carrying the assets with large inheritance funds like those of a large amount of overseas inheritance funds, ordered Defendant A, Defendant D, DefendantG, and Defendant F to raise expenses. Defendant C had close relationship with the government office and government office, and was capable of carrying out the business of bringing large inheritance funds into the Republic of Korea. Defendant C, under the name of the victim abroad, was in charge of raising money from the owner of the said funds overseas, and Defendant C was in charge of raising money from Defendant C’s own account and management of the said funds, and Defendant C took the role of raising money from the owner of the said large amount of inheritance funds.

[Specific Criminal Facts] 2018 Gohap611 - Defendant A

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against victimO;

In accordance with the above public offering, around July 2017, the Defendant concluded that, “Around July 2017, the victim 0 succeeded to the money exceeding the management unit, the expenses need to be incurred in order to realize the money. The lender would make the said money more than twice the principal by realizing the money between the payment and the payment between the lender.”

However, there was no inheritance fund in excess of a little unit, and there was no way to realize it, so even if Defendant, B, and C received money from the victim, Defendant, B, and C did not have the intent or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim.

As a result, Defendant B, and C conspired with each other in successive order, and deceiving the victim, as above, obtained KRW 30,000,000 from the victim’s corporate bank account in A’s name around July 5, 2017, and acquired it by fraud from the victim, and obtained KRW 79,00,000 in total over 17 times in the same manner as shown in the attached crime list 1 from September 7, 2017.

According to the above public offering, around July 2017, the Defendant: (a) demanded that K receive money in a non-office near R in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Q by telephone from the phone to “on the basis of a realizing it; (b) K succeeds money to the victim P around July 2017; and (c) there is a need for the expenses to be incurred in realizing the money; (b) there is a difference in the expenses to be incurred in realizing the money; (c) there is a difference in the expenses to be incurred in realizing the above money between the lender and allowing more than twice the principal by realizing it.”

However, in fact, there was no inheritance fund in excess of a group of units, and there was no way to realize it, so even if Defendant B, C, and K received money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim.

As a result, Defendant B, C, and K conspired with each other in successive order, and deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 5,000,000 from the K bank account in the name of the victim around July 7, 2017, and acquired it by fraud from the victim, and then acquired KRW 380,400,000 in total over 78 times from that time until May 10, 2018, as shown in the attached crime list 2.

The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim "2018 Highest 680, defendant B, and C1.

A, in accordance with the above public offering, around July 2017, the victim of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government coffee shop “in order to realize the money in excess of the internal coordination unit, the expenses need to be incurred. The lender would provide more than twice the principal by realizing the above money between the lender and making it more realistic.”

However, in fact, there was no inheritance fund in excess of a group of units, and there was no way to realize it, so even if the Defendants and A received money from the victim, they did not have the intent or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim.

As a result, Defendants and A conspired with each other in successive order, and deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 30,00,000 from the victim's corporate bank account in the name of A around July 5, 2017, and received KRW 79,00,000 from September 7, 2017 to receive KRW 17 times in total as shown in the separate crime list 1 in the same manner, and acquired the money. 2. Pursuant to the above public offering, the fraudA against the victim P received KRW 79,00,000 in a total of 17 times from July 2017 to September 7, 2017 to receive KRW 20,00.

However, the defendants, A, and K did not have any intention or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim even if they received money from the victim because there was no inheritance fund in excess of the early group and there was no way to realize it.

As a result, Defendants, A, and K conspired with each other in successive order, deceiving the victim as above, and obtained 5,000,000,000 won from the K bank account in the name of the victim around November 2, 2017, and acquired it by fraud from the victim, and then acquired 380,400,000 won in total over 78 times from May 10, 2018 as shown in the attached crime list 2.

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of Victims T;

A according to the above public offering, around July 2017, at a non-permanent office near R in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Q, "it is necessary to pay the money that exceeds the unit of money in order to realize it." On November 1, 2017, K demanded "A to inherit the money exceeding the unit of money in Seoul and the Gyeonggi et al." to the victim "A" at a non-permanent office that is located in Q. The expenses need to be incurred in realizing the above money within one month and give more than 1,000 times the principal amount to the lender."

However, the defendants, A, and K did not have any intention or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim even if they received money from the victim because there was no inheritance fund in excess of the early group and there was no way to realize it.

As a result, Defendants, A, and K conspired with each other in successive order, and deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 20,000,000 from the victim’s corporate bank account from the victim around November 2, 2017, and acquired it by deceptively, and then received KRW 1,029,400,000 in total over 56 times from that time until February 26, 2018, as shown in the attached Table 3, from the victim’s name bank account. The Defendants acquired KRW 20,000 in total from that time to February 26, 2018.

1. Defendant B and Defendant F’s fraud against Defendant F’s victim X stated that, in collusion with Defendant B, in January 2015, Defendant F entered money from the victim X (B) at the W Kaf around V located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government U., “A large amount of overseas inheritance funds, but if the expenses are needed, Defendant F would pay KRW 3 billion with the business funds.”

However, in fact, there was no large inheritance fund, and there was no way to bring it into Korea. Therefore, even if the Defendants received money from the victim, they did not have the intent or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with each other in successive order to induce the victim, and thereby, received 50,000 won from the victim’s account in the name of Defendant F to the Y Bank account on February 17, 2015, and received 40,230,000 won in total over 106 occasions from June 11, 2018, and acquired 40,000 won from the day to June 11, 2018.

2. 피고인 B, 피고인 E, 피고인 C, 피고인 D의 피해자 Z에 대한 사기 피고인 D는 위와 같은 공모에 따라, 2015. 12. 1.경 서울, 경기 이하 불상지에서 피해자 Z에게 전화하여 "B총재(B)에게 당신이 알면 깜짝 놀랄만한 단위의 거액의 해외자금이 있는데, 이를 국내로 들여오기 위해서는 경비로 5,500만 원이 필요하다. 위 돈만 있으면 이틀 안에 전부 해결되니 돈을 보내라. 일이 해결되면 빌린 금액을 포함하여 5억 원을 지급하고, 별도로 사업자금으로 50억 원을 지원해주겠다."라고 거짓말하였다.

However, in fact, there was no large amount of overseas funds, and there was no way to bring them into Korea, so even if the Defendants received money from the victim, they did not have the intent or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with each other in successive order, and by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 55,00,000 from the victim’s account in the name of Defendant B from the victim on December 2, 2015, and acquired it by fraud.

3. The fraud against Defendant B, Defendant E, and Defendant C’s victim Z in accordance with the above conspiracys: (a) calls directly to the victim ZZ that was introduced through D in the Seoul, Gyeonggi, and the Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as “B”), and calls directly to the victim Z that was known through D on October 26, 2016; and (b) pays KRW 345 million with taxes, fees, etc. to the U.S. National Tax Service, the said funds may be brought into the Republic of Korea. The said funds may be brought into the Republic of Korea if they were paid KRW 350 million to the U.S. National Tax Service. The loan of the said money includes the borrowed money, thereby repaying the principal, and 35 billion won as business funds.”

However, there was no large amount of overseas inheritance funds, and there was no way to bring them into Korea, so the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim even if they received the money from the victim.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with each other in successive order, and by deceiving the victim as above, received 345,000,000 won from the Defendant B’s corporate bank account from the victim around October 27, 2016.

4. The fraud Defendant G against Defendant B, Defendant E, Defendant C, and Defendant G’s victim A was made according to the above public offering, and the false statement stating, around February 2017, that “A is the victim A, who is the victim B (B) who has a large amount of overseas funds, and who is a victim B (B) in the B B (B) near the calendar station located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CHro 156, in order to bring this money into the Republic of Korea, the cost is required. If the expenses are lent, the money may be taken out between the time and the amount of the forum, as well as the compensation therefor, shall be paid sufficiently.”

However, in fact, there was no large amount of overseas funds, and there was no way to bring them into Korea, so even if the Defendants received money from the victim, they did not have the intent or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with each other in successive order, by deceiving the victim, and by deceiving the victim, received KRW 2,00,000 from the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant G from the victim on February 8, 2017, and acquired it by defrauding it, and then acquired KRW 14,850,000 in total 78 times from that time to May 15, 2018, as shown in the separate crime list 5.

5. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant E 0 victims;

A, in accordance with the above public offering, around July 2017, the victim of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government coffee shop “in order to realize the money in excess of the internal coordination unit, the expenses need to be incurred. If the lender is the lender, the expenses will be realized to make the above money more than twice the principal by realizing it.”

However, in fact, there was no inheritance fund in excess of a group of units and there was no way to realize it, so even if Defendant B, C, and A received money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim.

As a result, Defendant B, C, and A conspired with each other in successive order, and deceiving the victim as above, obtained 30,000,000 won from the corporate bank account in A's name from the victim on July 5, 2017, and acquired it by fraud from the victim during the period from September 7, 2017 to September 7, 2017.

6. According to the above public offering, around July 2017, Defendant E demanded that K inherit by telephone from the French office located near R in Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Q, “in order to realize this realizing that money exceeds the internal adjustment unit, it is necessary to pay for expenses.” On July 2017, K inherited money exceeding the adjustment unit to the victim P around July 201. In order to realize the money, the expenses need to be incurred. In order to realize the money, the expenses need to be incurred. In order to realize the money, the money would be realized between the lender and bring more than twice the principal amount.”

However, in fact, there was no inheritance fund in excess of a group of units and there was no way to realize it, so even if Defendant B, C, A, and K received money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim.

As a result, Defendant B, C, A, and K conspired with each other in successive order, and deceiving the victim as above, received 5,000,000 won from the S Bank account in the name of K around July 7, 2017 from the victim and acquired it by deceit, and then received 380,400,000 won in total over 78 times from May 10, 2018 as shown in attached Table 2 of the crime list. Defendant E and Defendant A violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim T, according to the above public offering, around July 2017, Defendant A received money exceeding 0 times the principal amount from the French office near the R in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Q to receive money in order to realize it, it is necessary to request K to pay money in excess of 10 times the amount of money to the lender, and it is necessary to request K to receive money in excess of 10 times the amount of money in Seoul.

However, since there was no inheritance fund in excess of a group of units and there was no way to realize it, Defendant E, Defendant A, B, C, and K did not have an intention or ability to deliver the money promised to the victim even if they received money from the victim.

As a result, Defendant E, Defendant A, B, C, and K conspired with each other in successive order, and deceiving the victim as above, obtained 20,000,000 won from the victim’s corporate bank account from the victim around November 2, 2017, and acquired it by fraud from the victim. From that time until February 26, 2018, Defendant E, Defendant A, B, C, and K received approximately KRW 1,029,40,000 in total over 56 times as shown in the separate crime list 3, as shown in the separate crime list 3.

8. No one who has violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Victims Eul of defendant E shall request or promise to receive money and valuables or benefits in connection with the referral of matters that belong to the duties of public officials;

(a) Fraud on September 15, 2017 and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (Mediation and Acceptance)

On September 15, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B, who is the seat of G, stating that “The Party B, who is the seat of G, shall be released by solicitation to the prosecution as he belongs to the NIS.”

However, since the defendant did not belong to the NIS and was thought to be arbitrarily used due to new activity even if he received money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to resolve G criminal cases in favor of the public officials such as the prosecution.

Around September 15, 2017, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s female-friendly AB account in the name of the Defendant’s female job offers. Around that time, the Defendant received cash KRW 20 million from the 1st hotel of Gangnam-gu Seoul AC hotel at that time. Accordingly, the Defendant received a total of KRW 30 million from the victim with respect to good offices for matters pertaining to public officials’ duties.

(b) Fraud on February 6, 2018 and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Acceptances);

In January 2018, the Defendant made a false statement that “AD guarantee was established, and the Defendant made a false statement to the police officer of the Maak Police Station at the request of the police officer of the Maak Police Station.” The Defendant made a false statement to “AD’s personal guarantee and made a false request to the police officer of the Maak Police Station.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have a Justice who did not have any opinion or ability to resolve the criminal case of the victim in favor of the public official because he thought that he would arbitrarily use the case as living expenses, etc. even though he did not receive money from the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was remitted from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant on January 19, 2018, and was remitted KRW 10 million to the account under the name of the Defendant on February 6, 2018.

As a result, the Defendant received KRW 15 million from the victim on the intermediation of matters belonging to the public official's duties at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each of the legal statements of Defendant A, B, C, E, F, and G, witness X, and AA (each of the legal statements of witness A, B, and G) on the legal statements of Defendant A, B, and G, and each of the legal statements of Defendant A, B, and G (each of the legal statements of witness A, B, and G is for the remaining Defendants except each of the pertinent Defendants)

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of P and K by prosecutors;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning 0, T, E, AF, Z, AA, X, AG, and AF;

1. C’s statement;

1. Each written statement under B;

1. With respect to the submission of investigative reports (PB-related data on phone calls, investigation reports (PB-related phone calls and telephone statements), investigation reports (reports on file files), investigation reports (reports on the family relationship of J stock companies and identity of persons related to the Gu), investigation reports (reports on the opening of the CH telephone statements), investigation reports (reports on the opening of the list of suspects), investigation reports (reports on the opening of the list of suspects), investigation reports (reports on the opening of the list of suspects), investigation reports (reports on the opening of the list of suspects), investigation reports (reports on the contents of the AH-related bank's account), data on cell phone files (reports on the contents of cell phone transactions), reports on data (reports on the contents of cell phone transactions), data on cell phone files (reports on the contents of cell phone transactions), reports on the contents of criminal investigation (reports on the file of the AB-related data, reports on the details of cell phone transactions and contact reports on the BI-related data, reports on the contents of criminal investigation reports and statements of the B-related records;

1. A copy of the investment-related data, the details of each account transaction, one copy of the certificate of the results of each account transaction, one copy of the AB AMF account, one million won deposit statement of B, and documents used by the suspect K for committing a crime;

Each one copy, G submitted data (the details of account transactions, various forged documents used for this case), data sent by T by facsimile, all of the data directly submitted (the account transactions, documents of account deposit in the company bank, the judgment of the Supreme Court of the UK, signature, and forged documents, etc. in the K-related Chinese documents, etc.), B data submitted (IRS title, Korean translation, Korean translation, ITRS check), one copy of the register of JJ, AO information inquiry - one copy, such as (ju), B, C, A, the J Account reply, and the list of deposits, one copy of the copy of the A's family relation records, the list of principal, and the AI (B), one copy of the dialogue between B and E, one copy of the AJ (C), one copy of the AI dialogue between B and C, two copy of the AI dialogue (B,B), and the details of CCTV dialogue between B and the AI-related documents and CCTV, the details of CCTV dialogue between B and the E-related documents, the details of CCTV dialogue between B and the E-related documents, the account.

1. Six copies of the judgment; and

1. The point of previous convictions: One copy of inquiries about criminal records and investigation records, one copy of the summary agreement of the case, one copy of the personal confinement status, and two copies of each written judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2018Da1342, 2018No1219) (with respect to Defendant A);

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of Defendant B (Evidence No. 194 No. 194);

1. Investigation report (report on a suspect's examination of the contents of K mobile phone sirens), investigation report (K, the review of the details of telephone calls, and reporting no attendance of the victim AH);

1. As to the evidence (as to the defendant B and C) from 1 copy of the contents of the AI message, and from 6 June 8, K, one copy of the telephone call (AP, Q, and AR) and 2018Kahap680 (as to the defendant B and C)

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning Defendant G;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant A: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (O, the fraud of T) and Articles 347(1) and 30 (the fraud of P) of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant B: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1), 30 (O, fraud of T) of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1), 30 (P, X, Z, and fraud of AA) of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant C: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (0), Article 347(1), Article 347(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (P, Z, and fraud against AA)

○ Defendant D: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant E: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1), 30 (0), 347(1), and 347(1), and 30 (the fraud against P, Z, AA, and B) of the Criminal Act, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the occupation of good offices)

○ Defendant F: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant G: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

○ Defendant E: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (a punishment provided for in each crime of fraud against B, each crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes, and a punishment provided for in each crime of fraud against B with heavier punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each of the defendants' criminal frauds and each of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Reconciliation) by Defendant E

1. Aggravation of repeated crimes;

Defendant B: Article 35 of the Criminal Act (Offense of Fraud against Victim X and Fraud against Victim’s Z on December 2, 2015)

1. Defendant B who handles concurrent crimes: The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crimes of the above and the fraud for which judgment was concluded on October 19, 2018);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant A, B, C, and E: The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of each concurrent crime with the punishment specified in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for T with the largest amount of crime]

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant D and F: Each Criminal Code Article 62(1)(The following factors are considered in favor of the Defendants among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant D and F: Article 62-2 of each Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. Additional collection:

b. Defendant E: Penalty surcharge of KRW 45 million acquired for a violation of Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Defendant E: Judgment on the assertion of Defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Joint assertion by the Defendants

Since Defendant A and B actually have the ability to pay the agreed amount to the victims due to the existence of the funds inherited from abroad and some of them are deposited in domestic financial institutions, the defendants' act of receiving money from the victims as security money does not constitute fraud.

B. Defendant A’s assertion

There has been no deception that the defendant would make 1,000 times the principal when he/she lends expenses to the victim T as his/her heir.

C. Joint claims by Defendant C, E, F, and G

Even if the Defendants’ act of receiving money from the victims constitutes a crime of fraud, the Defendants only remitted money to B by believing that there is inheritance fund and receiving money from B, or paid money from the victims, and there is no conspiracy between the Defendants and other Defendants.

D. Defendant E’s assertion on fraud and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Mediation and Acceptance)

The Defendant did not receive KRW 10 million in cash from B out of KRW 30 million, which was received by the Defendant in relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) on September 15, 2017 against B, in addition to the account transfer.

2. Determination as to the Defendants’ common assertion

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court, since the funds asserted that Defendant A or B received inheritance from a foreign country are nonexistent, it seems that the Defendants did not have the ability to pay the agreed amount to the victims even if they received the funds from the victims. However, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants’ act of receiving the money by deceiving the victims to acquire the money for the purpose of security because Defendant A or B had a large inheritance fund in a foreign country constitutes fraud. Accordingly, the Defendants and the defense counsel’ assertion against this is rejected.

① In order to verify the existence of overseas inheritance funds, Defendant B submitted to this court a certificate of tax payment under the name of the National Tax Service of the United States in the Republic of Korea, the English High Court judgment, the balance certificate of monthly banks, the employee identification card and passport of N of the monthly banking employees, etc. However, each of the above documents was inherited by Defendant B, because it was of a large amount of inheritance that Defendant B could not be perceived as pound 820 Lb (Korean Won around 116) and thus, it is difficult to believe in itself. The World Bank is an international organization under the UN affiliated with the UN creating the International Relief Fund, which does not manage the personal account. In light of the results of the response to the request for the provision of financial transaction information by Y Bank to the effect that Defendant B does not exist, and the specific contents and shapes of the above documents, each of the above documents appears to have been forged or falsified.

Defendant B, even though he was succeeded to a large amount of money from his father and was aware of how he was collected money from his father, was believed to have believed that he was the horse of AS whose status was not verified, and that there was no inheritance fund in the U.S., and Defendant B made a statement that there was no text of this document. It seems that there was no specific confirmation about the authenticity of each document in question.

③ Defendant A made a statement to the effect that “Defendant A received the inheritance fund equivalent to KRW 10 from the high-help division AT abroad, but did not directly confirm, and that he was asked to his father to the effect that he was aware that he was aware of his intention to be fake.” Furthermore, Defendant A made a false statement on documents, such as AU’s certificate, AV organization’s official appointment confirmation, and investment agreement, but neglected it and remitted money from the victims for expenses thereafter.

④ In addition to the documents submitted by Defendant A and B, there is no objective data to presume that Defendant A and B are holding inheritance funds, and the Defendants continued to receive money from the victims by borrowing money from the victims in return for expenses, and did not pay the victims at all the agreed amount at all. Considering the details of the account transaction between Defendant A and B, it is not difficult for the Defendants to pay honorariums to the victims, and the said Defendants appear to have used part of the money received from the victims at their own discretion. Defendant A confessioned not only at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation but also after the prosecution investigation but also at the time of the prosecution investigation into the case No. 2018 Gohap611, which led to the consolidation of the crimes committed against the other Defendants, and denied the crime by taking advantage of the statements made by the other accomplices. Defendant himself was aware that the crime of this case constitutes fraud.

3. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant A, via K, knew the victim T to the effect that he/she would borrow money because he/she had a large amount of inheritance fund. Accordingly, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion against this is rejected.

① On April 20, 2017, K was introduced from AW wood companies, and there was a plan to enter the Republic of Korea with a large amount of foreign exchange by inheritance in the U.S., and it was made due to the relevant legislation or regulation. When there is an attorney-at-law in the U.S. and Korea, the inheritance fund is to be used to be registered in the IMF, and when it is registered in the IMF as a representative director of J Co., Ltd. and as an underground manager, the JJ in the U.S. and the Korean JJ account is linked to the IMF. The U.S.J stated to the effect that the victim T was a subsidiary of IMF, and that it was lent money in the consideration of expenses.

Around November 2017, the victim T made a statement to the effect that K was donated money to Defendant A at the time, which was introduced by Defendant A to the Republic of Korea.

③ At around 2017, the Defendant was also introduced K through AW pastor, and the Defendant stated to the effect that, on the grounds that the money of AT was in IMF and Dbanks, etc., the Defendant was paid taxes to K in order to obtain inheritance, and the Defendant was given a direct explanation upon K’s introduction, and that the Defendant was able to request the Defendant E to help by receiving a claim and intimidation to return money from T.

4. Determination on the common arguments of Defendant C, E, G, and F

A. Relevant legal principles

1) The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through the functional control by the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. As such, a person who did not directly share and implement the elements of a crime among the competitors depending on whether the above requirements are met.

The so-called crime liability as a co-principal may be the so-called crime. To be recognized as a co-principal by a person who did not directly share the elements of a crime as a co-principal, the functional control over the crime through essential contribution to the crime should be recognized not only by the person who committed the crime but also by taking into account his/her role in the position of him/her in the entire crime, control over the progress of the crime, and the fact that he/she committed the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3544, Jul. 15

2) In the case of a conspiracy of co-principal, in light of various circumstances, such as the means and form of the crime, the number of participating persons and their inclinations, time and characteristics of the place of the crime, possibility of contact with others in the course of the crime, possibility of contact with others, anticipated or sufficiently anticipated that incidental crimes would be derived during the commission of the crime or intended to achieve the purpose, but such possibility would not be sufficient to prevent such occurrence, and eventually, if the crime was anticipated to occur, it should be deemed that not only the initial conspiracy but also the functional control over the crime was established, even if there was no contact with others as to one derivative crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7412, Dec. 23, 2010).

3) At least two co-offenders who jointly process a crime do not legally require a specific type of punishment, and there is sufficient combination between two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if a combination of intent is made successively or implicitly among several persons even though there is no process of the conspiracy, a conspiracy of conspiracy is established. However, in a case where a criminal defendant denies a conspiracy of conspiracy, which is a subjective element of a crime, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the nature of an object. In such a case, what constitutes an indirect fact having considerable relevance ought to be reasonably determined based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006; 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011).

4) Inasmuch as the criminal intent of deception, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is not a confession by the defendant, it is inevitable to determine by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do1218, Nov. 13, 1990). The deception, which is a requirement of fraud, refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to be complied with in property transaction widely, and breach of good faith and good faith. Therefore, it is sufficient to say that it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it does not necessarily constitute the basis for judgment in order to enable an actor to perform a property disposal act he/she wishes to by omitting the other party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do11856, Jan. 16, 20

B. Specific determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court, even if the Defendants did not conspired to commit the instant fraud through direct communication with each other, the Defendants can be sufficiently recognized that they received money from the victims even though they conspired to commit the instant fraud in a successive or implicit manner, and even if they did not intend to commit the instant fraud, they were aware that there was no large inheritance fund, and thus, they could not receive money from the victims.

The above assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel is rejected.

① Defendant C, upon the direction of Defendant B, performed the business of remitting funds under the pretext of managing Defendant B’s account and bringing them into the Republic of Korea’s inheritance fund. Although having performed his duties for a considerable period, there was no inheritance fund brought into the Republic of Korea, and Defendant B was detained twice or detained as a crime of fraud similar to the instant fraud during the work with Defendant C, and the judgment of conviction became final and conclusive. As to this, Defendant C was in contact with L, M, and other bank-related persons, despite asserting that he was given contact with L, M, and it was in fact confirmed through a person who was in the U.S. and was actually in fact in contact with L, M, etc., but did not confirm the identity of Defendant B. Although it was believed that Defendant B had been 1,00 billion won or more, it was not confirmed whether the said money actually existed. Defendant A also stated to the purport that Defendant C was necessary to receive approximately KRW 2 billion from the victims’ representative director at the time of Defendant C’s offering money from another person.

Defendant E, as seen earlier, sent and received AI messages, text messages, etc. related to non-existent inheritance funds from time to time, and made such appearance as the existence of such inheritance funds. Defendant A, G, and F stated that Defendant E was aware of the process of performing the business related to inheritance funds from Defendant B. Defendant E was urged from victims on May 2018, and Defendant E knew that Defendant A was able to know that it was well-known through Defendant B’s delivery and delivery of inheritance funds from the victims, and that Defendant E did not have been able to know that there was no possibility of using the funds from Defendant B’s delivery and delivery of money from the victims. Defendant E did not appear to have been able to have been given any more objective circumstance that Defendant E was able to check whether the funds provided to Defendant E were used as expenses for domestic inheritance funds from the victims or that it was carried out overseas, and Defendant E was not able to receive any more reasonable explanation of Defendant E-I’s inheritance funds from the Foundation.

③ Defendant G, who received money from Defendant B, stated that the victim A would be entitled to KRW 10 billion if he received money from Defendant B, and that the victim A would be required to take expenses when having entered Korea. However, Defendant B would have borrowed money if it is necessary to take expenses to bring funds into Korea, and Defendant B would be able to express various certificates, checks, etc. in English in his mobile phone at the time, and directly introduce Defendant B to the victim. Defendant B had been aware of the fact that Defendant B had not been aware of the fact that there was no money from Defendant B’s criminal act, but had been aware of the fact that there was no money from Defendant B to 10 years before the date of the criminal act, and that Defendant B was aware of the fact that there was no money from Defendant B’s fraudulent act.

④ From around 2007, Defendant F had been sentenced to Defendant B’s request from Defendant G for driving, preparation of lodging house, and various hearts, etc. However, Defendant B had a lot of comments from Defendant B to the effect that she would provide money for inheritance expenses because she was the president of AY and she had a lot of inheritance funds, and provided Defendant B with a loan to the victim X. The victim X also transferred Defendant B’s address at the request of Defendant F, and was introduced to Defendant B at that time. In addition, even when Defendant F was sentenced to the criminal facts that Defendant B and G acquired money by means similar to this case, Defendant B did not seem to have been aware of the fact that Defendant B’s horse was true, and at least tensiond, Defendant B did not appear to have been aware of the fact that Defendant B did not actually trusted the money, but did not appear to have been aware of the fact that Defendant B was inherited.

5. Determination on Defendant E’s assertion on fraud and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Good Offices)

The court consistently stated as follows based on the evidence duly examined: (a) the victim B transferred KRW 10 million to the defendant E, i.e., the money borrowed from AG, AF, and part of the money received from AF, etc. from the investigation agency to this court; (b) the defendant delivered KRW 20 million to the defendant; (c) the defendant did not appear to have any special reason to make any unfavorable statement about this part; (d) G wife, upon request from B on September 15, 2017, transferred KRW 5 million to B in relation to G detention; and (e) the defendant transferred KRW 1 million to B at around October 11, 2017; and (e) the defendant transferred KRW 100,000,000 to B; and (e) the additional amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won were transferred to B, and (e) the additional amount of KRW 500,00,00,000.G.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years but not more than 45 years; Defendant C: Imprisonment for not less than three years and not more than 45 years;

(d) Defendant D: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years;

(e) Defendant E: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years but not more than 45 years;

(f) Defendant F: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years;

(g) Defendant G: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Defendant A: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

[Extent of Recommendation] General Fraud Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won), Basic Area (at least 3 years to 6 years)

[Special Mitigation (Aggravated Mitigation)] A case where punishment is not granted or where damage has been recovered from a considerable part (Discretionary) / A case where a crime is committed for unspecified or many victims or repeatedly over a considerable period of time (Aggravated Elements)

B. Defendant B: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

[Extent of Recommendation] General Frauds Category 3 (at least KRW 500,000, less than KRW 5000,000).

[Special Mitigation (Aggravated Mitigation)] In a case where punishment is not imposed or has been recovered from a considerable part (Discretionary) / In a case where a crime is committed for unspecified or many victims or repeatedly during a considerable period of time, the same repeated crime (Aggravated Punishment) is the same. Defendant C: Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

[Extent of Recommendation] General Fraud Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won), Basic Area (at least 3 years to 6 years)

[Special Mitigation (Aggravated Mitigation)] A case where punishment is not granted or where damage has been recovered from a considerable part (Discretionary) / A case where a person commits a crime against unspecified or multiple victims or commits a crime repeatedly over a considerable period of time (Aggravated Elements)

D. Defendant D: Fraud

[Extent of Recommendation] In the case of General Frauds Nos. 1 (less than KRW 100 million) and mitigation area (one month to one year) [Special Mitigation] and the case where punishment is not granted or considerable damage is recovered.

(e) Defendant E1: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

[Extent of Recommendation] General Fraud Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won), Basic Area (at least 3 years to 6 years)

[Special Mitigation (Aggravated Mitigation)] A case where punishment is not granted or where damage has been recovered from a considerable part (Discretionary) / A case where a person commits a crime against unspecified or multiple victims or commits a crime repeatedly over a considerable period of time (Aggravated Elements)

F. Defendant F: Fraud

[Extent of Recommendation] In the case of General Frauds Nos. 1 (less than KRW 100 million) and mitigation area (one month to one year) [Special Mitigation] and the case where punishment is not granted or considerable damage is recovered.

G. Defendant G: Fraud

[Extent of Recommendation] General Frauds Type 2 (at least KRW 100 million, less than KRW 500 million)

[Special Mitigation] In a case where punishment is not granted or a considerable part of damage is recovered;

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the trial process of this case.

A. Defendant A

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant, for a long time, acquired a large amount of KRW 2.2 billion by deceiving victims to the effect that he/she had a large amount of inheritance funds to himself/herself or his/her accomplice B, and would provide them with business funds when he/she brought them into the Republic of Korea. In light of the background and period of the crime, amount of damage, etc., the crime is considerably poor. The Defendant asserted that a large amount of inheritance funds from an investigative agency to this court actually exist, and did not go against his/her mistake. The Defendant did not pay damages to the victims.

A favorable circumstance: The Defendant is not highly likely to take part in the instant crime compared to B, the principal offender of the instant crime. The Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same crime, and the majority of the victims expressed their intent not to have the Defendant punished after the instant indictment (However, it is separately considered that the victims did not actually have been paid the damages).

B. Defendant B

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant, throughout a long-term period of time, had a large amount of inheritance funds that he would help in bringing a large amount of inheritance funds into the Republic of Korea, and acquired a large amount of money of KRW 2.8 billion under the pretext of the expense, and carried out a key and leading role in the crime of the instant fraud by actively deceiving victims by creating various false documents in the process. In light of the form and circumstance of the crime, the period of the crime, the amount of the crime, and the amount of damage, etc., the crime is very poor. In addition, the Defendant is unable to fully pay damages to the victims. In addition, the Defendant is asserting that there is a large amount of inheritance funds which are still impossible to be paid back to the victims, and the victims who should be promptly released are able to receive money. The Defendant has been punished several times for the same kind of crime, and among them, there is also a history that he was punished for the crime by deceiving the victims with the same content as the instant case.

The favorable circumstances for ○: (a) the majority of the victims filed an application for non-prosecution of punishment to the effect that they do not want the punishment of the Defendant after the prosecution of the instant case (However, it shall be separately considered that the victims did not actually receive the compensation); and (b) there is a crime of fraud, which became final and conclusive on October 19, 2018, and should be considered in consideration of the equity with the case where the judgment was received simultaneously with

C. Defendant C

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant, in collusion with the Defendant A, B, etc. for a long time, obtained the money of approximately KRW 2.7 billion from victims while taking charge of managing the money received from the victims in the course of defraudation by deceiving the victims as if there was a large inheritance fund in a foreign country. In light of the form and circumstance of the crime, the role of the Defendant, and the period of the crime, etc., the crime is considerably poor. The Defendant did not pay damages to the victims.

○ favorable circumstances: The Defendant did not have much degree of participation in the instant crime compared to B, the principal offender of the instant crime. The Defendant, who had no criminal record, expressed his intent that the majority of victims did not want to punish the Defendant (Provided, That it is separately considered that the victims did not actually have been paid damages).

D. Defendant D

The circumstances unfavorable to ○○: The Defendant, as if Defendant B had a large amount of overseas inheritance funds, obtained 50 million won from Defendant B to take them into Korea, and acquired them through the expense for bringing them into Korea. In light of the background of the crime and the details of deception, etc., the crime is not good. The Defendant has been punished four times for the same crime, and the Defendant has failed to pay damages to the Z of the victim. favorable circumstances: the Defendant recognized and reflected the Defendant’s mistake. The Defendant took part in part in the crime against the victim 2, and the degree of his/her participation appears to be minor compared to other accomplices. The victim Z is to agree with the Defendant and not impose civil and criminal liability. (However, it is separately considered that the victim was not actually paid the damage).

E. The circumstances of Defendant E: (a) the Defendant conspireds with Defendant B, etc. to bring a large amount of overseas inheritance funds into the Republic of Korea for a long time in collusion with Defendant B, etc.; (b) obtained a large amount of KRW 2.8 billion under the pretext of the expense; and (c) received KRW 45 million under the pretext of resolving a criminal case between G and B by deceiving the accomplice B, who is an accomplice; and (d) in light of the form and circumstance of the crime, the period of the crime, and the amount of damage, etc., the crime is very poor. The Defendant has a history of having been punished several times for the same kind of crime, and was unable to fully repay the damages to the victims.

○ favorable circumstances: The majority of victims expressed their intent not to have their punishment against the defendant (However, it is considered separately that the victims did not actually have been paid their damages).

F. Defendant F

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: Defendant acquired a large amount of inheritance funds from the victim X to the victim X to the effect that Defendant B would provide a large amount of funds to help them bring them into the Republic of Korea. It is not good that the crime is committed in light of the form and circumstance of the crime, relationship with the victim, economic situation of the victim, etc.

○ favorable circumstances: The Defendant participated in the commission of fraud against X, and the degree of his participation appears to be minor compared to other accomplices. The Defendant did not have any record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and the victim X expressed his intention that he does not want to punish the Defendant (However, it is separately considered that the victim was not actually being compensated).

G. The circumstances of Defendant G Indivities: Defendant A had a large inheritance fund in a foreign country, and Defendant B acquired approximately KRW 140 million for the purpose of providing a large amount of money to the victim A for the purpose that he/she would assist in bringing it into the Republic of Korea. In light of the form and circumstances of the crime, the amount of damage, relationship with the victim, the economic situation of the victim, etc., the crime is considerably poor. The Defendant has a history of having been punished several times for the same crime, and among them, the Defendant was punished for the crime by deceiving the victims with the same content as this case. The Defendant was unable to fully pay damages to the victim.

○ favorable circumstances: AA expressed the intent that the victim does not want to be punished by the defendant (However, it shall be separately considered that the victim was not actually reimbursed for the damage).

The presiding judge, judge and presiding judge;

Judges

Judge Kang Han-soo

1) The sentencing guidelines are not set for Defendant E’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.