A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

208Gohap850(combined) b. Breach of trust

208Gohap904(combined) c. Misappropriation

208Gohap907(combined) d. Fraud

(e) Alteration of an official document;

(f) Exercising altered official documents;

(g) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act;

1.(a)(b)A1(S) and the Director for Food Co., Ltd.;

2. A2 (56 Years, Residuals) and 00 sales offices of the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation;

The Director of Livestock Product Inspection Office

3. D. A3 (P.S. 80 and South) and Company Board:

4. D. A4 (L. 69 Years, Residuals), and divate distribution representative;

5. (d) A5 (66 years old, South) and representatives of distribution;

6. 나.라. A6 (58년생, 남), ◁◁ 대표

7. D. H. H. A7 (R. 47 years old, South) and in free post;

8. D. A8 (S. 52 Years, South Korea), and non-official titles;

9.D.A9(65 years old, South) and the president of the same corporation.

10. 가.나.마. 바. A10 (68년생, 남, ♥♥ 주식회사 대표이사

11. A.M. (66 years old, south), stock company, and research and development representative director;

Man-Consul

Attorney Kim Young-young (Defendant A1)

Attorney Yellow-gu, Kim Young-young (for the defendant A2)

Attorney above-ranking (for the defendant A3)

Attorney Park Dong-ho, Justice Kim Dong-ho (Defendant A4)

Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Na-young (Defendant A5)

Law Firm International Law Firm, Attorney Kim Han-soo (Defendant A6)

Favour (for the defendant A7)

Law Firm merchant Shipping, Attorneys Soh Sung-sung (Defendant A8)

Attorney Kim Young-chul (Defendant A9)

Law Firm Document, Attorney Lee In-bok (Defendant A10)

Law Firm L&A, Attorneys Kang Chang-ok (Defendant A1)

April 1, 2009

Defendant A1’s imprisonment with prison labor for two years, for one year and six months, for Defendant A2, for two years and for two years, for Defendant A4, and for A5, for one year and six months, for each of the imprisonment with prison labor for each of the two years, for Defendant A6, and for A7, for two years, for each of the two years and six months, for each of the two years and six months, for Defendant A10, for each of the two years and six months, for each of the two years and six months, and for Defendant A11 for each of the above two years and six months. The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the imprisonment for Defendant A1, for Defendant A2, for 16 days, for Defendant A2, for 126 days, for Defendant A5, for 116 days, for Defendant A6, for 120 days, for Defendant A7, for 111 days, for 9, for Defendant A9, and for Defendant A10 days, for each of the above criminal penalties against each of the above Defendants.

However, with respect to Defendant A3, A6, and A7 for three years, and with respect to Defendant A4, A5, A8, and A11 for two years, the execution of each of the above sentence against the said Defendants shall be suspended, respectively. Defendant A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A11 shall be ordered to provide community service for 120 hours each. From Defendant A2, KRW 39,50,000, and KRW 24,474,100 from Defendant A7 shall be collected additionally.

Criminal History Office

1. The defendants' status relationships

피고인 A1은 김해시에 있는 식육가공업체인 주식회사 ●●식품(이하 '●●식품'이라 한다)의 대표이사이고, 피고인 A2는 인천에 있는 농협중앙회 00 사업소(이하 '00 사업소'라고 한다)의 기능직 직원으로서 일반식육가공업체가 납품하는 군납 육우 정육 및 돼 지갈비의 축종, 등급, 선도 등을 검수하는 업무를 담당하는 검수실장이다. 피고인 A3은 위 00 사업소 생산팀 소속 계약직 직원으로 00 사업소가 국방부 납품을 위해 축산물가공업자들로부터 구매하는 군납 쇠고기 및 돼지갈비의 납품, 축산물등급 판정확인서 등 서류검사 업무를 담당하고, 피고인 A4는 고양시에 있는 축산물유통업체 '◎◎유통'의 대표, 피고인 A5는 부천시에 있는 축산물유통업체 '유통'의 대표, 피고인 A6은 서울에 있는 축산물유통업체 '◁◁'(이하 '◁◁'라 한다)의 대표이다. 피고인 A7은 2001. 2. 20.부터 2004. 2. 3.까지 군납 쇠고기, 돼지갈비를 가공하여 전국 군부대에 독점 납품하는 위 00사업소의 소장을 두 차례에 걸쳐 역임한 사람이고, 피고인 A8은 무직이며, 피고인 A9는 고양시에 있는 축산물가공업체 ○ 주식회사(이하 '◈◈'라 한다)의 실제 운영자이다. 피고인 A10은 광주에 있는 축산물유통업체인 ♥♥ 주식회사의 대표이사이고, 피고인A11은 서울에 있는 주식회사 &&의 대표이사이다.

2. Standards for the supply of beef and pigs by the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation;

농협중앙회가 국방부와 체결한 '군 급식류 계획 생산조달에 관한 협정'에 따라 기존에 납품한 한우, 수입쇠고기, 규격돈(새끼를 낳지 않은 돼지) 돼지갈비 이외에 '2008 국방부 급식방침'에 의해 2008. 4. 1.부터 '거세 육우'(식용목적으로 사육된 수젖소)가 군납 식육 품목으로 추가되었다. 이에 따라 농협중앙회는 축산물판매분사 소속 00 사업소로 하여금 육우 지육[도축하여 머리, 내장, 족(足)을 잘라 낸 이분도체(二分屠體)의 고기]을 구입하여 자체적으로 정육을 가공하거나, 전국의 축산물가공·유통업체로부터 거세 육우 정육을 납품받아 군납용으로 가공한 뒤 전국의 군부대에 독점 납품하도록 하고 있다.

00 Unless two months have elapsed since slaughter, meat which can be supplied for military supply at the 00 business place can only be supplied with 3B-class or higher meat processed from an enterprise certified as a company certified as a company certified as a company certified as a HCCP (hereinafter referred to as 'HCCP') by analyzing hazards that may have a harmful impact on the sanitation of livestock products in the whole process of raising, slaughter, processing, packing, and distributing livestock, and by establishing an important management point at the stage of preventing, removing, or securing safety of such hazards, it can only be supplied with 3B-class or higher meat, milch, meat cancer, and sheep, without three months have passed since slaughter, and swine can not be supplied with non-product-classd cattle products (hereinafter referred to as 'HCCP').

[208Gohap771]

1. Defendant A1’s crime;

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

The Defendant did not obtain HACCP certification at the workplace, and the supply unit price required by 00 business places is from 8,500 won per km to 9,000 won, used used for national travel, used for heavy meat ( four parts, such as thrings, front legs, posted, and snow gate used for the purpose of non-fluoring) was 8,500 to 10,700 won with the market price of partial beef in the wholesale market (from March 3, 2008 to September 208, 200, the average price of high-class 3 common meat from 8,670 won to 10,000 won, or less than the average price of high-class 10,862 won of high-class raw meat supplied for the purpose of production of high-class raw meat than the average price of high-class 3 high-class raw meat supplied for the purpose of production of high-class raw milk (the same applies to the Defendant).

On March 20, 2008, the Defendant: (a) processed milch milch milch dye from the milch dye, which is Kim Jong-do at a plant Kim Jong-si; (b) attached a rab dye dye dye dye dye dye dye dye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye h.

(b) Property in breach of trust;

around May 2008, the Defendant issued KRW 1,00,000 in cash, along with an illegal solicitation that changed the convenience of tallying, and issued KRW 28,00,000 in total, nine times in total, by August 27, 2008, to the above A2, through C, the head of the food food, through the examination process, through C, who is the head of the above A, as described in the foregoing paragraph (a). In addition, the Defendant granted KRW 28,00,000 in cash, along with the illegal solicitation to the above A2 by August 27, 2008, as described in the attached Table (Omission).

2. Crimes committed by Defendant A2;

The Defendant received a total of KRW 28,00,000 from Defendant A1 upon receiving an illegal solicitation to the effect that convenience in the course of examination is changed from Defendant A1 as described in the foregoing paragraph (b).

[208Gohap850]

1. Crimes committed by Defendant A3 (Fraud);

피고인은 00 사업소에서 군납식육의 납품, 서류검사 및 재고조사 업무까지 사실상 자신 혼자 처리하고 있음을 기화로, 실제 제품이 납품되지 않았음에도 불구하고 평소 친분이 있는 피고인 A6이 운영하는 ◁◁의 명의를 빌려 ◁◁가 군납물품을 납품한 것처럼 납품서류를 허위로 작성하여 결재를 받은 뒤 00사업소로 하여금 대금을 송금하도록 하고 다시 위 A6로부터 세금계산서 발행에 따른 수수료를 공제한 나머지를 되돌려 받는 방법으로 납품대금을 편취하기로 마음먹었다.

이에 따라 피고인은 2008. 3. 5. 00 사업소 생산팀 사무실에서 마치 ◁◁가 서울축산 업협동조합의 명의로 육우 지육 8두 3,200kg 39,993,100원 상당을 납품한 것처럼 허위의 '육우 지육 구매 및 정산내역서'를 작성하고 같은 내용의 외상매입금 원장, 전표를 작성한 뒤 그 정을 모르는 00 사업소 생산팀장 W의 결재를 받아 납품사실을 조작한 후, 같은 달 10.경 납품대금 39,993,100원의 지급을 위한 '일일 자금집행 내역서'를 허위로 작성해 마찬가지 방법으로 결재를 받은 다음 납품대금 지급업무를 담당하는 00사 업소 관리팀 E 과장에게 송부하여 그 정을 모르는 E 과장으로 하여금 39,993,100원을 pp 축산업협동조합 명의의 계좌로 송금하도록 한 뒤 위 A6을 통하여 수수료를 공제한 나머지 39,300,000원을 되돌려 받는 수법으로 납품대금 39,300,000원을 교부받은 것을 비롯하여 별지(생략) 범죄일람표(3) 기재와 같이 2008. 3. 5.부터 2008. 10. 20.까지 위와 같이 납품서류를 조작하는 방법으로 피해자 00 사업소를 기망하여 총 5회에 걸쳐 합계 204,722,600원을 교부받았다.

2. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A4, A5, and A6;

피고인들은 젖소(2008. 4.경 평균도매가격 kg당 약 5,000원)가 거세 육우(2008. 4.경 중등육 평균도매가격 kg당 약 8,900원, 보통육 평균도매가격 kg당 약 11,060원) 보다 가격이 훨씬 저렴하고 냉동정육 상태에서 거세 육우와 육안으로 쉽게 구별되지 않은점을 악용해, 피고인 A4가 HACCP 인증을 받지 아니한 김해시 소재 주식회사 BB식 품(이하 '♧♧식품'이라 한다)에서 젖소 정육을 kg당 6,000원에 매입한 뒤 평소 알고 지내는 피고인 A5를 통하여, ◁◁ 대표인 피고인 A6의 명의로 거세 육우 등급판정확인서를 임의로 첨부한 다음 젖소를 육우인 것처럼 속여 00사업소에 납품을 하고, 그 과정에서 피고인 A4는 kg당 200원, 피고인 A5는 kg당 700원, 피고인 A6은 kg당 1,600원의 이익을 남기기로 순차 공모하였다.

피고인들은, 피고인 A4가 HACCP 인증을 받지 아니한 식품에서 kg당 6,000원에 구입한 젖소 정육 12,952.1kg을 피고인 A5를 통하여 피고인 A6에게 전전유통하고, 피고인 A6이 2008. 4. 25. ◁◁ 사무실에서 HACCP 인증을 받은 주식회사 ZZ에서 제조를 하였다는 내용으로 견적서를 허위로 기재한 후 농협중앙회 축산물판매분사 소속 구매담당 G에게 송부하여 납품허락을 받은 뒤 같은 해 4. 30. 00 사업소에 ◁ 명의로 납품하면서 2006. 8. 16.자 거세 육우 등급판정확인서를 첨부하는 등 납품되는 물건과 다른 등급판정확인서 74장을 첨부해 마치 거세 육우 중등육 9,275.6kg, 보통육 3,676.5kg을 납품하는 것처럼 가장하고, 이에 속은 피해자 00사업소로부터 납품대금 110,092,850원을 교부받은 것을 비롯하여 별지(생략) 범죄일람표(4) 기재와 같이 공모 하여 2008. 4. 30.부터 같은 해 5. 23.까지 총 3회에 걸쳐 위와 같이 젖소를 육우로 위장 납품하는 방법으로 피해자 00 사업소를 기망하여 합계 249,473,650원을 교부받았다. [2008고합907 사건]

1. Crimes committed by Defendant A7 (Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act);

At the office of ○○, Defendant A9, an operator of the NAF, who had been found a stable customer while supplying beef and pigs at a school in the Seoul metropolitan area, was aware of the fact that he worked as the head of the office of 00 business place, and thus, Defendant A9, the operator of the NAF, was aware of not only the head of H in 00 business place, but also the employees of the NAF. At the request of the head of H president, H in order to make military payments at the 00 business place of the NAF, 500 won per Kaggg, depending on the quantity of supply.” On December 15, 2007, the Defendant requested the head of H head office to visit the 00 business place to make military payments on the ground that he had worked as the head of 00 business place.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) had the same same same same group of cases deliver 2,506.8kg on March 12, 2008, and 1,917.7kg on March 24, 2008 to 00 business offices; (b) received 2,200,000 won equivalent to 50 won per km from Defendant A9 to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account; and (c) received KRW 24,474,100 in total seven times from March 24, 2008 to June 9 of the same year as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (Omission). Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 24,474,100 in total from the above A94,74,100 for solicitation or good offices in relation to the duties of president of the National Agricultural Cooperative, which is deemed a public official under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

2. Defendant A7, A8, and A9’s joint criminal conduct (Fraud) Defendant A7 and A8 purchased the collected money at a price less than that of A00 business places as stated in the foregoing 1. As seen in the foregoing paragraph, Defendant A7 and A8 purchased from another business entity, and requested Defendant A9 to demand a written confirmation of grading of standard money that was actually processed at the same same time as the same time the HCCP was approved, in order to pretend that the price of the collected money was less than that of the specifications produced at the same time as the same time the same would amount to the normal standard money produced at the same time as the same. Defendant A9 accordingly requested Defendant A9 to demand a written confirmation of grading of standard money. Accordingly, Defendant A9 re-packageded the written confirmation of grading of standard money with two gamblings so that it can be supplied as if the normal standard money produced at the 00 business places was not normal.

Accordingly, on December 24, 2007, Defendant A7 and A8 purchased 15,565 km from a food company located in Chungcheongnam-gun on 34,243,440 won. Upon request from Defendant A9, Defendant A9 attached a certificate of grading the actual processed amount, added a false estimate to the 1,423.8 km of the specifications processed directly from the HCC’s certification, and received 305 g of the total amount from 05 g of the 15 g of the 15 g of the 15 g of the 15 g of the 15 g of the 15,565 g of the 15 g of the 15 g of the 300 g of the 15 g of the 15 g of the 15 g of the 2007 g of the 205 g of the 14 g of the 208 g of the 25 g of the 208 c of the 31.

3. Defendant A9’s criminal act (Fraud) used that: (a) the price of the hye and the hye’s hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye

Accordingly, on March 22, 2008, the Defendant purchased 5,247kg of static meat, such as hydrogen and sule, from a stock company which did not obtain the HCCP certification in Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and obtained certification from 200 places of business by attaching and repackaging a certificate of grading of 5,067.2kg of sule that was actually processed in order to pretend that sule sule products were processed by HCCP certification, and then then then then then delivered sule 5,067.2kg of sule sule sule sule scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scale scal scal scale scale s.

[208Gohap904]

1. Defendant A10 and A11’s co-principal administration [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] supplied meat to 00 points of the stock company and 00 business places through the Seoul metropolitan livestock product distribution center, Defendant A10 used the fact that the price of the frier, the frier’s, the frier’s, and the frier’s, is less than that of the frier’s, and that it is not easily distinguishable between the frier’s and the frier’s, without the HACCP certification, purchased the frier’s, the frier’s, the frier’s, the frier’s, and the frier’s, the frier’s, and then

피고인 A10은 피고인 A11에게 서울 성동구 마장동에 있는 HACCP 미인증업체인 주식회사 MD에서 육우 암소, 육우 수소를 구입하면서 HACCP 인증을 받은 익산시에 있는 영농조합법인 ★★에서 가공한 것처럼 등급판정확인서를 위 ★★ 명의로 발금받아 달라고 부탁하고, 이에 따라 피고인 A11은 수익금으로 kg당 300원씩 받기로 하고 위의 실제 업주인 T에게 부탁해 위 ★★ 명의로 등급판정확인서를 발급받은 뒤 이를 피고인 A10에게 건네주고, 이후 피고인 A10은 위 육우 암소 및 수소를 HACCP 인증을 받은 위 ★★마을의 박스로 재포장하고 아래 2의 가항 기재와 같이 등급판정 확인서의 성별을 '거세 육우'로 변조한 다음 마치 HACCP 인증을 받은 업체에서 가공한 거세 육우 중등육인 것처럼 가장하여 00사업소에 납품하고 이에 속은 피해자 00사업소로부터 납품대금 명목으로 00 지점을 거쳐 39,201,150원을 교부받은 것을 비롯하여 별지 (생략) 범죄일람표(8) 기재와 같이 2008. 3. 21.경부터 2008. 10. 6.경까지 총 10회에 걸쳐 위와 같이 납품하고 납품대금 합계 887,702,220원을 교부받았다. 이로써 피고인들은 공모하여 군납제외품인 육우 암소, 육우 수소를 HACCP 인증을 받은 업체에서 가공된 정상적인 거세 육우인 것처럼 속여 납품하는 방법으로 피해자00 사업소를 기망하여 합계 887,702,220원을 교부받았다.

2. Defendant A10’s crime;

(a) Alteration of and uttering of altered official documents;

피고인은 2008. 3. 초순경 위 ★★ 사무실에서, 위 1항 기재와 같이 거세 육우로 위장하여 납품하는데 행사할 목적으로 권한 없이 축산물등급판정소 부산경남지역본부 부산출장소 소속 축산물등급판정사 U가 2007. 9. 20. 성별 '암'으로 기재하여 발급한 등 급판정확인서 원본을 사본한 뒤 성별란에 다른 등급판정 확인서에서 복사한 '거세'라는 글자를 오려붙인 후 다시 복사기로 이를 사본하는 방법으로 공문서인 축산물등급판정사 U 명의의 등급판정확인서 1장을 변조한 것을 비롯하여 별지(생략) 범죄일람표(9-1) 기재와 같이 등급판정 확인서 51장의 성별란을 변조하였다. 또한, 피고인은 2008. 9. 8. 납품을 하면서 가공한지 2개월이 경과되지 아니한 제품인 것처럼 위장하는 데 행사할 목적으로 권한 없이 축산물등급판정소 서울지역본부 소속 축산물등급판정사 L이 2008. 5. 21. 발급한 등급판정 확인서 원본을 사본한 뒤 등급판정일자란의 판정월 '05' 위에 '07'이라는 글자를 오려 붙인 후 다시 복사기로 이를 사본하는 방법으로 공문서인 축산물등급판정사 L 명의의 등급판정확인서 1장을 변조한 것을 비롯하여 별지(생략) 범죄일람표(9-2) 기재와 같이 등급판정 확인서 303장의 등급판정일자란을 변조하였다.

As a result, the Defendant altered the total of 354 certificates of grading, which are official documents, without authority, for the purpose of uttering, as above. From March 21, 2008 to October 6, 2008, the Defendant supplied 00 places of business seven times in total, and submitted 354 certificates of grading altered to A3 employees in charge of supply who are aware of such fact as if they were genuinely prepared.

(b) Property in breach of trust;

On April 208, 2008, the Defendant issued KRW 1,00,000 in cash, along with an illegal solicitation to the effect that convenience is changed in the course of tallying, such as allowing Defendant A2, who is the chief inspector of the tallying office of 00 places of business, to impliedly deliver the said A2, who is a lessee of 00 places of business, to the tallyed tallyed tallyed tallyed tallyed tallyed tally, and issued KRW 5,00,000 in total at four times from April 1, 2008 to October 10 of the same year, as indicated in the List of Crimes (Omission) in the attached Table (10).

3. Crimes committed by Defendant A6;

From the second half of 2004, the Defendant supplied swine refrats for military payment to 00 business places.

On July 2007, the Defendant issued KRW 4,50,000 in total to the above A2 five times in total, when making an illegal solicitation to the effect that convenience is changed in the course of examination, including delivering KRW 1,00,000 in cash, along with an illegal solicitation to the effect that the Defendant, who is the chief inspector of the 00 business place, silents defects such as guidance, packing condition, etc. during the delivery process, etc., and delivered KRW 4,50,000 in total, from July 2007 to September 2008, as shown in the List of Crimes (Omission) (11).

4. Crimes committed by Defendant A2;

A. As described in the above 2-B B, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from Defendant A10 to the effect that convenience is changed during the examination process, and received a total of KRW 5,000,000 as shown in the attached Table (Omission) list (10).

B. The Defendant received a total of KRW 4,500,000 as indicated in the [Attachment 11] List of Crimes (Omission) upon receiving an illegal solicitation from Defendant A6 to the effect that convenience in the course of tallying is different from that of Defendant A6.

C. B, who is the representative director of the DE, a livestock products distributor, supplied approximately 30 tons of 10 tons of static land for military supply from February 2, 2008 to October 20 of the same year in total at 00 business places.

피고인은 2008. 10. 17. 인천 중구에 있는 '###' 일식집에서 위 B로부터 납품과정에서 정육의 선도, 포장상태 등의 하자가 있더라도 편의를 봐달라는 취지의 부정한 청탁과 함께 1,000,000원권 자기앞수표 2장 합계 2,000,000원을 교부받았다.

Summary of Evidence

[208Gohap771] Omitted [2008Gohap8Gohap850] [208Gohap907]

[208Gohap904] Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereafter referred to as "Fraud"), Article 357 (2) and Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act (hereafter referred to as "criminal punishment"), Article 357 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (hereafter referred to as "influence"

Defendant A2: Articles 357(1)(A1, A10, and A6) of the Criminal Act, each of the following subparagraphs is applicable to Defendant A3: (a) of the Criminal Act; (b) Articles 347(1)(a) and 347(1), A5, and A8 of the Criminal Act; (c) Articles 347(1), 347(1), and 30(1), 347(1), and 347(1), and 347(2), and 357(1)(a) of the Criminal Act; (d) Articles 357(1), 347(1), and 347(1), and 30(a) of the Criminal Act; (e) Articles 347(1), and 347(1); (e) of the Criminal Act; (g) Articles 347(1); (g) and (g) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 891, Mar. 28, 20008)

Defendant A10: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 225 of the Criminal Act (the alteration of official document); Articles 229 and 225 of the Criminal Act (the use of altered official document); Article 357(2) and Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (the use of evidence of breach of trust and the choice of imprisonment), respectively.

Defendant A11: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Fraud, inclusive)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant Al: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the addition of the long-term punishment of two crimes]

Defendant A2: Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Aggravation of the punishment prescribed in the crime of taking over property in breach of trust from A1 with the largest A1): Defendant A6: former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2, and 50 (to the extent that the punishment is added up to the maximum of the punishment prescribed in the heavier fraud) of the Criminal Act : Defendant A7: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Aggravation of the punishment prescribed in the heavier fraud) of the Criminal Act

Defendant A9: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of the punishment stipulated in the crime of fraud, which is a single criminal defendant with the heavier penalty): the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of the punishment stipulated in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is the largest penalty)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant A1, A10, A11: each consideration given to favorable circumstances required for “the reasons for the two types” under Articles 53 and 55(1)3(3) of the Criminal Code

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant A11 and each other Defendant: Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A11: Considerations for favorable circumstances required in Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following)

1. Social service order;

Defendant A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, AF: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A2: Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

Defendant A7: Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

[208Gohap850] [Judgment of the court below]

1. Summary of the defendant A4 and A5's assertion

Defendant A4 and A5 and their respective defense counsel: (a) at the time of Defendant A4’s purchase of refined meat (hereinafter “the instant refined meat”) from Defendant A4, Defendant A4, who believed that she was the refined meat and sold the instant refined meat to Defendant A5; and (b) Defendant A5 knew that she was the dressed meat as the horses of Defendant A4 and A5, and sold the instant refined meat to Defendant A6; (c) Defendant A4 and A5 knew that she was the dressed meat; and (d) Defendant A6 did not know that she was mil cows; (b) Defendant A4 was between Defendant A6 and Defendant A6; and (c) Defendant A4 and A5 were the intermediate wholesalers, and Defendant A4 and A5 were merely supplied the instant refined meat to the said A6, and they did not commit the crime of fraud with Defendant A6 and Defendant A6.

2. Determination

가. 앞서 든 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① BB 식품은 그동안 주로 젖소 거래를 하던 업체이고, 피고인 A4 역시 식품과 이 사건 발생 전에 약 2년간 거래를 하는 동안 젖소만을 구매하였을 뿐 육우 정육을 구매한 적은 한 번도 없었던 점, ② 피고인 A4가 2008. 4. 29.부터 같은 해 5. 22.까지 세 차례에 걸쳐 ♧♧식품으로부터 구입한 이 사건 정육은 30톤가량으로 이를 도체지육으로 환산하면 대략 소230마리 분량인데, ♧♧식품이 2008. 2. 1.부터 2008. 5. 22. 사이에 구매한 도체지육은 한우 1마리, 젖소 494마리이고, 육우(암·수)는 39마리에 불과하였던 점, ③ Q가 제출한 BB식품 명의의 2008. 4. 29.자, 2008. 5. 2.자, 2008. 5. 22.자 각 거래명세표는 거래 당일 작성된 것이 아니라, 피고인 A4의 사후 부탁에 의해 A4가 불러주는 대로 Q이 일자를 소급하여 작성한 것인 점, ④ 이 사건 당시 육우 정육 3등급의 평균 도매가격 이 kg당 약 8,600원 정도였는데도, 피고인 A4는 ♧♧식품으로부터 이보다 훨씬 저렴한 kg당 5,800원 내지 6,000원에, 피고인 A5 또한 위 평균 도매가격보다 훨씬 저렴한 kg당 6,200원에 정육을 각 구입한 점, ⑤ 이 사건 범행 당시 농협중앙회에서 제시한 육우 정육의 납품단가가 시장 평균 도매가보다 낮아 육우 정육을 그대로 납품하면 손해를 볼 수밖에 없는 상황이었으므로 축산업계에서는 육우와 육안으로 구별하기 힘든 젖소를 육우로 속여 군납용으로 납품하면 된다는 소문이 공공연히 나돌고 있었고, 피고인 A4, A5는 A4가 BB식품으로부터 구입한 이 사건 정육이 A6을 통하여 00사업소에 군납용으로 납품될 것이라는 점을 잘 알고 있었던 점, ⑥ 젖소나 육우의 경우 납품 시에 1마리당 1장의 등급판정 확인서가 첨부되는데, 피고인 A4가 BB 식품으로부터 교부받아 위 A5, A6을 통하여 00 사업소에 제출한 등급판정확인서는 그 판정일자가 2008년 이 아닌 2006년 또는 2007년으로 된 것이 대부분인데다가 육우 암소뿐만 아니라 거세 육우의 것이 상당량 섞여 있고, 2008. 5. 2. 00 사업소에 납품된 정육은 소 80마리 분량임에도 등급판정 확인서는 6장만 제출되었으며, 2008. 5. 23. 00사업소에 납품된 정육에는 등급판정 확인서가 제출되지 않는 등 이 사건 정육의 유통과정상 서류상 하자가 있었음이 명백하고, 그러한 점은 피고인 A4 등도 잘 알고 있었던 점, ⑦ 피고인 A4는 당초 수사기관에서 식품의 S로부터 이 사건 정육이 육우 암소라는 말을 듣고 등급판 정확인서를 확인하였다고 진술하였고, 피고인 A5 역시 이 사건 정육이 등급판정 확인서, 도축증명서와 일치하는 것을 확인하였으므로 육우 암소인 것으로 알고 있었다고 진술하였다가, 등급판정서에 위에서 본 바와 같은 문제가 있다는 사실을 전해들은 다음부터 위 피고인들은, 사실은 육우 암소라는 말만 믿은 채 실물도 보지 않고 등급판 정확인서도 제대로 확인하지 않았다고 진술을 번복한 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인 A4, A5가 이 사건 정육이 젖소에 해당하는 사실을 알고 있었던 점이 넉넉히 인정된다.

B. At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime do not legally require a certain type of punishment, but only if two or more persons conspired to process a crime and realize the crime, the conspiracy is established, and even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of doctors is made in order or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy is established.

In addition, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, Defendant A4 and A5 knew well that only “the meat supplied for military supply” and they could not be supplied with milch cows or crye, as well as the fact that they were well aware that they were supplied for military supply, and they supplied the instant crye to the above A6 upon knowing that they were supplied for military supply. In the process, Defendant A4 and A5 knew that the HCCP certification was made, Defendant A4 and A5 should be processed by the company with HCCP certification, and food was supplied to the above A6 even if they were well aware that they were not a processing company with HCCP certification. Accordingly, there is sufficient proof that there was a collusion relationship between Defendant A4, A5 and Defendant A6 in order or by implied combination. Accordingly, the above Defendants’ assertion is not acceptable.

The reasons for sentencing are as follows: (a) Defendants engaged in fraud by deceiving supplied goods by deceiving them as if they are products that meet the criteria for military supply standards and swine noise; (b) in light of the supplied quantity and the scale of damage, the nature of the crime is very heavy; and (c) crimes using food, such as this case, may cause serious danger to the health of the people, and may not cause serious social confusion by causing the people's reliance on food. In particular, in this case, it is clear that there is a need to strictly punish Defendants on the grounds that there is a high risk of causing harm to the health of soldiers of the armed forces who are performing the duty of national defense. However, in consideration of the following circumstances, the Defendants’ punishment shall be determined.

1. In that the amount of damage caused by Defendant Al’s fraudulent act exceeds KRW 96,00,000, and the amount of money is delivered to the employee in charge on the pretext of solicitation to ask for convenience during the examination process, the sentence of sentence against the Defendant is inevitable because the nature of the crime is extremely poor: Provided, That the fact that the Defendant voluntarily surrenders himself and the Defendant did not have the same criminal record, and that the Defendant has a depth of the mistake, etc., shall be considered to set the term of punishment.

2. Defendant A2

It is very serious that the defendant, taking advantage of the status as the chief inspector of the tallying office of the 00th National Agricultural Cooperative Federation's 00 business place, has given and received a considerable amount of money from livestock raisers over several times, as well as offered a product below the grade with his own direct knowledge.

the defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of punishment, etc., shall be taken into account to determine the term of punishment.

3. Defendant A3

In that the defendant, although there is no fact that the defendant supplied walk, he manipulates documents as if he supplied it, and obtains a large amount of money, he shall be deemed to be bad, but the execution of punishment by the defendant shall be suspended on the condition of providing community service only once, by comprehensively taking into account the fact that the defendant did not have any previous walket, confessions and forms a crime, his depths, the fact that the defendant has agreed with the victim, the status, age, character

4. It is necessary to strictly punish Defendant A4 in light of the amount of damage caused by Defendant A4’s conspiracy fraud or denying the commission of a crime. However, the execution of a sentence is suspended on condition of social service in consideration of the following: (a) the first offender is the primary offender; (b) the degree of participation is relatively low; and (c) the actual profit gained is not large.

5. Defendant A5 also has a total of KRW 250,000,000,000, and the nature of the crime is heavy. However, Defendant A5 has no criminal record and the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the crime is not heavy, and Defendant’s character and character, family environment, etc. are taken into account, the execution of punishment against Defendant is suspended on condition that community service work is performed at once.

6. Defendant A6

The defendant plays a leading role in the crime of conspiracy fraud, such as delivery of false quotations and written confirmation of grading attached, and the nature of the crime is not good in that it provides money to the staff in charge: Provided, That the execution of the punishment of the defendant shall be postponed on the condition of social service, taking into account the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant misleads the defendant, and is in depth against the defendant, there is no previous conviction, and there is no reasonable amount

7. Defendant A7

The defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of solicitation to the head of the 00th National Agricultural Cooperative Federation for military payments, and the defendant supplied money that has not been certified as HACCP to the standard cash with the certified standard cash amount. However, the defendant has no criminal record of the same kind: Provided, That the defendant does not have a criminal record of the same kind; the defendant's erroneous recognition of the defendant; and the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim and it was agreed smoothly with the victim in the trial procedure, and the execution of the sentence against the defendant

8. It is not good that the amount of damage caused by the Defendant A8’s fraudulent crime reaches KRW 185 million: Provided, That the execution of a sentence is suspended on condition of community service for the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the confession of and the depth is against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant has no criminal record of the same kind; and (c) the Defendant has no substantial profits from the actual acquisition of the sentence;

19. Defendant A9

The Defendant, as if he were to go through friend cancer and hydrogen that could not be supplied, supplied them for military supply, not only did he supplied them as if he were to go with standard money, but also supplied them as if they were to go with money below grade. Since the amount of damage so caused is about KRW 470 million and the nature of the crime is very poor, no sentence may be imposed on the Defendant: Provided, That the Defendant agreed with the victim, etc., shall be taken into account to determine the term of punishment.

10. Defendant A10

It is inevitable to sentence sentence on the ground that the Defendant supplied meat and hydrogen, which is impossible to be supplied, to which he belongs, and that the Defendant used the livestock product grade ruling, which is an official document by 354 or alteration in the course of its delivery, and that the amount of damage caused by fraud reaches KRW 88,00,000, is very high in terms of crime. Provided, That in consideration of the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of a crime or agreed with the victim, etc., the term of punishment shall be determined.

11. Since the amount of damage caused by a criminal act committed in collusion with Defendant A1 and A10 is a large amount of damage, the nature of the crime is not good. However, since there are favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s sincere life without previous conviction, the Defendant’s certificate of grading of an enterprise certified as HCCP was merely playing a role to A10, and the degree of participation in the criminal act is not heavy, and the victim and the victim have reached an agreement smoothly, the execution of punishment against the Defendant shall be suspended only once on condition of community service.

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

The presiding judge, the number of judges;

Judges Kim Jae-young

Judges Kim Gung-soo