2012Gohap186, 2013Gohap103, 865(combined)

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

(b) Fraud;

(c) A teacher who forges private documents;

(d) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

(e) Forgery of private documents;

1. A. (c) d. A

2.e. B

3. (a)(c)(d) C;

The amount of oil paid, the amount of losses, the amount of knife, the amount of knife, the amount of knife, the amount of losses.

Law Firm D, Attorneys E and F (Defendant A)

Attorney G (Defendant B)

Law Firm H, Attorney I (Defendant C)

February 6, 2015

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment of two years, by imprisonment of one year, by imprisonment of one year, by imprisonment of one year, by imprisonment of one year, by imprisonment of one year and six months, by imprisonment of three years and six months, and by imprisonment of one year and six months with respect to the fourth crime as stated in the judgment of Defendant C.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years for Defendant A, and for two years for Defendant B from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

In order to order Defendant A to provide community service for 200 hours and to provide community service for Defendant B for 120 hours.

Criminal facts

Defendant C, on September 10, 2009, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on April 30, 2010 in the Jinwon District Court’s Jinju branch, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and four months for fraud, etc.

【Criminal Facts】

2012 Highest 11864

1. Loans made in the name of J and (State) K on April 9, 2010

A. The criminal conduct by Defendant A and Defendant C

The Defendants intended to borrow L, M, and N real estate as a collateral in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-nam, but intended to obtain a loan by forging the appraisal report and forging the appraisal report.

(a) A teacher who forges private documents;

On March 26, 2010, the Defendants: (a) on the first day and later on March 26, 2010, to B, who is an appraiser affiliated with the P Office, (b) Defendant A demanded that the appraisal be made so that the appraisal would be made more than 1.4 billion won; and (c) Defendant C entered into a high iron supply contract with the Veterans Association in order to carry on the scrap metal business and need a field book; (b) Defendant C would make the appraisal report so that it would not be damaged by means of going to another bank within 3 months after being loaned by the community credit cooperative; and (c) on March 26, 2010, the said B, who is not authorized to prepare the appraisal report, made the appraisal report at will on March 26, 2010, to prepare the appraisal report at KRW 99,600,000, and the appraisal report at KRW 683,060,000,000 for M and N, and made two copies of the appraisal report under Q’s name.

2) Uttering of the factual documents

Upon receipt of the forged appraisal report from B as referred to in the above Paragraph 1, the Defendants conspired to submit it to the bank to obtain a loan, and Defendant A submitted two copies of the forged appraisal report received from B to the employees R, who knew of the fact, in the trial law Dong and Dong in Busan trial Lawdong on April 9, 2010.

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

On April 9, 2010, the Defendants submitted a forged appraisal report in the name of J and K in the above tri-dong community credit cooperatives, and obtained a loan of KRW 490 million in the name of the victim tri-dong community credit cooperatives and obtained a total of KRW 888 million in the name of the above tri-dong community credit cooperatives and obtained a loan of KRW 490 million in the name of the above tri-dong community credit cooperatives, which recorded the security value of the tri-dong, from the above tri-dong community credit cooperatives.

B. Forgery of private documents by Defendant B

Defendant B is an appraiser assistant of the company in Busan Special Metropolitan City. On March 26, 2010, Defendant B arbitrarily entered the appraiser’s claim of KRW 99,60,000, and KRW 683,060,000, which is a private document for the certification of the appraiser’s name in Q Q, with the method of arbitrarily printing the appraiser’s appraisal claim of KRW 99,60,000, which is a private document in the name of the appraiser Q, into the blank in which the appraiser’s signature is located, and then printing it out to the blank in which Q Q was signed.

2. A loan in the name of T on May 20, 2010;

A. Defendant A

1) On May 2010, Defendant A: (a) requested that B purchase and development of the land in a sealed state at the end of Busan on May 2010, 201; and (b) that B would not have the right to prepare an appraisal report on May 20, 2010; (c) had the said B, who did not have the right to prepare an appraisal report, arbitrarily prepare an appraisal report of KRW 672,685,00 for the land outside U.S. and five parcels.

One copy of the appraisal report, which is a private document concerning the certification of the name, was instigated to forge.

2) Uttering of the factual documents

On May 25, 2010, Defendant A submitted a forged appraisal report and exercised the forged private document as described in the foregoing paragraph (1) to an employee R who may know that the said appraisal report was forged.

3) Fraud

On May 25, 2010, Defendant A submitted a forged appraisal report as described in the foregoing paragraph 1 when filing an application for a loan in the above trigram law community credit cooperative in T name, and acquired money by borrowing KRW 340 million from the victim trigram law community credit cooperative, which recorded the collateral value.

B. Defendant B

On May 20, 2010, Defendant B forged one copy of the appraisal report, which is a private document on the certification of the appraiser Q Q’s name, by arbitrarily inputting the appraiser’s claim of KRW 672,685,000 on the land outside U U in Syang-si using a computer, even though he did not have the authority to prepare the appraisal report, and then printing it out to the blank where the appraiser’s signature is already affixed, and affixing the seal on Q Q’s name.

“2013 Gohap1036

3. Fraud against victim V;

A. Defendant C, around the beginning of August 2008, intended to take over (1) X factory at the office of (2) X factory operated by Defendant C at around 1, 2008, and there is sufficient two months of work (2) such as assumption of obligation and termination of provisional attachment of the company (2). When the factory is operated, 40 million won can be supplied at advance, 150 million won should be paid in advance, and the remaining amount may be supplied as soon as possible by using the debt of the company (1) at 00,000,000 won for the payment of the debt of the company (1) at 00,000,000 won from the 10,000,000 won from the 10,000,000 won from the 10,000,000,000 won from the 20,000,000,000 won from the 10,000,0000 won from the 10,0.

B. On October 208, Defendant C received KRW 1,50 tons from the head office of 200,000 in Busan Dong-gu 700. From the end of 2008, Defendant C received KRW 1,000 from 20,000 from 30,000, and then supplied KRW 1,50 per month after taking over the acquisition fund. However, Defendant C did not have any intent or ability to deliver the funds to the victim. Defendant C had no funds to receive the 1,00,000,000 won from the 10,000,000,000 won from the 20,000,000,000 won from the 20,000,000,000 won from the 20,000,000,000 won from the 20,000,000,000 won from the 20,000,000.

2013Gohap865

4. Fraud against AD;

On July 27, 2012, Defendant C, at the office of AF, the wife and partner of the victim AD located in AE located in the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, held 30% interest in profits by participating in the Corporation AH Pulic acid Factory Removal and Site Plastic Construction (hereinafter “instant Construction”) located in the Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul, and supplied all 80 tons of the waste test lease generated in the construction at the market price of the market, and supply 300 tons of the old waste cable at the price below the market price of 1,00 won per each time.”

However, around July 24, 2012, Defendant C, a partner of the instant construction project, appointed a seller under consultation with AJ representative director, AK (former change) representative director, and agreed to sell disused goods under the responsibility of AAI, and the share of Defendant C was limited to 10% of the total construction. Accordingly, Defendant C was not able to select or dispose of a seller of disused goods, such as waste cables, etc. generated from the instant construction project solely by himself/herself, and there was no intent or ability to supply disused goods in accordance with the contractual terms even upon receiving payment from the victim.

Defendant C, as above, by deceiving AF and the victim, received KRW 50 million as the down payment of the contract for the supply of defective goods from the victim around July 27, 2012, and received KRW 150 million in total on two occasions on August 10, 2012, including the receipt of KRW 100 million under the name of the remaining gold around August 10, 2012. The summary of the evidence was issued.

[2012 Gohap1186]

1. Defendant B’s statement in the first trial record;

1. Statements of each part of the defendant A and C in the first trial record;

1. The statement made by the witness R in the fifth trial records;

1. Police interrogation protocol forN;

1. Each police record statement of AO, AP, Q, and T;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 3, 14, 20, 24, 25, 31, 44 of the evidence list);

1. As to a request for answer, a copy of the appraisal report, a copy of the appraisal report (T), a copy of the appraisal report (J), a copy of the appraisal report, a copy of the credit transaction agreement, a copy of each sale date and the date of decision on sale, a copy of each real estate appraisal report, a copy of each real estate appraisal report, a copy of each account transaction statement, a copy of the withdrawal money sheet, a copy of each appraisal receipt and disposal statement, a copy of each appraisal report, a copy of each appraisal request, a copy of each appraisal request, a copy of each appraisal report, a copy of the appraisal report [K], and a copy of

1. The defendant C's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses AR in the fourth trial records;

1. The witness V and AS’s statement in the 6th trial records of this Court case No. 2011 High Order 7523, the 6th trial records of this Court 1. The witness AT in the 7th trial records of this Court case No. 2011 High Order 7523, the 7th trial records of this Court 1. The witness AV, AW, and AX each statement in the 8th trial records of this Court 201 High Order 7523, the 1. A copy of the investigation report (Evidence No. 33 of the 8th trial records of this Court, the copy of the goods supply contract, the business registration certificate (AY), the copy of the business registration certificate (AZ), the copy of the scrap metal sales contract, X, the copy of the passbook related to X, the payment statement of innovative shipbuilding, the payment statement of innovation shipbuilding, the copy of passbook related to the payment statement, the head of Tong, the Veterans Association, the payment statement of this case, the copy of head of passbook, and the passbook related documents.

[2013Gohap865]

1. Defendant C’s partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness AD and BA;

1. Each police statement made to BB and BC;

1. Investigation report (the No. 16 of the evidence list);

1. A written agreement, a copy of a sales contract, a copy of a KRW 100 million receipt, a fact-finding certificate, a claim transfer and takeover contract, a notice of assignment of claims, content certification, a copy of a written agreement, a memorandum of understanding, and

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. In the case of 2013 Gohap865 as stated in the judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (report on the date when the judgment becomes final and conclusive, etc.), summary inquiry and summary inquiry No. 12724, which is the jurisdiction of the place of origin, and judgment;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant A: Articles 231, 31(1), and 30 (A. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Oct. 10; hereinafter the same) of the Criminal Act; Articles 231, 31(1) (A. 2-1 of the Criminal Act); Articles 234, 231, and 30 (A. 2-3 of the Criminal Act) of the Criminal Act; the exercise of the above investigation documents; Articles 234, 231 (A. 2-3 of the Criminal Act; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 347(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 31(3) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act; Article 37(2-3) of the Criminal Act;

○ Defendant C: Articles 231, 31(1), and 30 of each Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 234, 231, and 30 (a) of each Criminal Act; Articles 234, 231, and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 347(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; (b) Article 347(1) of each Criminal Act (as a whole, Article 347(1) (a) through (c) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 347(4) of the

1. Defendant A and C: Each of the crimes specified in Articles 40 and 50 (A. 2 at the time of sale) of the Criminal Act concerning the uttering of a falsified investigation document, and punishment for the crime of uttering of a falsified appraisal document, the criminal situation of which is heavier);

1. Selection of punishment;

Each crime of fraud, each crime of forging a private document, each crime of uttering of each falsified document, and each crime of forging each private document, shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant C: The probability of crimes under the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the judgment under paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article 39 of the Criminal Act

specified fraud, embezzlement, and between them)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with the penalty provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes with

○ Defendant B: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in the crime of forging private documents against L with the largest penalty)

○○ Defendant C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the crimes provided for in paragraphs (1) and (3) of the same Article and the punishment among crimes provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with the largest punishment]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

○ Defendant A: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration is given to the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

0. Defendant A and B: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “social service order”) 1. Social service order

○ Defendant A, B: Determination on the assertions by Defendant A and C of Article 62-2 of each Criminal Code

1. Crimes listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judgment;

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the fact that Defendant A and C conspired with each other to forge an appraisal report to each of the Defendant B and thereby, Defendant A acquired the loan by submitting the appraisal report to Defendant B, thereby sufficiently recognizing the fact that Defendant A acquired the loan.

1) Defendant B consistently received a request from an investigative agency to forge an appraisal report from Defendant A and C to this court, and made a statement that he had forged the appraisal report and delivered it to Defendant A. However, Defendant B made a detailed memory of the details of the request and the details of specific dialogue. In particular, Defendant B made a statement that he was unaware of the facts constituting the crime of Paragraph 2 of the holding. As the facts constituting the crime of Paragraph 1 of the holding, there is no special motive to make a false statement unfavorable to Defendant C only with the facts constituting the crime of Paragraph 1 of the holding.

② Defendant A paid a large amount of KRW 20 million to Defendant B on the day on which the loan was executed. Defendant A stated that the first payment was made at the case cost of appraisal, but subsequently reversed the statement that the payment was made at the last time, but failed to clearly explain the existing obligation, and considering the time and amount of the given money, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A paid the said money as the case cost for the said Article in consideration of the time and amount of the given money.

3) Since the loan that received land as collateral was more than the purchase price of the land, Defendant A and C seems to have been aware that it is not a normal loan. In light of the relationship between Defendant A and Defendant C and Defendant C and the fact that Defendant C led in promoting the business, etc., it is not deemed that Defendant A requested Defendant B to forge the appraisal report without knowledge of Defendant C.

④ Defendant A and C asserted that Defendant B personally performed the forgery of documents that Defendant B did not request to obtain the opportunity for business participation. However, if Defendant B had such objective, it is more necessary to inform Defendant A and C of the forgery in order to recognize his contribution. However, Defendant B did not notify Defendant A and C of the forgery of the appraisal report as above, it is difficult to understand that it was socially accepted.

2. Crimes listed in paragraph (3) above;

In light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, Defendant C may fully recognize the fact of deceiving victim V by deceiving the victim.

(a) Fraud related to the acquisition of a creative enterprise;

① At the time, Defendant C promoted the acquisition of Thai Construction Company. However, even according to Defendant C’s statement, at the time, Defendant C had a financial obligation of KRW 7 billion to Busan Bank, and Defendant C had a claim for preservation of provisional seizure that was established on the factory site, which was approximately KRW 2.5 billion. Thus, Defendant C took over the Busan Construction Company and the claim for preservation of provisional seizure that was established on the factory site to supply scrap to Defendant V was the situation where X should take over the financial obligation of the Busan Bank after the provisional seizure was cancelled by repaying all the claim for preservation of provisional seizure that was established on the factory site.

② Defendant C did not have sufficient financial resources to the extent that it could not pay monthly salary to (i.e., (ii) X employees at the time. As such, almost most of the acquisition funds were to be raised externally, and the provisional seizure of a portion corresponding to the site was actually cancelled by either repaying preserved claims with the funds of the victim V or succeeding to the obligation of the victim, etc. Furthermore, even if the provisional seizure established on the factory site was entirely rescinded, it was unclear whether the Busan Bank would consent to the acceptance of financial obligations of (i.e., X) X, and in fact, the Busan Bank did not agree to the assumption of financial obligations of (i.e., the Defendant agreed to the acceptance of financial obligations by the Busan Bank, but there was no material to acknowledge it).

③ In a very uncertain situation as above, Defendant C promised to supply scrap metal to the victim V by specifying the time and quantity of the acquisition of the company in question, thereby allowing the creditor of provisional attachment to transfer money instead of receiving large amounts of money in the name of the advance payment for scrap metal.

④ Although Defendant C alleged that he did not participate in the preparation of a sales contract for scrap metal, Defendant C’s above assertion is difficult to believe in light of the developments leading up to the advance payment of scrap metal, the status and role in Defendant C’s (ju) X, and the relationship between Defendant C and the victim V.

(b) Fraud with respect to the acquisition of a fish farm;

① Defendant C received at a discount in the amount of KRW 130 billion and received money from Victim C for expenses, etc. In full view of the amount of the bill, the issuer’s size of assets of the bill, Defendant C’s credit status at the time, and the financial status of the Jeju rent-on vessel, etc., the possibility of actually receiving discount in the bill seems to have been extremely rare.

② Defendant C, along with the person in charge of the Victim V and (ju), promoted the bill discount in Seoul for the discount of bill, to make a business trip in Seoul and promote the bill discount in the borrowed loan market. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to conclude that Defendant C had no deceptive act, and according to the statement of the person in charge of the Victim V and (ju) Jin Shipbuilding, Defendant C, along with the person in charge of the Victim V and (ju) Jin Shipbuilding, is waiting for the victimy and the person in charge of the (ju) Jin Shipbuilding to wait in Seoul, and only the mixed company company, etc., which is the purpose of knowing the victim V, and rather is not the means of deception, there is sufficient doubt that this is not the means of deception.

(c) Fraud related to the Veterans Association;

① It is recognized that Defendant C established a Z and registered as a static company in the scrap metal business unit of the Veterans Association, and the Veterans Association will be supplied with the scrap metal from AB between BD. However, the relationship between AZ and BD was based on Defendant C’s commitment that “the Veterans Association will be provided with scrap metal from AB.” However, even if the Veterans Association is unable to be provided with the scrap metal, there was no particular loss even if it did not occur, it appears that there was no reason to every conclusion of the registration and the conclusion of the MO.

② In addition, even though Defendant C is recognized to have purchased a site at the night, it is purchased as a loan by deceiving a community credit cooperative by a forged appraisal report as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment, and it is not particularly an investment of Defendant C’s funds.

③ Therefore, the issue of whether the Defendant C’s sexual intercourse was actually able to supply lives to the Veterans Association from AB, and the Defendant C was working for two years at AB, and the assertion that the Defendant C received an oral promise to supply lives from AB’s president is difficult to believe, and it does not seem to be easy to change the supply place of lives to the Veterans Association solely with the decision of the president of the AB president in the case where the Plaintiff was supplied with lives.

④ Ultimately, in the absence of the ability of Defendant C to supply scrap metal to the Veterans Association, it cannot be deemed that Defendant C had the intent or ability to supply scrap metal to the victim V solely on the sole basis of the fact that the Z was registered as a periodic entity of BD and entered into an understanding angle, and that the site was purchased.

3. Crimes listed in paragraph (4).

In light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, Defendant C may fully recognize the fact of deceiving the victim AD to obtain money.

① Defendant C asserts that the AI’s AJ made an oral agreement to grant the Defendant C the right to select the sales company of the disused goods (e.g., scrap metal) arising after the removal of the AH UU U.S. factory. However, according to Article 8 of the Agreement between AI, AL and AZ, the designation of the sales company of the defective goods is given priority to the companies presenting the highest price, and the designation of the sales company under the agreement between AI AL is rather excluded from AZ in the selection of the sales company of the defective goods. Therefore, Defendant C’s assertion explicitly contrary to the provisions of the Agreement is difficult to believe.

② In light of the fact that the market price of the former closed cable is 4,000 won or above per km, Defendant C’s agreed to 300 tons of the former closed cable to the victim AD is 4,000 won or below per km, the above price appears to be under the condition that even if Defendant C had the power to select a selling company, the above price cannot be agreed by AI and AL.

③ Defendant C asserts that the victim AD was unable to comply with the commitment, and that, according to the terms of the agreement, 30% of the above removal and the site flat construction was transferred to the victim AD.

However, since Defendant C transferred 10% of each of the 10% shares to BB and BC before that transfer, it is reasonable to view that regardless of its judicial effect, Defendant C is not entitled to transfer 10% of the internal shares that Defendant C can actually transfer to the victim AD and that Defendant C has no authority to transfer 30% shares to Defendant C.

④ Defendant C asserts to the effect that the share of 15% for the above Corporation was recognized by the victim AD, and that the pulmonary Cable was supplied, and that the pulmonary Esteise was not purchased by the principal by refusing to purchase, and thus the agreement was implemented. However, it is nothing more than a result of ex post facto efforts to minimize the victim AD damage regardless of the Defendant C’s share of 10%.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

○ Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor from June to June 22

○ Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months;

○ Paragraphs 1-A and 3 of the judgment of Defendant C and the judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 3 years up to 45 years

- Paragraph 4: Imprisonment for not more than 10 years;

2. Scope of recommendations;

A. Defendant A

0 Basic and concurrent crimes: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud

【Determination of Punishment】

- Fraud, general fraud, type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won),

[Special Aggravations] - Mitigations: In cases where punishment is not granted or a significant damage is recovered, from one to one of the aggravated factors: in cases where the method of punishment is extremely poor; 2)

【Scope of Recommendation】

– 3 years to 6 years (basic areas)

B. Defendant B

○ Basic Crimes and Concurrent Crimes: Forgery of Private Document

【Determination of Punishment】

Crimes of private documents, fabrication, alteration, etc. of private documents

[General Convicts] - Reductions: Serious reflects

-Aggravationd elements: the forgery or alteration of important documents with high social credibility, such as disposal documents and evidence submission documents;

【Scope of Recommendation】

– 6 months to 2 years (basic areas)

C. Defendant C3) Basic crime: C. 4 of the holding

【Determination of Punishment】

- Fraud, general fraud, type 2, not less than KRW 100, not more than KRW 500,000

[General Aggravations] - Aggravations: criminal records of the same kind of crime not constituting repeated crimes and criminal records of embezzlement and breach of trust (less than 10 years after the completion of execution).

[Scope of Recommendation] - One year to four years of imprisonment (Basic Area)

3. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant A and B committed each of the instant crimes by deceiving the victim by submitting a forged appraisal report by having Defendant B forge the appraisal report to the victim trigram legal community credit cooperatives. In light of the background, method, and size of the crime, the liability of the said Defendants is very heavy. In particular, Defendant A does not seem to be contrary to the fact that he denies all of the crimes and only transferred his responsibility to Defendant B. Considering these circumstances, it is necessary to punish the said Defendants with severe penalty corresponding thereto.

However, Defendant B’s confessions all of the crimes of this case and is against the law, and the above Defendants agreed to pay KRW 100 million to the victim, and there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than a suspended sentence, and the above Defendants’ age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered in the arguments of this case, and the execution of sentence is suspended at once once, and instead, the execution of sentence is suspended, the community service corresponding to the punishment for the crime should be imposed to reflect and improve the criminal tendency of the above Defendants.

B. Each of the instant crimes committed by Defendant C is that Defendant C: (a) instigated the forgery of an appraisal report as described in the foregoing A; (b) exercised it; (c) acquired loans from the victim trigrams and community credit cooperatives; (d) by deceiving the victim V; (e) by deceiving the victimV; and (e) by deceiving the victim AD and by deceiving the victim AD to acquire money as the proceeds of sales of waste cables, etc.

For a considerable period of time, multiple victims have committed the crime of fraud repeatedly, and the sum of the amount of the fraud is about 1.4 billion won, and the amount of the fraud by the victims who have not yet reached the agreement is about 56 million won in total. Defendant C’s criminal act of fraud is not invested in a business, but has contributed to an unreasonable investment of money obtained from victims, and eventually, if the business has failed to run, the loss is repeated in such a way that the victims will leave all. Nevertheless, Defendant C does not go against all of its criminal acts, and the criminal procedure is not intentionally delayed, and it is inevitable to punish Defendant C with severe punishment corresponding thereto, taking into account the details and contents of the crime, the means, and the degree of damage.

However, the facts of the crime of paragraph (1) of the holding shall be considered in favor of the fact that the victim trigrams and community credit cooperatives have agreed with the victim trigrams and the case that the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the crime of fraud, crime of embezzlement, and equity in the case that the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the crime of embezzlement. In addition, the punishment as set forth in the Disposition shall be determined by taking into account the various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of the case, including the defendant C’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive

Judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Park Jong-chul

Judges Shin Dong-dong

(i)determine the type on the basis of the sum of the amounts obtained by deception of the same concurrent crimes;

2) In the event that a document forgery is accompanied by a crime committed while committing a fraudulent crime, the sentencing factor is not treated as a multiple crime, but as a sentencing factor for the document.

exclusively dealing with.

3) Since the facts constituting the crime of paragraphs (1) and (3) of the holding constitute the latter concurrent crimes of Article 39 of the Criminal Act, the sentencing guidelines shall not apply.