2016 Highest 2851 Fraudulent

1. ①

Residential safety time

whose place of registration is known

2. (2)

Daejeon

Permanent Residence

nan

Pyeongtaek Law Firm (Defendant 1)

Attorney Lee In-bok

Law Firm Lee & Lee (Defendant 2)

Attorney Lee In-bok

June 14, 2017

(1) Defendant (1) is punished by imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant (2) is punished by a fine of 10,00,000, and 00 won. Defendant (2) If the above fine is not paid, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

(1) As to Defendant A, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

2. Ordering the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine to Defendant B.

Criminal History Office

Defendant ① is a professor of ③ National University from April 201 to June 2015, and Defendant ② is a person who provides 19 research and development services, such as “the research service to revitalize Gyeonggi-do-do-type dancing-type agriculture,” and Defendant ② is a professor of ③ University from June 2013 to June 2015.

According to the regulations on the management, etc. of national research and development projects, ③ University Research Expense Management Regulations, ③ University Research Expense Management Guidelines, ③ Victim ③ University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (hereinafter “Industrial Cooperation Foundation”) shall be entrusted with the execution of the contract for industry-academic cooperation with each ordering agency, such as government departments, and the execution of research funds, etc.; when a person in charge of research requests payment of expenses, such as personnel expenses, along with evidential documents, the project funds shall be executed; when a person in charge of research requests payment of expenses, including personnel expenses, the balance shall be collected and returned to each ordering agency; and in particular, in case of personnel expenses to be paid to a participating researcher, the research management department shall be directly paid to the participating researcher’s account at the request of the relevant professor, who is a person in charge of research and development; ③ University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (hereinafter “Industrial Cooperation Foundation”) shall be prohibited from joint management by a person in charge of research, such as entrusting the account of the participating researcher to another person

1. Defendant 1

On April 201, the Defendant ordered A, the victim industry-academic cooperation foundation, to collect the difference by claiming more than the actual payment of the personnel expenses of the researchers, and to manage the passbook in the name of other researchers in a lump sum, in the case of personnel expenses to be paid to the researchers in the course of conducting research and development services, and cannot be returned from the said researchers under the pretext of joint management, and cannot be used individually.

On May 12, 2011, the Defendant claimed KRW 1,17,000 per month for the personnel expenses of B, who is a researcher of the research task in Gyeonggi-do's multi-choice farming activation program ordered by the secretariat of the Gyeonggi-do Council.

However, the defendant did not intend to pay the personnel expenses to B even if he received the personnel expenses of B from the victim industry-academic cooperation foundation, and the head of the Tong in the name of B who paid the personnel expenses at the time was possessed and managed by A according to the direction of the defendant.

As above, the defendant deceivings the victim of the industry-academic cooperation foundation and is under its control from the victim.

5. From around 18.18 to around May 29, 2012, from around KRW 1,067,860 as personnel expenses in B’s name, from around KRW 1,067,860 was received, and received KRW 468,951,375 in total over 416 times in terms of personnel expenses of 22 researchers who participated in 19 research tasks, such as the attached Table 1-2, and acquired KRW 151,542,658, which is the remainder, in the form of personnel expenses of 317,40,717 as stated in attached Table 1-2.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. Defendant ②

On May 2012, the Defendant: (a) performed research and development services; (b) performed research and development services; and (c) received external personnel expenses from the said researchers under the pretext of actual payment to the student researchers and joint management; and (c) did not receive any refund from the said researchers; and (d) did not personally use them; (b) did not request a victim industry-academic cooperation foundation to recover the difference from the account of the relevant researchers for cash withdrawal from the account of the relevant researchers to use it for purposes other than personnel expenses.

On May 1, 2012, the Defendant claimed KRW 1,400,000 per month for the personnel expenses of C, a researcher of the research task, at the victim industry-academic cooperation foundation office located in Ansan-si. The employees in charge were ordered by the Korean Federation of Korean Partnership.

However, in fact, the defendant had expressed C intent to pay 700,000 won per month as personnel expenses, and the remaining amount was refunded from C to be used for purposes other than personnel expenses.

As above, the defendant deceivings the victim of the industry-academic cooperation foundation and is under its control from the victim.

5. From around 9.9 to May 29, 2015, from around C received KRW 1,338,40 as personnel expenses for the accounts in the name of C, three researchers, including C, who participated in 11 research tasks, including the sum of KRW 147,05,280, a total of KRW 254 times in the name of personnel expenses for three researchers, such as C, who participated in the 11 research tasks as described in attached Table 2-2, such amount of KRW 106,10,00 in the attached Table 2-2 shall be paid as personnel expenses, and the remainder shall be paid as KRW 40,955,280 in the amount of the difference.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement

1. Defendant 1’s partial statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning A, D, E, F, G, H, and I;

1. Each police statement made to A and I;

1. Written Statement;

1. The accusation statement, each written confirmation (Evidence No. 2, 3, 8), each account transaction statement (Evidence List No. 4, 6, 11, 13, 30, and 79 No. 4, 6, 11, 30, and 79), each written answer (Evidence List No. 10, 22), the current status of payment of each personnel expense (Evidence List No. 24, 26, 82, 84, 86, 89, 91, and 94), the current status of each personnel expense (Evidence No. 44, 46, 48, and 126), the payment certificate of personnel expenses (Evidence List No. 59), each written confirmation (Evidence No. 69, 71), and the investigation report No. 125);

[Defendant (1) and his defense counsel asserted that the acquired amount of money is not KRW 151,542,658 as stated in the facts charged, but KRW 123,83,298,00. However, in light of the timing for payment of personnel expenses paid to the accounts in the name of the researchers from the victim known by each of the aforementioned evidence, the timing for payment of personnel expenses actually paid to the researchers, payment method, and payment method of the personnel expenses actually paid to the researchers, regardless of the personnel expenses of this case, the above assertion includes the amount paid to the Institute

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendants: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Generally referred to as Defendants)

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant 1: Imprisonment option

Defendant B: Selection of fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

(2) Defendant ②: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

(1) Defendant ①: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

② Defendant ②: Reasons for sentencing in Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; 1. Application of the sentencing guidelines to Defendant ② (Defendant ② chosen a fine in case of Defendant ②)

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

- General Fraud Type 2 (not less than KRW 100, less than KRW 500,00) basic sphere (one year to four years), - Special mitigation (a person who has increased)

- When the commission has been committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time or in a case where the commission has not been punished or has been restored to a considerable part;

2. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant 1

○ Unfavorable Normals: Although it is in a position to have high morality and integrity, the crime of this case has been committed for a long time without any awareness of any particular crime, and the amount of defraudation has also been significantly high. The damage of approximately KRW 27 million has not yet been recovered.The considerable part of the defrauded money is also peeped in the circumstances where it has been used for personal purposes, such as the installment cost of his own vehicle.

The favorable circumstances of ○: It did not have the same power, and deposited KRW 123,83,298 out of the amount of defraudation. In addition, it agreed with the victim.

○ In light of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence was determined as ordered in consideration of the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments (a sentence that lowers the sentencing criteria in light of the above favorable circumstances).

B. Defendant B

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: Although there is a position to have high morality and integrity, the crime of this case has been committed for a long time without any awareness of any other crime, and the amount of defraudation is also not small.

The circumstances favorable to ○: the first offender is the first offender, and all of the crimes of this case are recognized, and they are seriously against them.

After the commencement of the audit by the Ministry of Education, the Defendant paid approximately KRW 34 million to the researchers who are eligible for the payment of personnel expenses, deposited the total amount of the defrauded for the victims separately, and agreed with the victims.

○ In light of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence was determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of the instant case.

Judges Park Do-young