Defendant

Long-term prosecution, and yellow public trial;

Law Firm Sero, Attorney Park Han-young

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Innocence of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment among the facts charged in this case

△△ Fund is a non-profit special corporation established pursuant to the △△ Fund Act in order to ensure the smooth financing of enterprises by guaranteeing the debts of enterprises which lack security ability with government contributions, etc., and the corporate purchase fund loan system is a loan system in order to reduce the financial difficulties of the delivery enterprises by reducing the payment risk of the delivery enterprises due to the credit transaction in accordance with the government policy to improve the bill system, when the purchasing enterprise purchases the goods, etc. from the delivery enterprise, the financial institution that received the guarantee of the △ Fund guarantee is immediately paying the sales proceeds to the delivery enterprise on the basis of transaction documentary evidence, and the purchasing enterprise is a loan system in which

When the purchasing enterprise applies for a loan for the purchase fund, the insurance limit of the purchase fund shall be determined through the ratio of the purchase of the company, the counter-purchase company, the credit assessment, etc., guarantee 80% to 85% of the limit, and in the event of the repayment of the loan, △△ Fund is responsible for the substitute payment by using the public funds within the scope of the loan, and the remainder of 15% to 20% is responsible for the relevant lending financial institution.

The Defendant is a person who served as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 1”) with the purpose of manufacturing, etc. of steel materials and tools located in Kimhae-si ( Address 1 omitted).

On May 11, 2007, the Defendant issued a guarantee of the loan amount of KRW 500,000,000, which is the loan amount of KRW 1,000,000, at the △△△△△ Center of the △△△ Fund in the third floor of the △△△△△ Fund, as the surety for Nonindicted Company 1. On May 9, 2008, the Defendant issued a guarantee of the loan amount of KRW 1,00,000,000 in the loan amount of KRW 1,00,000 from the same △△△ Fund in the same △△△ Fund in the same △△△△ Fund, and

The Defendant issued a tax invoice and asked Nonindicted 2, the Defendant, who is the Defendant’s punishment, to “if the company faces difficulties in financing due to the construction of a new overseas factory at the time, and applied for a loan of funds to a bank, and the money is deposited in the bank, it shall be returned if the money is returned.” Nonindicted 3, the representative of △△△△△△△, also requested the same contents, and attempted to acquire the Defendant’s corporate purchase loan by deceiving the victim, ○○○○○○○○, the Defendant, the Defendant, who is the

Around May 2007, the Defendant: (a) paid the transaction price with Nonindicted Company 1 and ○○○○ by a bill; (b) received the loan to be paid to ○○○○○ by returning it, and (c) received the refund, and the Defendant submitted a tax invoice in the name of ○○○ at the victim’s point of change; (b) applied for a loan to purchase a company; and (c) received the loan from the victim to 200,000,000 from May 28, 2007 to October 15, 2008, and received a total of KRW 1,406,897,70 on a total of 25 occasions from May 15, 2007 to October 15, 2008, and received a refund of KRW 1,182,280,000 among them.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received a total of KRW 1,182,280,000 from the victim over twenty-five times.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 5, 3, and 2

1. The current status of loans for corporate purchase funds, inquiry into the details of credit transactions, Nonindicted 3’s passbook copy, Nonindicted 2’s deposit account, and Nonindicted 2’s deposit account

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act [Generally, however, the maximum of statutory penalty shall be 15 years of imprisonment prescribed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) under Article 8 and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act];

2. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to seven years; and

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

[Determination of Punishment] Fraudulent Offenses, General Frauds, More than 500 million won, less than 5 billion won (Type 3)

[Scope of Recommendation] Three to Six years of imprisonment (Basic Area)

3. Determination of sentence;

The crime of this case is a case where the defendant acquired money from the victim through the purchase fund lending system, and it is necessary to severely punish the defendant, taking into account the fact that the above system introduced as a policy to reduce the burden of the settlement of funds to the subcontractor's subcontractor, and to resolve the subcontractor's financial difficulties, causing a big loss or crime, a large amount of damage, and a large amount of damage not recovered, and Nonindicted Company 1 is likely to recover the future damage after being declared bankrupt.

However, in light of all kinds of sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, motive, circumstance of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., the lower limit set in the sentencing guidelines seems to be somewhat excessive, and thus, it is inevitable to excess such lower limit and determine the sentence like the order of this case as it goes beyond the lower limit, since most of the money acquired by the Defendant was used for personal benefits, not for personal benefits, but for personal benefits, and as the financial condition of the company has deteriorated.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the charge of violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment among the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) abuse of corporate purchase loan agreements from May 2007 to October 2008; and (b) acquisition of a total of KRW 1,182,280,000 from May 207 to October 2008 by fraud; (c) despite the fact that the actual recipient of corporate purchase funds between Nonindicted Company 1 and ○○○ and △△△△△△△△ is not a supplier, but the Defendant, the recipient of corporate purchase funds is deemed to be ○○○ and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, the recipient of corporate purchase funds was deemed to be ○○○ and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, a tax invoice in the name of ○○ and △△△

2. Determination

The purpose of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter “the Act”) is to contribute to the maintenance of sound social order by fundamentally eliminating economic factors that encourage specific crimes through regulating the act of concealing the acquisition, etc. of criminal proceeds related to specific crimes, concealing criminal proceeds for the purpose of encouraging specific crimes, or pretending them as legitimately acquired property. In light of the legislative purpose of the Act, it is reasonable to deem that the term “the act that disguises the facts about the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc.” under Article 3(1)1 of the Act refers to the act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to trace or detect the facts that criminal proceeds, etc. belong to the defendant, and that it is difficult to regard it as the method of ordinary acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5652, Dec. 10, 2004).

In addition, “criminal proceeds” as the object of the crime under Article 3 subparag. 2(a) of the Act refers to “property generated by a serious crime or property acquired as a remuneration for such crime” under Article 2 subparag. 2(a) of the Act, and only when the object of the crime becomes possible to be “property generated by an act of crime” when the criminal act of the corresponding serious crime was committed, it can be said to be “criminal proceeds” under Article 2 subparag. 2(a) of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3039, Aug. 24, 2006).

According to the health team and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court on this case, if corporate purchase funds are deposited with Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, the representative of ○○○○ and △△△△△△△△△△△, as seen earlier, the Defendant agreed to receive the funds from the Defendant, and then submitted a tax invoice in the name of ○○ and △△△△△△△△△△ Bank to the TPP bank to obtain money from Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 in order to acquire money as a corporate purchase fund, and received corporate purchase funds deposited in the accounts in the name of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 from Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2.

According to the above facts, only when the money acquired through deception was deposited into the account in the name of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the Defendant was committed from that time to that time. Since then, there is no evidence as to the fact that the said money belongs to the Defendant, the Defendant committed an act of tracking, detecting, or making it considerably difficult for him to track, detect, or causing the said money to occur, or that the Defendant committed an act of falsely tending the relevant facts as there is justifiable cause.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Lee Full-hee (Presiding Judge)