2016 Highis239, 2016 Highis593 (Joint), 2016 Highis677 (Joint), 2016 Highis

706(Joint), 2016Gohap784(Joint), 2016Gohap837(Joint), 2016Gohap838

(A)an annexation, 2016 Gohap1136 (Joint)

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

(b) Fraud;

2016 early 2067, 2017 early 2465 Application for a compensation order

1.(a) A

2.(a) B

3.2.C

Degrhos (2016 Highest 239) (Public Prosecution), Mag-ro (2016 Highest 593 Prosecution), Kim Sung-hun

(2016Gohap677 Prosecutions), Orals (2016Gohap706 Prosecutions) and wests (2016Gohaps)

784 Prosecutions, Suspensions (2016, 837 Prosecutions), luxin (2016, 838 Flags)

[Lawsuit] Han Sang (2016 Gohap1136) and Dongwon (Trial)

Attorney D (National Election for Defendant A)

Law Firm E (LLC, Attorneys F, G (Defendant B and C)

1. H:

2. I

November 24, 2017

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five and a half years, by imprisonment for a period of three years, and by imprisonment for a period of ten months, respectively.

Each application for compensation filed by an applicant is dismissed.

Criminal History 1)

【Criminal Power】

On March 22, 2013, Defendant A was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for larceny at the Seoul Southern District Court, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on August 18, 2013.

[2016 Height239] - Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud of Defendant A, Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud),

Defendant A uses the vice president of J (J, hereinafter referred to as "J") and is in charge of managing the funds of the above company. Defendant B is the representative director of the L-Ind Co., Ltd. and the K-Ind Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "K"), and Defendant C is an insurance agency.

Defendant A, while making an investment with L's capital, has been short of the only L's loan, made up for the debt amounting to KRW 1 billion from October 2014. Defendant A started with the so-called return of the debt by borrowing money from other places, because all businesses including the game production business conducted by the court of the dispute resolution have not been able to make profits, such as the payment of bond interest, the payment of wages of employees, and the rent of office fees, etc.

1. 피고인 A, B의 공동범행 - 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기) ) 춘천시 M 일대를 사업부지로 하는 'N' 테마파크의 시행사인 0 주식회사(이하 '이주'라 한다)는 2014. 5. 8. 시공사 중 하나인 주식회사 P(이하 'P'라 한다)와 사이에 ㈜P가 100억 원을 투자하는 경우 개발 예정 부지에 대한 우선협상권 등을 부여하는 계약을 체결하였고, ㈜P는 2014. 8. 1. 주식회사 Q(이하 '㈜Q'라 한다)와 사이에 ㈜P가 우선협상권을 가지고 있는 'N' 사업부지 개발과 관련하여 공동의 이익과 위 사업의 성공을 위하여 최선의 노력을 하여야 한다는 내용의 양해각서(MOU)를 체결한 바 있으나, 위 계약서 및 양해각서에는 위 N 공사현장의 현장식당 운영권과 관련된 내용은 전혀 포함되지 아니하였고, 각 회사들 간에 현장식당 운영권과 관련한 이면합의나 구두합의도 없었다.

피고인 B는 2014. 11.경 피고인 A으로부터 위 N 공사현장식당 운영권 계약금 명목으로 2억 원을 받아 2014. 12. 9. K 명의로 ㈜Q와 위 현장식당에 관한 위탁운영계약을 체결하여 같은 날 ㈜Q에 계약금 2억 원을 지급하고, Q가 현장식당 운영 권한이 있음을 증명하는 서류를 시공사로부터 추인받아 2015. 2. 28.까지 ㈜K에 제공할 때에 잔금 7억 원을 지급하기로 하였다. 피고인 B는 위와 같이 계약을 체결하면서 작성한 계약서 및 ㈜Q 측으로부터 받은 이주와 ㈜P 간의 계약서 사본과 ㈜P와 ㈜Q 간의 양해 각서 사본을 피고인 A에게 제시하면서 2015. 2. 28. ㈜Q에 잔금 7억 원을 지급하면 위 현장식당 운영권을 취득한다고 설명을 하여, 피고인들은 ㈜와 P 간의 계약서 및 ㈜P와 ㈜Q 간의 양해각서의 어느 곳에도 위 현장식당 운영권과 관련된 내용이 포함되지 아니하였다는 것과 2015. 2. 28.까지 Q가 현장식당 운영 권한이 있음을 증명하는 서류를 갖추고 위 잔금 7억 원을 지급할 때까지는 ㈜K과 Q 어느 쪽도 위 현장식당 운영권을 가지고 있지 않다는 것을 알고 있었다.

The Defendants, around January 14, 2015, at the office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul and the first floor 101, the Defendants: “K received the right to operate the on-site restaurant at the construction site of YY in Ycheon-si, YU, YU, YY, and YY, which is operated by us, from Qu Qu., the right to operate the on-site restaurant at the construction site of YY. If it invests KRW 1 billion, the Defendants will pay 25% annual sales in installments every month. The expected profits will be paid KRW 2.4 billion each month over 3.4 months.” The Defendants finally held the right to operate the on-site restaurant and said investment funds as if they were used for the on-site restaurant operation project.

그러나 사실 K은 당시 위 현장식당 운영권을 가지고 있지도 아니한 ㈜Q와 사이에 위 현장식당에 관한 위탁운영계약만 체결한 상태로서 현장식당 운영권을 확정적으로 보유하고 있지 아니하였고, 피고인들은 채무 돌려막기로 사업을 진행하고 있어 피해자로부터 투자금을 받더라도 사채이자 지급, 다른 채무 변제 등으로 사용할 생각이었을 뿐 위 현장식당 관련 잔금 지급 또는 그 운영사업에 사용할 계획이 없었으므로 피해자에게 투자금에 대한 수익금을 지급할 의사나 능력이 없었다.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to deception the victim as above, and the victim knew it through the bank account of K in the Bank of Korea (the Account Number S) in January 15, 2015.

2. The sole criminal conduct of Defendant A;

(a) Fraud against the victim T;

On November 11, 2014, the defendant prepared an investment contract with the victim in the name of "VP" in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government U, and "I will pay 5 million won, which is 50% of the profit, to the victim T, and redeem the principal after six months, if the defendant invests in XParia operated by W, the representative of "W", the Seoul Seocho-gu, Seoul, to the victim T," and written an investment contract with the victim in the name of W.

However, the defendant could not pay 50% of the profits of the above Kapeta even if he did not have any legal authority over the above Kapeta because he did not receive the investment money from the victim, and the investment money received from the victim was thought to be used for the purpose such as the return of debt, and there was no plan to make an investment in the above Kapeta, and there was no intention or ability to pay the principal to the victim six months after the excess of debt at the time.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received money of KRW 150 million from the Korean bank account (Account Number, Y) of L (the mother of the Defendant) on the same day from the victim and acquired it by defrauded.

(b) Fraud of the victim's Z;

On March 10, 2015, the Defendant stated that “If the J lends 100 million won which is insufficient to produce AAB to the victim Z, the Defendant would repay by the end of March 2015.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was thought to pay the funds borrowed from the victim to the employees of the company, and there was no plan to use them as the expenses for the manufacture of the drama, and only the bonds and bonds that were to be paid at the time were returned in excess of the debt amount of KRW 100 million per month, so there was no intention or ability to pay the principal to the victim by the end of March 2015.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 100,000 from the victim to the corporate bank account (Account Number AC) of the Dispute Resolution on the same day and acquired it by fraud.

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

On March 19, 2015, the Defendant called the victim H and borrowed KRW 250 million as it is temporarily necessary to make money in the “AAB” in the “AB”. The Defendant sold real estate, which is a parent L enters the remainder of KRW 3 billion on or after the end of March 2015, and received KRW 250 million from the victim on March 20, 2015.

Around March 21, 2015, the Defendant intended to produce “AAB” to the victim in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu AD on or before March 23, 2015, the Defendant shall pay an additional amount of KRW 600 million to AA by March 23, 2015. If the Defendant borrowed money, the sum of KRW 250 million plus the sum of KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00

However, in fact, the Defendant did not intend to use the borrowed money from the victim as company employees’ benefits, corporate bonds, and corporate operating funds, but did not have plans to use it as the expenses for the manufacture of drama. The interest on bonds to be paid at the time was returned to KRW 100 million per month, and the parent L did not sell real estate so that the remaining KRW 3 billion is not expected to be deposited. Thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim until the end of March 2015.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 850 million from the victim and acquired it by deception.

3. Defendant C.

(a) Purchase of stocks by fraud in the name of the fund for purchasing stocks to victims H;

The Defendant, around September 4, 2013, at the victim H’s house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul AF apartment, called “the victim’s shares of the Gangnam-gu Seoul AF apartment are shares with a high return rate of 18% by paying the shareholders’ dividends to the victim at an annual rate of 18%.” The Defendant called “the friendship-gu acquires it in order to dispose of the shares with the shareholder’s own interest.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not know how much his relative group holds the above shares, how much the dividends are paid every year, and his relative group did not know about the purpose of disposing of the above shares, and it was thought that he will receive money from the victim and repay his debt and use it for living expenses, so even if he received money from the victim as a fund for purchasing shares, there was no intention or ability to purchase the above shares and deliver

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim from the victim, obtained a total of KRW 50 million from the Defendant’s Industrial Bank Account (Account Number AG3) to the Defendant’s Industrial Bank Account (Account Number AG3), and obtained a total of KRW 100 million from the Defendant’s SC Japan Bank Account (Account Number AH) on December 24, 2013, respectively.

(b) Borrowing money from victims H in the name of the borrowed money;

The Defendant stated, around April 25, 2014, at the victim H’s house as stated in the preceding paragraph, that “the Defendant would repay to the victim by May 12, 2014, the benefits and allowances received from the company on loan of KRW 30 million to the victim.”

However, in fact, the defendant was thought to have received money from the victim and used it as repayment of other debts in excess of debt, and there was no benefit or allowance to be received until May 12, 2014, and even if he borrowed 30 million won from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it until the above maturity date.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained money of KRW 30 million from the victim to the Defendant’s SCB bank account (Account Number AH) on the same day.

[2016Gohap593] - Fraud against Defendant A’s AJ

On March 12, 2015, at the Seoul Songpa-gu R and the first floor 101, the Defendant made a contract with the victim to transfer the right to operate the X-si Kapetia to KRW 100,000,000,000,000 won, which is 50% of the profit, every six months if he/she invested in the X-si Kapetia operated by W, the representative of the victim AJ, and the principal will be repaid every month."

However, the defendant did not have any legal authority over the above Kapetia and thus could not pay the profit of the above Kapetia as promised even if he received the investment money from the victim. The defendant thought that the investment money received from the victim was used for the purpose, such as returning debts, etc., and it was not capable of performing the above contract normally by concluding a contract with the victim that already transferred the operating right of the above Kapetia to other persons before concluding the contract with the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 10 million won on the same day from the victim to the bank account of the Dispute Resolution Council for the purpose of investment, and acquired 100 million won in total from the victim, respectively.

[2016Gohap677] - Fraud against Defendant A’s Victim AK

On November 7, 2014, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The victim K will give 50% of the profit if it invests in X Kapeta” at the Dispute Resolution Office in Gangnam-gu Seoul AL.

However, the defendant did not have any legal authority over the above Kapetia and received investment money from the victim, but did not have the intent or ability to pay profits to the victim. At the time, the defendant was thought to use the investment money received from the victim for the purpose of preventing debt return.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained a bank cashier's checks of KRW 150 million at par value from the victim as investment money on the same day, and acquired them.

[2016Gohap706] - Fraud against Defendant A’s victim AM

At around 20:50 on April 24, 2015, the Defendant told the victim AM to pay money in the vicinity of the Southern Terminal Station located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “If the circumstances lend a credit card due to an urgent demand, the Defendant would immediately pay the cash service at KRW 1.5 million.”

However, in fact, since October 2014, the Defendant had a debt of one billion won including bonds, etc. from around ten billion won, and since all businesses including the game production business conducted by the Dispute Settlement Council have not been able to make profits, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the debt even if he borrowed money from the victim even if he borrowed money from the victim, with pressure to pay interest on bonds, pay wages, office rent, etc., and pressure to repay the debt.

On April 24, 2015, at around 21:05, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received a letter of the victim’s national card (N) from the victim, and received a withdrawal of KRW 1.5 million in cash from the cash withdrawal at the Seocho Central Branch of the National Bank, using the said credit card, and obtained a loan of KRW 15 million with the said credit card, and acquired a total of KRW 16.5 million from the credit card loan to the bank account of L (the mother of the Defendant).

[2016Gohap7841 - Fraud against Defendant A’s victim A’s AO

On November 7, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 500,000,000 to 150,000,000 as investment money for the operation of the above Kapetia, while the Defendant received KRW 150,000,00 from Kapetia on November 11, 2014. However, the Defendant did not have any authority over the above Kapetia, and the Defendant was not able to return to 1,00,000,000 won of the Defendant’s bonds at the time of raising funds from a third party, as well as the investment money received from Kapetia.

Nevertheless, around February 25, 2015, the Defendant, at the J office located in Songpa-gu Seoul and 101th floor, entered into a false statement, stating that “(150,000,000 won is changed as security deposit for the operation of AP which was previously operated and whose operating rights are reduced” between the victim and the victim on March 13, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 150,000 as security deposit for the operation of the above CPia to the LASJ, which is the operating authority of the above CPS.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained a total of KRW 150 million from the victim to the corporate bank account (Account Number AC) in the Dispute Resolution Council for the payment of the said carpeta as a deposit money, and acquired a total of KRW 150 million from the victim, respectively.

[2016Gohap837] - Fraud against Defendant A’s Victim AR and AS

1. Fraudation by fraud under the name of the fund invested in AR and AS;

When using the position of the vice president of the KJ, the Defendant used the position of the vice president of the KJ, with the intention to prevent the repayment of the debt by borrowing the money due to the difficulty in the financial situation.

On November 4, 2014, the defendant stated that "AR and AS operate X Kapeta in the name of W at the JJ office in Gangnam-gu Seoul AL, and if investing KRW 150,000,000,000, the defendant will be granted the right to operate the Kapulmona".

However, in fact, the defendant agreed with B that it shall not transfer the right to operate the above Kapetia to any other person than W, and the KCAB did not have any authority over the above Kapetia. Therefore, even if it received investment funds from the victims, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to transfer the right to operate the Kapetia to the victims.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims, received a total of KRW 150 million from the victims to the Cit Bank account (Account Number AT) of the Dispute Settlement Council on November 5, 2014, KRW 10,50 million on November 10, 2014, KRW 50 million on November 18, 2014, and KRW 150 million on November 8, 2014.

2. Deciding victims as the successful bid price for cultural heritage to AR;

On June 2015, at the office of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Foundation for Cultural Heritage Recovery, the Defendant said that “B is the representative of the Foundation for Cultural Heritage Recovery, an incorporated association,” “B,” and that China’s works of the Foundation for Cultural Heritage Recovery were sent at auction. The value of China invested KRW 50 million in the amount of KRW 1 billion and divided the profits in which the successful bid is awarded in KRW 100 million. If the successful bid is not awarded, the Defendant said that “B will return KRW 100 million until July 10, 2015.”

However, the defendant was not the representative of the Cultural Heritage Recovery Foundation, and around that time, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to receive the AU's work by paying his money, even if he received money from the victim, since the debt including bonds reaches one billion won.

On June 19, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received money from the victim to the Korean bank account (Account Number AV) of L on June 19, 2015, and acquired it by defraudation.

[2016Gohap838] - Defendant A’s victim A in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

On November 12, 2014, the Defendant used the vice president position of the Dispute Resolution Council and was in charge of managing the company's funds, and the Defendant agreed to merge with the victim AW at the office of the Dispute Resolution Council office in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, to conduct building management business. AX would immediately list the company if it is merged with the company with a land of not more than 70,000 square meters in Gyeonggi-do, and thus, it would be a listed company if it loans KRW 200,000,000,000, and at that time, the victim would make a substantial profit if it has been invested in the Oba game, etc. by the representative of the Dispute Resolution Council."

However, in fact, AX has a land of 70,000 square meters or has not been scheduled to be merged with the Dispute Resolution Committee, and the Dispute Resolution Committee did not have the right to use and profit from the said game. Since October 2014, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the debt, even if he borrowed money from the victim, because the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the debt, etc., even if he borrowed money from the victim, due to the fact that, since around October 2014, the amount of debt, such as bonds, etc. had been paid to KRW 1 billion and all the projects have not been profited due to the payment of corporate bonds, payment of wages, and office rent, etc.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20 million on November 12, 2014 from the victim as the borrowed money, and KRW 1.2 billion on November 26, 2014 from the victim, respectively, and acquired KRW 1.2 billion on November 26, 2014 through the CT Bank account (Account Number AT) by deceiving the victim.

[2016 Height1136] - Fraud against Defendant A’s victim

On January 7, 2016, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant is making a gold revenue, and the profits are high,” at the victim I store located in Seocho-gu Seoul AY, Seocho-gu, Seoul.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not engage in a normal business at the time, and even if receiving the money from the victim, he did not have any intention or ability to comply with the said promise, as he thought to use it individually for other purposes.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained KRW 26 million on the same day from the victim and acquired it by deception.

Summary of Evidence

[2016Gohap239]

1. Partial statement of witness W;

1. Partial statement of the witness B at the court on the 16th trial date, and only the defendant A);

1. The entry of part of Defendant C in the first trial record and the entry of part of Defendant A in the second trial record;

1. Entry of each part of the witness B in the protocol of the second and third trial (limited to the defendant A);

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the Defendants (including the part of each statement in H, W, and T)

1. Each part of the police interrogation protocol against Defendant A (including H’s statement)

1. The prosecutor's office and the police's statement of H;

1. Part of the written statement by the prosecution concerning W;

1. T. Each police statement of the Z;

1. Each complaint;

1. Details of the J legal entity account, a loan certificate, record, a money loan contract, a loan certificate, a specification of loan, a specification of transactions, a contract for sale of revenue shares of an entrustment contract to a construction site restaurant, MOU contract, MU contract, confidentiality contract, guarantee of payment, each of the certified transcript of the corporate register, a copy of each letter of registration, a copy of the name of the company, an entrustment contract to a field restaurant,

1. An investigation report (financial account counterpart BA telephone statement, data submitted by a complainant, data submitted by a suspect B, telephone investigation by a person for reference, public official of Gangwon-do N Promotion Group, reporting on attachment of transaction details by J name, reporting on attachment of data submitted by a complainant, reporting on confirmation of details of T account by the complainant, reporting on verification of the suspect A creditor, etc. of the suspect, etc., and reporting on details

[2016Gohap593]

1. Defendant A's statement in the fourth trial record;

1. Statement made to AJ by the police;

1. The chief of the complaint and the supplementary statement for complaint;

1. A contract for the rental of X-Stong Sapeta, a copy of the passbook, certificate of confirmation, power of attorney, cash storage, contract, and details of transactions;

[2016Gohap677]

1. Defendant A's statement in the third protocol of trial;

1. Some protocol of interrogation of the police officer in W;

1. Statement made to AK by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. A copy of a carpeta investment contract, a certificate of personal seal impression, receipt, and check;

[2016Gohap706]

1. Statement made by a witness AM in the seventh trial records;

1. Statement made by the police to AM;

1. A complaint;

1. A copy of details of transactions, details of use of cash services, details of transactions of L bank in our name, and details of passbook transactions (Evidence Nos. 15, 16);

[2016Gohap784]

1. Defendant A's statement in the fourth trial record;

1. Public prosecutor and police suspect interrogation protocol concerning BB;

1. Some protocol of interrogation of the police officer in W;

1. Each police statement of the AO;

1. A complaint;

1. A X Amateur business license agreement, X-Stopian investment contract, power of attorney;

1. Each investigation report (report on confirmation of the party against W of Suspect, report on confirmation of the party against B, and report on details of deposit);

[2016Gohap837]

1. Defendant A's statement in the seventh trial records;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of police officers in W and B;

1. Each police statement of the AR;

1. Each complaint;

1. Financial account information, replies, letters, A’s photo, complainant’s statement of transactions, X-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-A-S-S-S-S-S-A-S-S-S

1. Investigation reports (related to accounts used by suspects);

[2016Gohap838]

1. Partial statement of witness W;

1. Statement A written by a witness in the ten-time trial records;

1. AW statement among the interrogation protocol of the second interrogation of the defendant against the defendant

1. Part of the third protocol of interrogation of the defendant's suspect against the defendant, W

1. The protocol of statement of the police officer of W and the protocol of statement of the police officer of W;

1. A complaint;

1. Details of the account transactions in the Sti Bank and details of the account transactions in the enterprise bank;

1. Investigation reports (Attachment of the details of J-corporation accounts);

[2016Gohap1136]

1. A protocol of examination of partial police officers against the accused (Evidence No. 8);

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. A complaint;

1. Records of account transactions and records of recording;

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Inquiry reports on criminal records, etc., pre-dispositions, reporting on the results of confirmation, current status of acceptance by individuals, and written judgments; and

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

○ Defendant A: Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 1371; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (referring to the fraud of the victim’s AW)

○ Defendant B: Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant C: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

○ Defendant A: Article 35 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That in the case of each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the proviso of Article 42

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant A and C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That with respect to Defendant A, within the scope of proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act)

1. Dismissal of application for compensation;

In the instant case where Defendant A and B are disputing the scope of liability for compensation, it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in the criminal proceedings because: (i) Defendant A and B were transferred a total of KRW 120 million from Defendant A and B in relation to the name of fraud of Non-Site restaurant investments on January 15, 2015; (ii) Defendant C was transferred a total of KRW 120 million from Defendant A and B in relation to the name of fraud; and (iii) the applicant for compensation was transferred a transfer of KRW 2 million from Defendant A, and the scope of liability for compensation related to such appropriation is unclear or is likely to be considerably delayed due to a compensation order; (iv) Defendant C was liable for compensation in the criminal proceedings; (v) Defendant C was not obliged to pay KRW 120 million from this court to KRW 130,000,000,000 for which the applicant for compensation is seeking KRW 10,500,000,000,000 for the compensation order in the criminal proceedings.

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel's assertion

1. The point of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) through the acquisition of money in the name of the investment funds to the N construction site restaurant on January 15, 2015 against Defendant A and B victim H (2016Dahap239)

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Defendant A

Defendant A would make profits by promoting the N corporation site restaurant operation business through the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K of the K

2) Defendant B

피고인 B는 지인 BC 등으로부터 N 공사현장식당을 운영하면 큰 수익을 얻을 수 있다는 말을 듣고 피고인 A에게 ㈜K을 통한 위 현장식당 운영에 관한 사업계획을 알리고 피고인 A으로부터 계약금 2억 원을 받아 ㈜K과 Q 간 현장식당 운영위탁계약을 체결하고 사업을 추진하였다. 당시 ㈜Q는 ㈜P와 체결한 양해각서에 따라 향후 위 현장식당 운영권을 확정적으로 보유할 가능성이 있었고, 피고인 B는 ㈜Q의 이사 BD으로부터 현장식당 운영권을 넘겨줄 수 있다는 확답을 듣기도 하였다. 피고인 B는 피해자 H으로부터 위 현장식당 운영과 관련하여 10억 원의 투자를 유치하면서 피해자에게 현장식당 운영권과 관련한 계약서와 양해각서, 위탁운영계약서를 모두 교부, 설명하였으므로 피해자는 ㈜K이 현장식당 운영권을 확정적으로 보유하고 있지는 않다는 것을 알고 있었다. 이후 ㈜K이 현장식당 운영권을 확정적으로 가지지 못하였음에도 피해자로부터 받은 10억 원을 돌려주지 못한 것은 피고인 A이 위 돈을 자신의 필요에 의하여 사용하였기 때문이다. 결국 피고인 B는 기망의 고의를 가지거나 피고인 A과 범행을 공모하지 아니하였고 기망행위에 가담하지도 아니하였다.

B. Determination

1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) Establishment and operation of the LAJ

(1) On September 2, 2014, J was established on September 2, 2014, with the address of its head office, including capital of KRW 1 million, business purpose broadcasting drama, film production, online game development service business, Gangnam-gu Seoul, representative in-house director W, and auditor B. The address of the company was changed to Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, around January 2015, as 101, as Seoul, around March 2015, to the BF around January 2016, respectively. The capital was increased as KRW 50 million on January 20, 2015, and KRW 600 million on March 24, 2015, respectively.

(2) On January 19, 2015, the registration of the office of the representative director B and the director A was completed, and on March 28, 2015, the resignation of the director W was completed. On March 28, 2016, the company’s trade name was changed to BG. The shares of the dispute resolution committee were W 60% and A 40%, while capital was increased to KRW 60 million, B3% (including 2% received from W), A97%, while capital was increased to KRW 60 million, and B97% was transferred to B on March 28, 2015.

(3) The main business of the LADJ was the production of the LAD and the mobile game development. However, in the second half of 2014, the production of AAD 'BH' was produced, but the contract was concluded with AA and DAB on February 27, 2015, but the said contract was terminated as it did not deposit KRW 850 million in AA by February 27, 2015, and the mobile game was not developed. The LAB was not operated from March 2015 due to the business depression.

(4) As above, the J was operated from September 2014 to March 2015. Of them, from September 2014 to early 2015, WW was in charge of W’s representative (in-house director), and B is in charge of accounting and expenditure.

A. From the beginning of the beginning of 2015, B was in charge of the representative director, and A was in charge of the management of the company's funds while using the vice president for the period of operation of the said state. The Lama manufacturing support process occurred by the appropriate person, and continuously disbursed funds, such as employee's benefits and expenses for the purchase of tickets for games, Defendant A got over 1 billion won of debt including bonds around October 2014, and thereafter, Defendant A returned the so-called refund of debt by borrowing money from other places.

B) Operation of K of the Bank of Korea

BI is a company established for the purpose of business, such as September 10, 2013, general management of buildings, and worker dispatch business. On April 1, 2014, as the trade name of the company was changed to K, registration of appointment of representative director B and in-house directors L(A) was completed, and broadcast drama production business was added for the purpose of business on March 16, 2015, and each registration of resignation was completed on June 13, 2015, and on June 15, 2015.

다) ㈜K과 ㈜Q 간 현장식당 위탁운영계약의 체결

(1) On May 8, 2014, the N Development Project Implementation Company Co., Ltd. entered into a contract with PP to grant preferential bargaining rights, etc. to the prospective development site in the event that it invests ten billion won in the case of investment with one of the construction companies, one of the construction companies, the PP to which the LAP would be entitled (Evidence No. 93-97 of the case No. 2016Gohap239 of the case No. 29).

(2) On August 1, 2014, Q and Q have prepared a memorandum of understanding (MOU) stating that in relation to N&P’s N development project, the KAP shall make best efforts for common interests and success in the project (MOU) with respect to which the KAP guarantees that it has exclusive priority (2016Da239 case No. 98-99 (Evidence 29)).

(3) On December 9, 2014, K Co., Ltd. operated by Defendant B entered into a contract for the entrusted operation of a field restaurant (2016Dahap239 case No. 54-5 (Evidence No. 27)) with Q, and Defendant A paid KRW 200 million, which was prepared by Defendant B to Defendant B, as down payment, to Q Q.

D) Preparation of profit-sharing share sales contract of the construction site restaurant contract between K and the victim H, and joint and several guarantee certificates of Defendant A

On January 14, 2015, according to the on-site restaurant operation consignment agreement entered into between K K (Representative B, A) and the victim H (A), the Defendants: (a) prepared a construction site agreement with the content that they sell 25% of the total operating earnings to the victims and pay 25% of the operating earnings to the victims; and (b) Defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed the agreement.

[2] Number 13-14 of the 2016 Highest 239 case (Evidence List No. 19)] The main contents are as follows.

Section 1 (General theory) A shall enter into a contract into which 25% of profits for the operation and sales for a period of 34 months is converted into monthly and paid to B each month on the basis of such data as basic materials for sales, sales cost, required funds table, etc. as agreed upon by Party A.

Article 2 (Purchase Price of Operating Proceeds of 25%) A shall determine the operating profit of the on-site restaurant to B pursuant to Article 1 and sell it to B in KRW 1 billion.

Article 3 (Guarantee of Profits) A shall pay 200,000,000 won monthly profits of KRW 204,000,000 for the total estimated sales during the 34-month operating period, to B, based on Articles 1 and 2, whichever is determined, for 34 months after the completion of the contract, to B. In addition, where additional profits accrue after the settlement of accounts after the termination of the contract, A shall pay 25% of the excess profits of KRW 8 billion to B. From February 1, 2015 to 34 months, dividends shall be paid from February 2.

2) Determination

앞서 채택한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들을 종합하면, 피고인 A, B는 ㈜K이 당시 현장식당 운영권을 가지고 있지도 아니한 ㈜Q와 사이에 위 현장식당에 관한 위탁운영계약만 체결한 상태로 현장식당 운영권을 확정적으로 보유하고 있지 아니하였음을 잘 알고 있었고 피해자로부터 투자금 명목으로 받은 금원을 사채 등 채무 상환에 사용할 의도였을 뿐 위 식당운영 관련 사업자금으로 사용할 계획이 전혀 없었음에도 상호 공모하여 식당운영사업이 정상적으로 진행될 것처럼 피해자를 기망하여 피해자로부터 10억 원을 편취하였다고 할 것이다. 피고인 A, B 및 그 변호인들의 이 부분 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

가) N 개발 사업과 관련하여 체결된 ㈜와 ㈜P 간의 계약서 및 P와 ㈜Q 간의 양해각서에는 현장식당 운영권에 관한 내용이 전혀 포함되어 있지 않았다. 한편, 이(주) 대표이사 BK은 "㈜P와의 계약 내용 중 함바식당 운영은 포함되어 있지 않다(함바 식당 운운하면 사기다). 시공권은 현대가 75%, ㈜P가 25% 있었지만 P는 50억 원만 출자하고 나머지는 출자하지 아니하였다. 사업부지에서 유물이 출토되어 사업이 시작되기도 전에 공사가 중단되었다."라고 확인하고 있고, N 추진단의 담당 직원도 "2016. 2.경 컨소시엄 형태로 BL, ㈜P에서 기반시설 조성공사가 진행 중이나 이는 함바식당 운영권과는 무관하다."라고 확인하고 있으며, ㈜P 대표자도 "당시 Q에서 자금을 투자한다고 하여 ㈜P와 ㈜Q 간 MOU를 체결하였다. N 시공사로서 지분을 BL이 75%, ㈜P가 25%를 가지고 있다. MOU 체결 시 함바식당 운영권에 대하여 언급된 적이 없고, 언급되었다면 MOU에 기재하였을 것이다. 함바식당 운영권은 시공사에서 가지고 있는 것은 맞는데, N 함바식당을 운영하려면 시공사인 BL과 ㈜P의 동의를 얻어야 한다. ㈜Q는 MOU 체결 이후 한푼도 투자하지 아니하였다. Q가 있지도 않은 함바식당 운영권으로 다른 곳에 양도하거나 위탁운영 계약을 체결하는 것은 사기이다."라고 진술하고 있는바, 위 당사자 간에는 현장식당 운영권에 관한 이면합의나 구두합의도 없었다. 고 할 것이다[2016고합239 사건 수 364, 365, 749-750쪽(증거목록 순번 37, 38, 57)].

나) ㈜K과 Q 사이의 현장식당 위탁운영계약 제2조, 제4조, 제8조에 의하면, ㈜K은 ㈜Q에서 현장식당 계약 권한이 있음을 증명하는 서류를 제공받고 그로부터 15일 이내에 잔금 7억 원을 지급하여야 하고 계약 체결일인 2014. 12. 9.로부터 60일 이내에 위와 같은 사항이 이행되지 아니하면 계약이 효력을 상실하게 되는바, 피고인 B는 위 계약 체결 당시 Q의 이사 BD으로부터 현장식당 운영권 관련 서류 제공이 제때에 이루어질 것이라는 취지의 설명을 들었다는 것이나, 이는 위 계약을 체결하면서 약정을 이행하겠다는 것에 불과한 것으로서 달리 위 약정이 틀림없이 이행될 수 있다.는 점에 대한 어떠한 객관적인 근거나 자료는 없었다.

C) At the time of the above investment, the victim was introduced as a game, entertainment, master asset distribution, and meal service company, and K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in K in the K in the K in-K. The victim has the right to operate the K in the K in-house restaurant, or the defendant A, B, B, and from them, the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in-house restaurant. Since the initial business fund is more than 4 billion won, the victim has invested one billion won in the company chairperson, the building owner of the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the M in the K.

D) At the time of the above investment, the victim received K Introduction Pamp, BM workers' meal service proposal, on-site restaurant consignment contract from the Defendants. The proposal for BM workers' meal service business [3,00 workers' basic data, 1.5 billion won per month in expected sales, 32.5 months in sales, 50 billion won per month (69 pages), 2 billion won for the required funds (69 pages), 3.7 billion won in total, 7 billion won in building consignment management, 10 billion won in group meal service, 70 million won in public parking lot operation, 37-77 in number (Evidence No. 29 in number) in size, 50 billion in size, 200 won in size as 20 billion in size as 70 billion in size, 200 billion in size as 70 billion in size size, 3.5 billion in size in size in size as 40 billion in size as 5 billion in size, 2000 won in size, 3.5 billion won in size size of green food service.

However, the basic materials for sales cannot be deemed to have been made on the basis of objective grounds, and in light of Defendant B’s statement that “The K shall be a company in the name of one employee located in the 150,000 won in the 150,000 won in each month, through a company trading in the corporation around 2014, the reported amount of KRW 40,000,000 won in 2014, the sales amount of KRW 30,000 in 2015 shall be dispatched to the hospital and the net profit rate of KRW 8% in 2015 shall be the 8%.”

마) 위 급식사업제안서에서 소요자금이 20억 원이라고 스스로 밝히고 있고, 피고인 B도 운영자금까지 15억 원이 필요하다고 진술하고 있으면서도[2016고합239 사건 수 112쪽(증거목록 순번 30)], 피고인 A, B는 위 현장식당 운영에 따른 실현 가능한 자금조달계획을 수립하지도 아니하였다. 피고인 A, B가 피해자에게 설명한 바와 같이 당장 2015. 2.부터 매월 6,000만 원씩의 수익배당금을 지급하여야 함에도 어떠한 근거에 의하여 식당이 실제로 운영되지도 않는 상태에서 수익금 지급 약정을 하였는지를 도저히 납득할 수 없다. 한편, 피고인 A, B는 피해자로부터 받은 10억 원을 모두 다른 용도에 사용하였고, 피고인 B는 ㈜Q와의 계약을 해제하고 계약금 2억 원을 돌려받고서도 이를 모두 사용하였다.

F) In light of the circumstances that it is difficult to see K’s conclusion of a contract and investment attraction, etc. as a normal contract or progress of a project, Defendant A and B shall not be deemed to have promoted the business of the K-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-A-based L-based L-based L-A-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-based L-A-based L-based L-based L-based L-A-based L-based L-based L-based L-A-based L-based L-based

사) 피고인 A도 ㈜K과 ㈜Q 간의 계약 체결 시 자금을 조달하여 계약금을 지출하도록 하면서 그 계약 내용을 잘 알고 있었고 C을 통하여 피해자에게 투자하도록 하였으며 이후 C에게 소개료 5,000만 원도 지급하는 등 관여함으로써 투자내용에 관하여 잘 알고 있었다.

2. The defendant A's fraud against the victim T by the defendant (2016Gohap239), the summary of the argument

The defendant received investment money from the victim with the consent of W, which has the right to X Kapetia, and did not deceiving the victim or defraud the money from the victim.

B. Determination

1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) The Defendant’s fraud and attempted with respect to the transfer of the Defendant’s X-Stong Kapeta’s operating rights

On November 11, 2014, the Defendant acquired KRW 150 million from AK on November 7, 2014 to receive KRW 150 million from the victim T under the same name as a loan for investment in X C, which is operated by W, the representative of WJ, and acquired KRW 150 million from AK on November 7, 2014 (2016hap677) and acquired KRW 150 million from AR and AS on November 2014 (2016hap837) (20,000 won) from AO to receive KRW 150,00 million from AO on February 3, 2015 (2016hap784 case), and acquired money from the victim under the same name to receive KRW 150,000,00 from H, 2050,000,000 from HM on March 20, 2015, to receive KRW 150,500,000.

B) Documents issued by the Defendant to the victims when investing in the carpetia operating authority

When the Defendant received money from the victims as a result of the investment in X Kapetia, he/she displayed or delivered the following documents to the victims [the number of cases 16-239, number 16-23 (Evidence No. 2), number 22, 40-42, 46 (Evidence No. 5, 10, 11), number 13 (Evidence No. 5), 2016, number 17-20, 109, 110, 2016, number 1784, number 17-20, 2016, number 30-34 (Evidence No. 370] of cases 2016, number 2016, number 784, number 17-20, number 110, 2016, number 837, number 370-34 (Evidence No. 570]

- A contract eligible for preferential bargaining in the first floor of X-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

B B B B B prior to the conclusion of this Agreement on the 1st floor coffee, coffee shop, and meeting room operation business of X-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

㈜X 판교 신사옥 관리본부, 예치보증금 1억 원 수표

- This Agreement of X Kapeta, October 1, 2013 (as of January 22, 2013)

㈜X(갑), BQ, W(을)

Period: A one-year extension contract from October 1, 2013 to October 9, 2014;

- Preparation of the name of X-Stoo Kapeta business and related consultation (out of space) on November 201, 25, 2013, the name of BP, from March 15, 2014 to "BR" for five years from March 15, 2014, and the later one-year extension of W “B Q” to "BR," and the matters delegated by WW, the power of attorney, April 16, 2014: Matters concerning game and related investment contracts, carpeta contracts, and consulting services;

/ A certificate of seal impression issued on March 31, 2014

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted earlier, the Defendant may fully recognize that the Defendant, while being aware of the absence of legitimate operational authority over W or X Kapetia, has acquired money by deceiving the victim T as if he would guarantee high profits. This part of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

A) Since the process of the preparation of the above contract was the representative of X, W was guaranteed the right to operate the Katop of the head office from the Gatop in terms of honorable treatment from the Gatop, and was stated to have been operated since 2014 (number 540 pages 540 (Evidence No. 48) of the number of cases No. 2016Dahap239). However, there is no circumstance to support W from 2014 that the contract subject to preferential negotiation for the Katop facilities around the first floor of the X Gatopology was prepared with legitimate authority or that W had any effect, or that it was actually operated with settlement and payment of the profits.

B) W stating that as to the circumstances described in B Q as well as the above contract, it borrowed KRW 100 million from B Q because it is not good financial resources, and included in B Q in the contract, and that it is paid money borrowed from B as security for operation of Q Q Q, which it is not permitted to transfer or acquire by third parties, the above Kapetia's operating right is operated independently and it is decided to distribute one half of its operating income to B (Evidence No. 48) and it is difficult to view that the above Kapetia's operating right was actually transferred or acquired for 100 million won after the conclusion of the contract between B and B (Evidence No. 45 of Evidence No. 2016, Dec. 10, 2014). However, in light of the agreement between B and B, it is difficult to view that the above Kapetia's operating right was transferred for 250,000,000 won for 10,000,000 won for 36,000.3.

C) Meanwhile, in the contract that the Defendant entered into with the victim, the seal of W is affixed to W [2 pages of the case No. 2016Dahap239 (Evidence No. 8)] and W is also recognized as having the seal of W [542 pages 542 (Evidence No. 48) of the case No. 2016Dahap239]. Since W was stolen by the Defendant by the Defendant, it is not bound to W’s statement concerning the reasons why W’s seal is affixed, such as the Defendant did not file a complaint.

D) In light of the relationship with the Defendant and W, the Defendant was present at the conclusion of the agreement on the shares of C and B as of February 10, 2014 between W and B, and then was involved in the operation of W and B, the Defendant is deemed to have been well aware that W was not operating the said C and W was well aware that W had no legitimate right to operate the said C and W. Ultimately, the Defendant was used as a means of deception for deceiving W or by deceiving W, knowing that W or B would have no right to properly operate the said C and B. Ultimately, the Defendant was aware that W or B would have been able to believe its re-conciated or pay the amount that the Defendant promised.

3. The fraud of the Defendant A’s victim Z [2016 Gohap239]

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant intended to repay the money borrowed from the victim’s Z because of the investment that was promised to receive from BS around March 2015, the Defendant intended to pay the money from the victim’s Z, but the said investment was not made, and the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the money at the time of borrowing the money from the victim, and did not acquire the money by deceiving the victim.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, namely, ① the Defendant used the position of the vice president of the State-si from around 2014 to March 2015, the date of the instant crime from around the date of the instant crime, and invested multiple victims in the operation of the Nan field restaurant, drma production, game development, and X-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

4. The defendant's fraud against the victim AM (2016Gohap706)

A. Summary of the assertion

Since the defendant fully repaid KRW 16.5 million borrowed from the victim AM, the crime of fraud is not established.

B. Determination

After the Defendant borrowed KRW 16.5 million from the victim on April 24, 2015, the fact that the Defendant remitted total of KRW 17.3 million to the victim ( KRW 1.6 million on May 12, 2015, KRW 1.6 million on July 25, 2015, KRW 300,000 on July 29, 2015, KRW 16.6) is recognized (the copy of bank account of the victim’s bank account No. 16 on July 29, 2015).

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be recognized that the defendant paid 1 million won to the victim after the above fraud and did not pay the remainder of the borrowed money to the victim. The defendant and the defense counsel do not accept this part of the assertion.

① On May 4, 2015, 2015, KRW 10 million was transferred from the bank account in Korea (the mother of the Defendant) to the bank account in L (the copy of the bank account in 200 million) (the above evidence list No. 15-B), the BU transferred KRW 10 million to the victim on May 11, 2015, and the victim transferred KRW 10 million to B (the above evidence list No. 16), and (c) on May 11, 2015, the victim remitted KRW 5 million to the bank account in L, and the victim transferred KRW 5 million to the victim on the same day; and (d) the victim transferred KRW 16 million to the Defendant on May 12, 2015, and the victim transferred KRW 5.1 million to B,5 million to B, and 16 million on the same day (the evidence list No. 1613, May 13, 2015).

In light of the victim's statement that "BT borrowed KRW 10 million from BU to BT upon its own request, and thereafter lent KRW 5 million from BV to the defendant additionally, the above amount of KRW 16 million was received as principal and interest on the above loan, and then remitted KRW 15.2 million to BU and BV respectively," the victim's statement that "(AM record book 6) 3-11 pages, the defendant remitted KRW 16 million to the victim on May 12, 2015, which was related to the repayment of the borrowed money on April 24, 2015."

③ In light of the victim’s statement that “the KRW 300,000 transferred from the Defendant on July 29, 2015 is related to FBS withdrawal KRW 58,300 on July 21, 2015, and BW withdrawal KRW 151,100 on July 29, 2015,” which is the crime of this case, is not in a relationship with the name of repayment of the borrowed money on April 24, 2015,” the victim’s statement that “the amount of KRW 300,000 transferred from the Defendant on July 29, 2015 is irrelevant to the repayment of the borrowed money on April 24, 2015, which is the crime of this case (A witnessM green 12-15 pages),” the Defendant’s remittance of KRW 300,000,000 to the victim on July 29, 2015.

④ However, the Defendant’s remittance of KRW 1 million to the victim on July 25, 2015 also recognized that it is the name of repayment of the borrowed money as of April 24, 2015, which is the crime of this case (Article 13, witness AM 13). However, the mere fact that the Defendant paid KRW 1 million, which is extremely part of the Defendant, to the victim upon the demand of the victim after committing the crime of this case does not interfere with the recognition of the crime of this case.

5. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant A’s victim A;

[2016Gohap838]

A. Summary of the assertion

Although the defendant was expected to merge with AX, and there was a lot of money in the event of investment in the game development project, the defendant would be able to borrow a business fund, which means that it would be a loan of the business fund. However, this is because it is believed that the defendant is true and that he borrowed the business fund, etc. from the W which operates the company as the representative of the Dispute Settlement Council, and that he was believed to know that the contents were true, and that he borrowed the business fund

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant used to hold a position of the vice president of the KMJ and caused the victim to prepare a loan certificate in the name of the “W representative director of the KMJ” while borrowing money from the victim and deliver it to the victim along with the certificate of the personal seal impression. However, the Defendant requested the victim to directly explain and lend money to the victim as stated in the facts of the crime, ② merger and game development, etc. explained by the Defendant, ② The relationship between the Defendant and W, from around November 2014, the Defendant used to hold a position of the vice president of the KMJ and used to return bonds up to KRW 100 million to the victim, the Defendant cannot be accepted as being aware of the fact that it was 10 billion, and the Defendant could be aware of the fact that it was 60 billion won by deceiving the victim of the above fraudulent act, and the Defendant could not be aware of the fact that it was 10 billion won or more by deceiving the victim of the above 20th M&M.

6. Fraud by Defendant A’s victim I (2016 Gohap1136)

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant believed the end of BY that the Defendant is engaged in the export and import business of gold and multimond, etc. and solicited the Defendant to make an investment in the victim, and the sum of the amount of KRW 26 million received from the victim and that of KRW 123 million was invested in BY and was not returned, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victim or defraud the money from the victim.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, namely, ① the Defendant committed fraud by deceiving multiple victims as if he/she obtained high profits if he/she invests in the operation of the Nan Site cafeteria, the production of drama, the game development, and the operation of the X-type Kapeta, etc. in order to prevent the return of the bonds while using the vice president of the KOB from around 2014 to 2015, and the Defendant committed fraud by deceiving them as if he/she obtained high profits, and even around January 2016, which is the date of the instant crime, there was no particular property or income, ② there is no objective material to confirm the substance or profitability of the export and import business on bail that the Defendant invested, and ② there is no objective material to confirm whether the Defendant made the actual substance or profitability of the business on bail, the Defendant’s deception and deception with the victim I can be fully recognized.

We cannot accept this part of the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

7. The Defendant C’s fraud of the borrowed money with Defendant C’s victim H [2016 Gohap239]

A. Summary of the assertion

On April 25, 2014, the defendant was temporarily unable to borrow KRW 30 million from the victim at the time of borrowing money from the victim, but it was expected that the future income will be continuously generated and had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim.

B. Determination

The court duly adopted and investigated the following circumstances. ① The Defendant borrowed approximately KRW 370 million from around July 2013 to demanded repayment of principal. From around April 2014, the Defendant was also obligated to pay approximately KRW 150 million to the victim (including KRW 100,000,000,000 from around September 2013 and around December 12, 2013). From around September 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 150,00 per month to the victim with interest KRW 30,000 as agreed to pay KRW 100,000 per month from around 30,000 (the above evidence No. 589-590 (the evidence No. 51) to the victim. 200,000). ② The Defendant was also 30,000,000 won and 1.5,000,000 won (the above evidence No. 306,000,00 won).

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment for a term of three years - fifty years;

(b) Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria; and

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment for 3 years, 6 years

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment and five years and six months; and

On September 2014, the Defendant was in charge of managing the company's funds while using the vice president of the Korea Development Bank established by the Korea Development Bank. From October 2014, the Defendant was charged with the bonds of KRW 1 billion, and the Defendant committed the instant fraud in order to resolve the so-called return method. On November 2014, the Defendant committed the fraud of KRW 00 billion under the pretext of investment in the management rights of the XFIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE.

However, considering that the defendant used W, B, etc. a considerable amount of money out of the amount of the acquired money which the defendant received through the J account, etc. due to each of the crimes of this case, the whole amount of criminal proceeds does not belong to the defendant, and the defendant paid 412.3 million won to the victims after the crime of this case) and the fact that the defendant delivered a child around January 2016, who was detained and brought up the above child within the detention house, and was currently raising the child in custody, the defendant's old age and character, family relationship, motive and circumstance of each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances after the crime of this case shall be considered as favorable to the defendant, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the disposition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment by imprisonment: Three years to thirty years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment for 3 years, 6 years

(c) Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment; and

이 사건 범행은 피고인이 공사현장식당 운영권을 확정적으로 보유하고 있지 아니하였음에도 A과 공모하여 피해자를 기망하여 투자금 명목으로 10억 원을 송금받아 편취한 것으로 그 죄질이 나쁘다. 이 사건 범행 이후에 피해자에게 1억 2,000만 원이 지급된 것 외에는 피해 회복이 이루어지지 아니하였다. 피고인은 ㈜Q와의 현장식당 운영위탁계약을 해제하고 계약금 2억 원을 돌려받고서도 이를 모두 사용하였고 피해를 회복하지 아니하였다. 피해자는 피고인의 엄벌을 탄원하고 있다. 위와 같은 사정을 고려하면, 피고인을 그 책임에 상응하여 엄히 처벌할 필요가 있다.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has no record of being punished or severe punishment for the same crime, the fact that part of the amount of fraud belongs to only a part of the criminal proceeds from the above crime by A using a part of the amount of fraud, etc., shall be considered as favorable to the defendant, and the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the age, character, and conduct of the defendant

3. Defendant C

(a) The scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years;

(b) Scope9 of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud (at least KRW 100,000, less than KRW 500,000)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment for 1 year - 4 years

(c) Determination of sentence: Ten months of imprisonment; and

The crime of this case is not suitable to commit the crime by taking advantage of the trust relationship accumulated by the Defendant in charge of the management of the victim H’s assets, thereby deceiving the victim a sum of KRW 130 million from the victim as a result of the purchase of stocks and the borrowing of funds. It is not good to commit the crime. The considerable part of the damage has not been recovered. The victim, as well as the damage caused by the Defendant’s fraudulentation of money, has attempted to punish the Defendant, by introducing A and B, and actively soliciting the Defendant to invest the proceeds of the victim’s building construction while hiding the Defendant’s criminal act. Considering the above circumstances, it is necessary to punish the Defendant with strict punishment corresponding to his/her liability.

However, the fact that the defendant partially recognized the crime, the fact that the defendant is the primary offender, the defendant paid 370 million won to the victim from September 2013 to the date of profit, and the defendant paid 30 million won to the victim on June 30, 2014 with regard to the above defrauded amount to the victim 30 million won. On November 15, 2017, the defendant paid 5 million won to the victim on June 30, 2014, and paid 60 million won under the report of recovery restriction by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the defendant. Other factors such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relations, motive and circumstance of each of the crimes of this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered as a whole, and the punishment shall be determined by getting beyond the lower limit of the order of the sentencing guidelines set forth in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

Judge of the presiding judge;

Judge Jin-hun

Judges Park Jong-chul

1) To the extent that the facts charged in the indictment do not disadvantage the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense, some revisions or revisions were made according to the facts obtained through the examination of evidence.

2) The phrase “i.e., the written indictment” is apparent that it is a clerical error, so it is corrected (as such, 12 pages (Evidence No. 18) of the investigation records of the case (hereinafter referred to as “the investigation records of the case”)).

3) Since the “AI” in the indictment is obvious that it is a clerical error, it shall be corrected as such [the number of cases 282-283 (Evidence Nos. 36) in 2016Dahap239];

4) On March 2014, 2014, the first policeman stated in the indictment is apparent that he is a clerical error, and thus, he/she is corrected as such [the number of 6 pages (Evidence No. 31) of the case No. 2016, 837];

5) Meanwhile, Defendant A stated that “C was not registered in the certified copy of the register, but was involved as the representative of the State from March 2015 to May 2015, 2015, and was working for the patrolmen from May 2015, and retired from China as it was no longer.” [The number of the cases 2016Dahap239 (Evidence No. 433)].

6) hereinafter referred to as “the reading”).

7) on the basis of the aggregate amount of each crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and each crime of fraud in holding that it is a single concurrent crime.

8) The record reveals that Defendant A submitted to the victim H 120 million won (the number of 47 pages of the case 2016Dahap239 (Evidence Nos. 25)), 32 million won (1924 pages of the number of 2016Dahap239 case) to the victim T, 175 million won (10-11 pages of the AW reading), 2 million won to the victim A [10 million won (Evidence No. 4], 100 million won (the number of evidence No. 10-136 case No. 2016), 10 million won (the evidence No. 4), 10 million won for the victim AM (the same shall apply to the defendant's assertion that the victim submitted to the victim A, 300,000 won for the victim's 175 million won (the same shall apply to the defendant's statement No. 2016hap706 case) or 250,000.

9) determine the types and recommended areas of frauds on the basis of the aggregate amounts of each such frauds in holding that they are concurrent crimes.