[1] In a case where a bill of exchange was predicted to not be settled on the date of payment but the contents of the bill was discounted without notifying the addressee thereof, the nature of fraud (affirmative)

[2] The nature of fraud in a case where a part of security is offered upon the discount of a financing bill as if it was a true bill (affirmative)

[3] Where a bill is issued for the purpose of delaying performance of obligations, the nature of fraud (affirmative)

[4] Whether it is unlawful to specify the amount of profit in fraud of acquiring property profits (negative)

[5] Whether the rate of criminal facts falling under the crime of fraud under Article 347 (2) of the Criminal Code under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Code constitutes an illegality that affected the conclusion of the judgment (negative)

[6] The meaning of "dys and rice mills" that do not fall under the act of contribution under Article 141 (4) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Illegal Acts within the ordinary scope

[1] A crime of fraud is established if a bill is discounted without notifying the addressee of the fact that the bill will not be settled on the date of payment, or there is no conviction that the bill may be paid on the date of payment.

[2] In the discount of a financing bill, taking active means to make the other party as if the bill was a so-called "definite bill" constitutes a clear deceptive act and thus making the other party mistake the intent thereof and deliver money with the name of discount constitutes a crime of fraud, and the conclusion does not vary by providing some security in receiving the discount. Therefore, a crime of fraud is established against the whole amount of fraud which did not deduct the value of the security.

[3] Since it is also a property interest in which performance of obligation is postponed in a crime of fraud, if a bill is issued for the purpose of delaying the payment of the previous obligation in spite of the debtor's intent and ability to pay the creditor by the prescribed time, the crime of fraud is established

[4] Since property interests in a crime of fraud are not limited to the interests that can be calculated on a calculated basis, even if the amount of such interests is not specified in the judgment of the crime, it shall not be deemed unlawful.

[5] Even if the Defendants’ act did not constitute a crime under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and caused a third party to receive property, and the crime under Article 347(2) of the same Act is established, the crime under Article 347(1) of the same Act and the crime under Article 347(2) thereof do not affect the conclusion of the judgment, since the punishment is the same.

[6] The act of providing tea, rice tea, etc. to party members attending a party members' rally within the ordinary scope before the commencement date of the election period does not constitute a contribution act under Article 113 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Illegal Acts. However, "Dac and rice rice, etc., within the ordinary scope" refers to the act of providing them to be consumed at the site to such extent as is necessary for ordinary examples, and since gifts or gifts are excluded, they are included in one wing where the size of Kasa, which was paid to party members, is about 40 cm in width, about 15 cm in length, and 15 cm in length, and if the party members receiving education go to the head of a district office of education, not only are consumed while conducting the party members' training, but also one string and one string, it cannot be deemed that Kasa, which is a Kadi, is an act of offering "Dac and rice tea within the ordinary scope" under Article 141 (4) of the same Act.

[1] Article 347 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 347 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 347 of the Criminal Act / [4] Article 347 of the Criminal Act / [5] Article 347 of the Criminal Act, Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [6] Articles 112 (2) 2, 113, and 141 (4) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Do1408 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2478) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 84Do1461 delivered on March 12, 1985 (Gong1985, 576) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Do2759 delivered on June 9, 1987 (Gong1162) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 83Do1723 delivered on November 8, 1983 (Gong1984, 54), Supreme Court Decision 86Do1501 delivered on October 14, 198 (Gong1986, 3070) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Do2759 delivered on June 29, 197 (Gong1985, 297Do48589 delivered on May 29, 297]

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Seo-type et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 96No2396 delivered on April 15, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The number of detention days after the appeal shall be included 90 days in each original sentence.

1. The remaining parts of the grounds of appeal No. 1 and the attorney-at-law are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by the attorney-at-law after the lapse of the submission period) except for the part concerning violation of the Election of Public Officials and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act among the grounds of appeal No.

A. Even though there is no conviction that a bill will not be settled at the due date or that it may be paid at the due date, if the bill was discounted without notifying it to the addressee (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1408 delivered on July 27, 1993), it constitutes a crime of fraud if the bill was discounted by deceiving the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1408 delivered on July 27, 1993). In the case of discounting a loan bill, taking active measures to see that the bill is a so-called so-called advanced bill constitutes an obvious deception, and thereby making the other party mistake the fact and deliver money at a discount constitutes a crime of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2759 delivered on June 9, 1987).

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 명시한 증거들에 의하여 공소외 1 주식회사(이하 공소외 회사라 한다.)는 1988. 2.경 회사정리개시결정에 의하여 법정관리를 받게 되어 초기에는 주거래은행인 공소외 서울신탁은행의 곽원영 이사가 관리인으로서 회사를 관리하였으나 경영 악화로 더 이상 회사를 유지하기 어렵게 되자, 1990. 9.경 공소외 회사의 전 사주이자 피고인 피고인 1의 동생인 공소외 2가 공소외 회사의 경영을 사실상 맡게 되었으나, 유제품 생산업체의 난립과 시설투자의 부진 등으로 빙과류 등 제품의 매출실적이 수년간 저하되었고 물품원가 및 인건비는 상승하여 공소외 회사의 경영 악화는 해소되지 않은 사실, 이에 법정관리중인 공소외 회사의 차재행위는 법원의 허가를 얻어야 하도록 되어 있음에도 불구하고 매출실적의 부진과 적자의 증가로 법원으로부터 차재허가를 받기 어려운 형편에 이르자 공소외 회사은 회사 운영자금의 조달과 어음결제자금을 마련하기 위하여 법원의 허가 없이 융통어음을 발행한 사실, 또한 공소외 회사 명의로는 금융기관으로부터 자금을 대출받기 어려웠으므로 사실상 유령회사인 라우산업 주식회사(이하 라우산업이라고 한다)를 설립하고 판시와 같이 세무서장 명의의 라우산업에 대한 재무제표증명과 부가가치세과세표준증명서 등을 위조하는 방법으로 회사의 신용도를 높게 조작한 다음 공소외 회사 발행 어음에 라우산업의 배서를 받아 주로 사채시장에서 고율의 이자로 단기 어음할인을 받아 회사의 운영자금을 조달할 수밖에 없는 형편에 이른 사실, 이러한 상황에서 1995년 여름의 기상이변으로 공소외 회사의 빙과류 매출이 격감하고 재고가 누적되어 자금사정이 더욱 악화됨으로써 1995. 8.말경 공소외 회사의 자산은 약 금 80,000,000,000원 정도에 불과하였으나 회사정리채무 금 64,200,000,000원을 포함한 총채무가 금 110,700,000,000원에 이른 사실, 또한 공소외 회사의 채무 가운데 정리채무를 제외한 금 46,500,000,000원의 채무 중 약 금 28,000,000,000원은 만기 3 내지 6개월, 이자 연 17.5% 내지 42%의 단기 어음할인채무일 뿐만 아니라, 위 채무에 대한 원리금 상환액·회사 경상비 등 회사 운영자금이 매월 금 7,000,000,000원 이상 소요되는 반면 월 매출액은 금 3,500,000,000원 정도에 불과하여 매월 금 3,500,000,000원 상당의 적자가 예상되었고, 특히 빙과류 등의 매출이 대폭 감소하는 겨울이 되면 더 이상 회사를 운영하기 어려운 상황이 되자, 위 공소외 2는 1995. 8.말경 피고인 피고인 1과 법정관리인 대리로서 공소외 회사의 전무인 피고인 2 등에게 더 이상 어음을 계속 발행하면 부도가 날 것이 자명하니 이 시점에서 회사를 부도처리한 후 재건할 수 있는 방법을 모색하여야 하겠다는 의견을 제시한 사실, 그러나 제15대 국회의원 선거에 여당의 공천을 받아 청주시 흥덕구에서 출마하기 위하여 준비중에 있던 피고인 피고인 1은 청주지역을 기반으로 창립되어 성장한 공소외 회사이 부도처리될 경우 자신의 공천 및 선거에 나쁜 영향을 줄 것을 우려하여 위 공소외 2로부터 공소외 회사의 경영권을 인수하는 한편, 1995. 9. 5.부터 피고인 2로 하여금 공소외 회사을 경영하도록 한 사실, 그 이후 피고인 피고인 1은 서주산업의 사실상 사주 겸 회장으로서, 피고인 2는 전무 겸 법정관리인 대리로서 공소외 회사의 경영을 책임져 온 사실, 피고인들이 공소외 회사의 경영을 맡은 이후 공소외 회사의 자금사정이 계속 악화되자, 피고인들은 법원의 허가를 받지 않고 발행하는 융통어음의 양을 더욱 늘려 이를 진성어음으로 위장하는 수법으로 사채시장 등지에서 할인하여 자금을 조달하였는데, 그 과정에서 피고인 2는 공소외 회사 발행 어음에 배서한 라우산업의 신용도를 높이기 위하여 제1심 공동피고인 1(공소외 회사 경리담당 이사), 제1심 공동피고인 2(공소외 회사 경리부 차장)과 공모하여 라우산업의 재무제표증명 등을 위조하는 외에 법원의 물품대금지급 허가서까지 위조하여 행사한 사실, 하지만 공소외 회사은 계속되는 매출부진과 늘어나는 이자 지급 부담을 이기지 못하고 결국 1996. 4. 16.을 전후하여 원심판결 별지 범죄일람표 1 기재 약속어음금 33,841,193,000원과 같은 범죄일람표 2 기재 약속어음금 6,614,526,785원 등 합계 금 40,455,719,785원의 약속어음을 최종 부도처리한 사실, 피고인들이 위와 같이 융통어음을 할인하여 자금을 조달하는 과정에서 그들 소유의 부동산과 주식 등을 담보로 제공하였지만, 피고인들의 주장을 모두 인정한다 하여도 담보 제공 액수가 이 사건 융통어음 발행금액 33,841,193,000원의 약 15%에 불과한 금 5,155,818,490원밖에 안 되는데, 피고인들은 위 담보로 제공하였다는 재산 이외에 달리 위 어음금을 변제할 수 있는 자력이 없는 사실을 각 인정한 다음, 위와 같이 피고인들이 감당하기 어려운 자금 압박과 매출부진으로 곧 부도가 날 것임이 충분히 예견되는 공소외 회사의 경영권을 위 공소외 2로부터 인수한 시점이 유제품 및 빙과류 제조판매업체인 공소외 회사로서는 성수기를 지나 매출 감소가 예상되는 가을이었던 점, 피고인들이 공소외 회사의 경영권을 인수한 이후 누적된 적자로 인한 자본 잠식과 매출부진으로 더 이상의 채무변제가 곤란하였던 공소외 회사의 재무상태를 무시하고 고리의 단기 사채를 대규모로 사용한 점, 이처럼 무리하게 자금을 조달하는 과정에서 공소외 회사이 정리회사임에도 불구하고 법원의 허가를 받지 않았음은 물론, 세무서장 명의의 공문서와 법원의 허가서 등을 위조하여 사실상 유령회사인 라우산업의 매출규모를 위장하고 그 배서를 받는 등 융통어음을 할인함에 있어 적극적인 위장수단을 강구한 점, 위와 같이 공소외 회사은 물론 피고인들도 그들이 발행한 공소외 회사 명의의 약속어음금을 변제할 수 있는 자력이 없었던 점(피고인 피고인 1은 당시 항소심에 계류중이었던 한진해운 주식회사의 주식반환청구소송에서 승소하면 약 금 50,000,000,000원 상당의 주식을 환수받을 수 있었기 때문에 충분한 자력이 있었다고 주장하나, 위 피고인은 이 사건 범행 이전인 1991. 11.경 이미 위 소송1심에서 패소한 상태였고, 항소심에서도 1996. 3. 27. 피고인의 항소가 기각되었는바, 이와 같이 승소 여부가 불투명하고 결국 항소심에서도 패소한 소송이 계속중이었다는 사정만으로 피고인 피고인 1이 고리의 단기자금을 융통함에 있어 변제 자력이 있었다고 인정하기 어렵다) 등 여러 사정을 종합하여 보면, 피고인들에게 공소외 회사의 융통어음을 할인하여 그 할인금을 편취할 범의가 있었음을 인정할 수 있다고 판단하고, 요컨대 피고인들이 공모하여 공소외 회사 명의의 약속어음을 발행하여 할인하는 방법으로 판시 피해자들로부터 금 30,130,289,142원을 편취하고, 판시와 같이 31회에 걸쳐 금액 합계 금 1,574,000,000원의 상당의 약속어음을 새로 발행하여 피해자 홍승재와 김진명으로부터 기존 약속어음채무의 이행을 연기받아 재산상의 이익을 취득하였다는 요지의 범죄사실을 모두 유죄로 인정하였는바, 기록과 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 보면 원심의 이러한 사실인정과 판단은 옳다고 여겨지고, 거기에 상고이유의 주장과 같은 심리미진, 채증법칙 위배, 공모공동정범에 관한 법리오해와 정리회사 경영권에 관한 법리오해, 사기죄의 범의에 관한 법리오해 등의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

On the other hand, among the facts charged above, the original facts charged regarding the crime of "the defendant acquired financial benefits by issuing a promissory note over 31 times as a delay in the performance of the existing promissory note obligation" was that "the defendant acquired financial benefits by acquiring the above amount of KRW 1,574,00,00 by means of the bill discount method," and the court below without the amendment process of indictment. The records show that there is a difference between the damage caused by the fraud and the damage caused by the fraud is the discount of the bill of exchange or the benefit arising from the payment of the bill of exchange, and there is no difference in the basic facts such as the date, time, place, method, etc. of deception, and thus, the facts charged by the court below are not identical to the facts charged, and it cannot be deemed that there was any substantial disadvantage in the exercise of the defendant's right to defense (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do312, Sep. 25, 194).

B. In addition, as seen above, insofar as the promissory note in this case is the so-called progressive bill, and as long as the bill was discounted by deceiving the victims as if the amount of the bill would be paid at the maturity, the conclusion does not vary by providing some security in receiving the discount (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1408, Jul. 27, 1993). Therefore, the court below is justified to recognize the crime of fraud against the Defendants against the whole amount of the amount obtained by deceit that the defendants did not deduct the amount of the security provided by the defendants in the same purport, and in light of the records, it is also reasonable to recognize that the court below recognized that the promissory note in this case was issued to postpone the performance of the existing obligation only with respect to the promissorysory note in Chapter 31, the decision of the court on the red and Kim Jin-jin as to this issue is just. Accordingly, the argument in

C. In addition, it is a property interest in which performance of obligation is postponed (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1501, Oct. 14, 1986). Therefore, if an obligor issued a bill for the purpose of delaying the payment of the previous obligation despite having no intent and ability to pay to creditors by the prescribed date, it shall be a crime of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do1723, Nov. 8, 1983). The decision of the court below is justified to recognize that the court below issued a new promissory note on the due date of the ruling that the Defendants should pay the victims Hong Jae-jin and Kim Jae-jin and obtained property interest that has been extended (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1723, Oct. 14, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 86Do1501, Oct. 14, 1986). However, even if the court below did not clearly state that the Defendants acquired the existing obligation itself as property interest, the court below did not err in calculating the amount of property interest.

2. The remaining parts of the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2 and his defense counsel, excluding the part concerning the violation of the Public Official Election Act and the Prevention of Election Malpractice, are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found Defendant 2 guilty of acquiring property benefits by acquiring 30,130,289,142 won in aggregate from the victims in collusion with Defendant 1 by issuing and discount a promissory note in the name of the non-indicted corporation, which is a legal management company, and by extending the performance of the existing promissory note obligation from the victim Hong Jae and Kim Jin. In light of the evidence of the judgment below and the above legal principles, such recognition and judgment of the court below are reasonable. In light of the evidence of the judgment below and the above legal principles, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, the company reorganization Act, the application of the rules of evidence, the Civil Act, the statutory interpretation of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, the misapprehension of the legal principles on joint principal offense, and the misapprehension of the legal principles

In addition, the crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person to acquire property or property benefits through the defective act of disposal by the victim, or by allowing a third party to receive property or pecuniary benefits. Thus, the crime of fraud in this case is established at the time when the defendants received the promissory note at discount from the victims, and even if this money was used for the operation fund of the above non-indicted corporation, it is merely an ex post facto act after the crime of fraud is established, and it cannot be said that these money was obtained by the defendants. In addition, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the defendants' act did not constitute a crime of Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and even if the crime of Article 347 (2) of the same Act is established, the crime of Article 347 (1) and the crime of paragraph (2) thereof do not affect the conclusion of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 847Do287, Feb. 26, 1985). Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. The Defendants and Defendant 1’s defense counsel are also examined in the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act by each of the attorneys of Defendant 2 and his defense counsel.

Examining the evidence specified in the judgment below in light of the records, it is reasonable to find the defendants guilty of the crime in violation of the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act in the judgment of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the legal principles as to joint principal offense in violation of the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act as alleged in

In addition, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, offering tea, rice tea, etc. to party members attending a party members' rally from March 25, 1996 before the beginning of the election period of the 15th National Assembly member to March 25, 196 shall not constitute an act of contribution under Article 113 of the same Act pursuant to Article 141 (4) of the same Act. However, "Dac and rice tea, etc. within the ordinary scope" refers to an act of providing them for consumption at the site to the extent necessary for ordinary examples, and excluded souvenirs or gifts (the latter part of Article 112 (2) 2 of the same Act). According to the records, the size of the Kaste, which the defendants paid to party members from March 4, 1996 to March 25 of the same year, contains about 40 centimeters in width and about 15cm in length, and the above 300 Gac and 140 Gac were provided within the ordinary scope of education, and the above 30 Gac and 14 Ga were provided.

Therefore, the court below, in the same purport, deemed that the measures taken by the defendants for the above-mentioned period by applying Article 113 of the same Act to the members of the Republic of Korea are correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of contribution under Article 113 of the same Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 90 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in each original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)