2015 Highis863, 2016 Highis6, 7 (Joint), 8 (Joint), 9 (Joint), 10 (Joint), 11

(Consolidation), 110(combined), 819(combined)

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

(b) Fraud;

C. Occupational breach of trust

(d) Embezzlement;

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

(f) Forgery of private documents;

(g) Exercising a falsified investigation document;

1. (a) through (g);

2. (c) B

3. e.g. (f) C

The Ack, fluorite, fluorite, spawor, spawor, Kim Jong-chul, the number of cases in South, the South, and abather;

double prosecutions, stuffs (public trial)

Law Firm D (for Defendant A)

Attorney E

Law Firm F (Defendant A)

Attorney G

Attorney H (the national election for the defendant B)

Attorney I, J (for the defendant C)

February 15, 2017

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years, and imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A’s and K, each occupational breach of trust against L, M, N, and0, each fraud against L, N, and0, early April 13, 2013 against P, around April 13, 2013, around June 29, 2013, and each fraud around June 17, 2013, and both Defendant B were acquitted.

Criminal facts

1. Criminal records;

On February 2, 2007, Defendant A was sentenced to three years of imprisonment by the Seoul High Court for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and completed the execution of the sentence on December 2, 2012, and on September 11, 2015, Defendant A was sentenced to five years of imprisonment by the Seoul High Court for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in Seoul High Court on September 11, 2015,

Defendant C was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on February 12, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 14, 2016.

2. [Attachment 2015Gohap863] Fraud against Defendant A’s victim Q, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant K

A. Fraud against the victim Qua

On September 9, 2014, the defendant suggested that "K will take over the acquisition amount of KRW 1 billion for the representative director Q, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "K"), which is a company that supplies software to the Internet banking system in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "K"), and that "K will take over the acquisition amount of KRW 1 billion for the attorney-at-law." First, when the registration of the representative director is completed, the defendant would pay the down payment amount of KRW 80 million as the down payment and pay the acquisition amount of KRW 1.5 billion in order."

However, the Defendant presented the check of temporary Eup from the bond company as if it were the check to the attorney-at-law, and there was no intention or ability to pay the remainder of the acceptance price to the attorney-at-law, who received the registration of the representative director from the victim and received the registration of the representative director, and did not have any intention or ability to pay the remainder normally.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, entered into a contract with the victim for management rights and stock acquisition with K on September 14, 2014, and acquired financial profits equivalent to the management rights of the said company by acquiring financial profits from the victim’s representative director from the transfer to B and S respective representatives on September 18, 2014.

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

On September 19, 2014, the Defendant received 600 million won from the company’s corporate account (KB enterprise comprehensive account T) by having Q withdraw the company’s funds at the point of the front branch of the national bank located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and then embezzled by arbitrarily consuming the funds borrowed from the bond company for purposes not related to the company’s business, such as repayment of the borrowed funds borrowed from the bond company in order to raise the acquisition price of the company.

3. [2016 Highly 8] Embezzlement for Defendant A’s Mesophsenenenz Korea Co., Ltd. and each fraud against Defendant A’s U and V

(a) Embezzlements for social services Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd., which have occurred at the Victim Murgyennas events;

On October 2013, the Defendant said that X operating WW Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “W”) would bear the deposit and lease fee for the passenger car in the name of “W.”

On October 16, 2013, at the W office operated by X in Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Y, 1201, X had X enter into a lease agreement for a passenger car in the name of W. 36 months, lease deposit amounting to 18,400,00 won, lease fee amounting to 4,341,50 won at one time, and until the lease fee is paid in full.”

After that, the Defendant continued to pay the lease fee only once, and received a request for the payment of the lease fee or the return of the vehicle from the victim sts and X on several occasions. On March 6, 2014, the Defendant, who received the notification of the termination of the contract from X on March 3, 2014 from the victim X as text messages, and embezzled the said vehicle by refusing to return without justifiable grounds even though the Defendant was requested by the victim sts to return the said vehicle.

B. Fraud against victim U.S.

On January 4, 2014, the Defendant made a telephone call to the father of the Victim U, and provided a case to “AB to assist in getting elected as the president of the Association.” In accepting AB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AB”), the share price of KRW 1,620,00,000, the share price of KRW 1,620,00, is to be accepted.” On January 8, 2014, the Defendant sent the statement to the effect that “AC, a company of the Republic of Korea, did not directly accept AB, but will be able to look at the acquisition price of the shares allocated to AD.” On January 8, 2014, the Defendant sent to the victim a share price of KRW 20,000,000,000,000 to AD account in the name of AD account.”

However, the fact was that the defendant or AD was not confirmed to take over AB at the same time, and there was no ability to purchase AB stocks at a price lower than the market price.

The Defendant acquired total of KRW 39.5 million from the victim to February 13, 2014 through the victim’s total of six times as indicated in the following crime inundation list (1).

List of Offenses (1)

A person shall be appointed.

C. Fraud against V.

On June 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) sought a financing method of 2 billion won in AH car page located in Gangnam-gu Seoul on June 27, 2013; (b) representative AI and directors AJ (hereinafter “victim V”); (c) manage the funds of KRW 300-50 billion as the president of AC; (d) as security, the Defendant would lend KRW 2 billion in two-month interest on a loan of KRW 500,000,000,000 in the form of a new loan of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 won. However, as the Defendant would raise funds by selling shares, there was a need to pay KRW 2-3,000,000,000 under the name of the Defendant; (b) if the Defendant would not purchase and sell shares, the opportunity for the Defendant would not immediately return the funds in the name of 50,000,000,000 won prior to the transaction.

However, there was no intention or ability to lend KRW 2 billion within two to three days even if the defendant or B received KRW 50 million from the victim V because the defendant or B did not hold shares equivalent to KRW 2 billion.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired 50 million won from victim V.

4. [2016Gohap9] Fraud on May 16, 2013 against Defendant A P

On May 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at a coffee shop near Seoul AK, the Defendant stated to the effect that “it is necessary to pay KRW 1 billion to the victim P as the acquisition price of AL Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AL”); (b) KRW 900 million has already been prepared, but if 100 million won has been lent to the mother, it shall be repaid within 2-3 days as the contract announcement was made.” However, the Defendant did not accept AL or have no intent or ability to pay the borrowed money at the time.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 86 million won from the victim to the new bank account under B in the same name as the loan money on the same day, and fraudulently acquired it.

5. [Attachment 2016 Height10] Fraud against Defendant A’s victim AM

On November 2013, the Defendant stated that “The Victim AM office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, had the Victim take over bonds with warrants issued by the Company “AO” on good terms, and the share price would be more than twice the Company, and if the Company was placed in custody, the Company would raise the profits of two times until January 2014 if it is invested together with the acquisition of bonds with warrants issued by the Company.”

However, the defendant did not use the funds received from the victim for the AO bonds with warrants, and most of the office expenses such as monthly pay for employees and the repayment of bonds.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 50 million from the victim to a new bank account in the name of B designated by the Defendant on November 21, 2013 under the name of the Defendant as investment money, and acquired it by deceiving the victim seven times in total from around that time to January 14, 2014, including the following crimes:

List of Offenses (2)

A person shall be appointed.

6. [2016 Height819] The Forgery of private documents by Defendant A and C, the uttering of a falsified Investigation Document, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

around October 2012, Defendant C obtained the draft of “stock and acquisition agreement” after receiving a down payment of KRW 2 billion from ASS, a director of AR, to “AU,” a stock company (hereinafter referred to as “AT”), upon receiving a request from Defendant C to borrow the down payment of KRW 2 billion necessary to take over AT (hereinafter referred to as “AT”). The Defendants conspired to receive AT from a person who intends to take over it, and to receive money through the said contract for the purpose of transfer proceeds.

(a) Forgery of private documents;

On January 4, 2013, at AW hotel shop in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, Defendant C prepared in advance "AX largest shareholder 2,202,340 shares of AT and transfer of management rights to a purchaser", and Defendant A had AY enter "AX, AZ and BA 404 shares in the seller's column of the above contract, and affixed the seal of AX which Defendant C had prior ownership.

As a result, the defendants forged one copy of the "Contract for Acquisition of Stocks and Management Rights in the name of AX" without authority for the purpose of exercising rights in collusion.

(b) Events of a falsified investigation document;

The Defendants conspired, at the 11th floor BC office in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BB building on the same day, the Defendants offered to BC a forged share and management right transfer agreement as above and exercised.

(c) Fraud;

around the end of December 2012, 2012, Defendant A needed KRW 1 billion out of KRW 2 billion in underwriting contract amount to take over AT at KRW 14 billion to the injured party BC in Gangnam-gu Seoul.

C. In preparation for KRW 1.0 billion, it is false that “I will deliver 2.60,000 shares owned by AX, the largest shareholder of AT, as security for them,” and Defendant C makes a false statement that “I will see only down payment because IE is arranging for the purchase of a company by the domestic company, and will face the balance of KRW 12.0 billion.” However, the Defendants did not have any consultation on the acquisition of AT with AX major shareholder.

On January 4, 2013, the Defendants conspired, by deceiving the victim at the AW hotel 2 AW hotel shop, and by deceiving the victim from the victim, and through BD, 100 million won check 8 billion won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, and C

1. Each legal statement of the witness, BE, AD, AJ, P, BF, BG, BC, and BD;

1. Statements made by witnesses Q in the first trial records;

1. Statements and records of BH in the 11th trial records of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014 High Court Order 4262, 8550 (Consolidation) before the consolidation;

1. (2015Gohap863) Business rights and stock acceptance agreement; cashier's checks; confirmation of payment for management rights and stock acquisition; cashier's checks; confirmation of confirmation of deposit; confirmation of account transaction; inquiry of account records; transaction details of a complainant; company-related account records; certified transcript of corporate register; request for full revocation and subsequent notification of cancellation and cancellation of a contract for the purchase and sale of K; request for the delivery of an indication of cancellation and cancellation of a contract; request for the delivery of an indication of cancellation and cancellation of a contract; each e-mail data; records of cellular phone; text records; photographs; (2016Gahap8); copy of the motor vehicle registration certificate; copy of the motor vehicle facility lease agreement; copy of the business registration certificate; copy of the registration certificate; certificate of registration certificate; all matters to be registered; non-prosecution; records of non-prosecution; written verdict on non-prosecution; confirmation; statement of entry and withdrawal; and text messages; (A); and (2016) statements of personal transactions; and details of written agreements and withdrawal of criminal punishment;

10) AO financial statements, related documents, such as a complaint statement, AO financial statements, deposit certificate, deposit certificate, statement of account transaction in our bank account of the complainant, document of AP protection deposit receipt, document prepared by the defendant, statement of account transaction in the name of the defendant, B, statement of transaction in the bank account in the name of the defendant, B, statement of transaction in the bank account in the name of the defendant, B I passbook, statement of transaction in the name of the defendant, copy of the stock certificates and management right transfer contract sent by the defendant's defendant's address, copy of the forged modern trust stock certificates, copy of the name of the defendant's complaint, electronic bill issuer and information sent by the defendant's suit, 2016 high-scale 819, each complaint letter, each of the electronic bill issuer and endorser's information sent by the defendant's suit, 2016 high-scale Mada819, each of the records of payment and transaction in cash, copy of the statement of account, each written statement of reasons for appeal (2015No.79).

1. (2016Gahap8) Each investigation report(2016Gahap8), each investigation report(2016Gahap8), each investigation report(2016Gahap9), each investigation report(2016Gahap9) (2016 Gahap9 attached to the statement statement of a new bank, the suspect's main transaction account, the document attached to B, the document attached to B, the document attached to the statement of a new bank, the document attached to the statement of a new bank, the statement of the accused, the document attached to the statement of the new bank, the document attached to the statement of the accused, the document attached to the statement of the new bank, the document attached to the statement of the new bank, the document attached to the document submitted by the witness, the document attached to the statement of the AP representative director B, the document submitted by the witness, the document attached to the report on the return of stocks and the document attached to the documents submitted by the witness and the document of management rights of the witness, and the document attached to the documents attached to the documents related to the documents attached to the agreement);

1. Before judgment: Each criminal record and current status of personal identification and confinement;

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A: Article 347(1) of each Criminal Code (the fact of fraud against Victim Q Q, Victim V, Victim P, Victim P, and Victim M, and each fraud against Victim U, excluding each fraud caused by property grant to ADF), Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the ADF, Article 356 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 355(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 355(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 347(2) and (1) of each Criminal Code, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 231 and Article 30 of the Criminal Code, Article 31 of the Criminal Code, Article 35(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 355(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 347(2) of the Criminal Code, Article 347(1) of the Act (the choice of punishment, Article 30(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 31 of the Criminal Code, Article 230(1) of the Criminal Code, Article 30 of the Aggravated.

B. Defendant C: Articles 231 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact that the private document was committed, the choice of imprisonment was made), 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact that the private document was exercised, the choice of imprisonment was made), Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the fraud against Victim BC)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant A: Article 35 of the Criminal Code (A) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) is a previous conviction, and it is limited to Article 42 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

1. Handling concurrent crimes and legal mitigation;

(a) Defendant A: the latter part of Articles 37 and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (mutual between the above crimes and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) for which judgment

B. Defendant C: The latter part of Article 37, Articles 39(1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the crime of fraud for which each crime and judgment have become final and conclusive, and mitigation of latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: The punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with the largest penalty: Provided, That it is limited to the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

(b) Defendant C: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, which is the largest penalty, in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

Judgment on Defendants and Defense Counsel's argument

1. [Attachment 2015Gohap863] Fraud against Defendant A’s Victim Qua

A. Summary of the assertion

Although it was not the funds held from the beginning, it was possible to use the funds from a third party to pay the remainder of the acquisition fund to Sc and to pay it.

B. Circumstances that seem consistent with the Defendant’s assertion

1) On the printed paper of KRW 200 million and KRW 800 million cashier’s checks issued in Nonghyup, the attorney-at-law stated that “I confirm that (a) K’s management rights and stock acquisition are kept as a deposit under a contract,” and signed and sealed a letter of confirmation [referring to the face page 78-79 of evidence record No. 2016da863 (hereinafter referred to as “written face number before separate indication”)]. BO made a statement that “I check one billion won which the defendant possessed and prepare the above confirmation document as of September 16, 2014. To check whether Q checks are valid, I would turn it over to Q and make a report on it.” Moreover, I stated that “I have received a return (the record No. 1-77).”

2) The BP stated that “A shall take over K, and the acquisition price of KRW 500 million out of KRW 1.5 billion would have been invested.” A shall receive a copy of the K management right and share acquisition agreement, and shall deposit KRW 1.0 billion in the BO attorney office as requested by A. A shall receive a copy of the K management right and share acquisition agreement, and at the same time, A shall have been in charge of KRW 1.0 billion in the BO attorney office. At the same time, A and O.S. stated that “A will have been able to prepare the remainder of KRW 500 million (BP record 1-8 pages).”

C. Determination

However, according to the following facts and circumstances admitted by the prosecutor, even if the defendant has been temporarily deposited in the BO attorney office by lending KRW 1 billion from the BP, the defendant is deemed to have no intent and ability to maintain the status or to pay in full the acquisition price in a normal manner.

1) The Defendant did not have any way to separately prepare the acquisition price. The Defendant thought that the acquisition price by lending K company’s funds, stocks, etc. with bonds as collateral was determined. In light of the progress below, it is not recognized that there was no other way to prepare the acquisition price.

A) Around May 2014, Q was introduced to the Defendant through S, while checking the person to take over K (318, 343 pages). On September 14, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with Q to take over management rights and shares in the name of B and S, as follows. The contractual date is September 15, 2014 (68-75 pages).

Article 1(K) of the Agreement on Acquisition of Rights and Shares, all rights and obligations (including bonds and obligations) dependent on the management rights and management rights, and Section 2(Subject Matter of the Agreement). In order to enter into this Agreement, the seller shall enter into this Agreement after setting the scope of the basic real directors through mutual consultation and sufficiently ascertaining the substance of the Company. 3. The seller shall be entrusted to the seller for the ownership (90%) and the remainder (10%) and shall be held responsible for the distribution of shares held by others out of the subscription price paid thereafter. 1. The sale price for shares issued by the company (in full amount, KRW 60,000) and the management rights shall be 1.5 billion. 2. The buyer shall be entitled to the sale price for shares issued by the seller (in full amount, KRW 1.00,000) and the sale price for shares shall be 1.5 billion.

B) According to the above contract, the Defendant issued Q’s certificate of “management rights in the name of the law office BB (Representative Attorney BO) and the price for the transfer of stocks.” The above certificate of confirmation states that “The representative B and S will pay KRW 1 billion at the same time as the completion of the procedures by the contract for K management rights and the transfer of stocks.” It is accompanied by a KRW 1 billion cashier’s checks (BS, which was issued on September 12, 2014 at the Hague Central Branch of the National Bank, issued on September 12, 2014) (7-7 pages).

C) On September 16, 2014, the Defendant, Q, and S found the acquisition price of KRW 1 billion in the attorney BO office, and confirmed the deposit amount again. As seen in the foregoing BO, the above written confirmation was not clear that the cashier’s checks (BT) and KRW 800 million cashier’s checks (BU) issued on September 16, 2014 in the paper printed or copied by the Agricultural Cooperative, stating that “B0 is kept as deposits pursuant to a contract,” and signed and sealed by B0 in the form of signing and sealing the 1 billion cashier’s checks (78-79 page), and that the cashier’s checks were replaced by KRW 20 million and KRW 800 million cashier’s checks (section 527 page).

D) Each cashier’s checks mentioned above C were kept in BO’s office at the Defendant’s request. BP was to obtain K stocks and management rights as collateral from the Defendant, and lent KRW 1 billion to 3% of the monthly interest (BP recording Nos. 1-6).

E) Meanwhile, on September 16, 2014, Q withdrawn KRW 248 million from the K Exchange Bank BV account (in 80 pages), and deposited KRW 270 million from the KB Enterprise Comprehensive Account BW account (in 81 pages), and deposited KRW 140 million from the KB Enterprise Comprehensive Account, and deposited KRW 50 million on September 17, 2014 on September 17, 2014 following the date after having withdrawn KRW 140 million from the KB Enterprise Comprehensive Account TT account. (in 82 pages), S inspected the financial status of K, and arranged the details of more than KRW 68 billion from the funds kept by Q as the cash assets of Q (i.e., KRW 248 million + KRW 270 million + KRW 140 million to KRW 48 million,500,000,000).

Q made a statement to the effect that “the withdrawal was agreed upon with S and also reported to S..” (Records 6-8 page), Q also made a statement to the effect that “ Q is in custody of KRW 68 billion in this court” (the record No. 2 page of the record).

F) Q completed on September 17, 2014 the registration of dismissal of K representative director and the registration of appointment of K representative director B and S for itself (8-89 pages).

G) The Defendant received KRW 1 billion from the BO on September 17, 2014 or on August 18, 2014.

(1) The Defendant said that “the contract amount has been reduced to KRW 1 billion to KRW 600 million.” The Defendant said that “the adjusted amount would be changed to the adjusted amount.” BO did not confirm whether or not the contractual terms have been changed to Q (No. 2-8 pages of BO recording).

(2) In this Court, BO stated that “IO returned KRW 1 billion on the following day ( September 17, 2014),” and that “IO returned KRW 1 billion on September 25, 2014, the following day ( September 18, 2014)” (BO recording Nos. 3) but returned KRW 1 billion on September 17, 2014 in the currency of Q and Q. A returned the amount of money. A again received KRW 600 million on September 19, 2014, and QN’s representative deducted money.

It is confirmed that "A would be omitted from this day, because it is the same as that that the amount of acceptance varies, and that the amount of acceptance would be avoided (144-153 pages)."

(3) The BP stated that “The delivery of KRW 600 million to A on September 19, 2014, and the return of KRW 1 billion shall be memory on the preceding day” (BP recording No. 2-6 pages).

(4) Q stated, “On September 14, 2014, at the first inspection by S, there was an amount of KRW 800 million in cash in the company. Accordingly, the down payment also was set at KRW 800 million. Since then, the money to be paid to employees and the business entities thereafter went to an extent of KRW 100 million. If the money which can be withdrawn from the company remains only to an amount of KRW 600 million, the Defendant did not appear to be 60 million, and therefore, he did not have to accept a proposal that he would give down down the down payment amount of KRW 600 million.” (No. 13 pages of Q record) from the K Corporation Account (KB Enterprise’s Integrated Account T), the fact that the amount was KRW 70 million on September 15, 2014, KRW 700,000,000 and KRW 100,000 on September 16, 2014, KRW 208.

H) Q deposited KRW 600 million in the K corporation account (KB comprehensive account Telecommunication) once more than 14:26 and 14:42, Sept. 19, 2014. The Defendant delivered KRW 600 million again from BP to BP, and the Defendant withdrawn the above KRW 600 million deposited in Q from around 15:16, and then delivered it to BP (section 82, BP recording, page 3-9, Q-17, and page 4-12, respectively).

I) As above, since the registration of change of representative director was completed in the B and S, the Defendant additionally paid KRW 200 million to Q pursuant to Article 3(3) of the contract. Q had extended the due date until the A.M. on September 22, 2014 (No. 5-15 of Q record, No. 17 of Q record), but the Defendant failed to implement, but Q notified the Defendant, B, S, and BO of the cancellation of the contract on September 22, 2014 (No. 90-94), and Q notified the fact of dismissal of the representative director of B on September 23, 2014 (No. 188-191 of Q record).

2) Q has expressed an intention of opposing to the Defendant who has lent the K company’s funds and shares as a collateral to raise the acquisition price.

가) Q은 2014. 9. 20. S과의 전화통화에서 "괜히 회사를 사는 척해서 그것으로 다른 회사 M&A;에 활용한다든가, 다른 데서 이상한 계약을 한다든가 하는 것이 제일 우려가 된다. 회사 인수가 끝날 때까지는 회사를 활용해서 다른 대외적인 M&A;는 대출보증이든 대출이든 지급보증이든 이런 것이 있어서는 안 된다. 이를 명확히 해 달라. 지난번처럼 회사자금을 인출하고 이런 일이 있어서도 안 된다. 회사자금을 인출하는 행위 자체가 문제가 될 수 있는 행위이다. 그런 일 없이 회사가 정상적으로 인수되어야 한다. 이전에 인출되었던 자금도 원상복구를 해주었으면 좋겠다."라고 하였다. 이에 대하여 S은 "K는 자본금이 3억 원 정도인 작은 회사여서 대출을 마음대로 받을 수도 없고, 회사 시재금보다 인수대금이 크니까 염려 말라."고 호언하였다(130~138면).

B) Q said, in the Defendant’s currency, “When the proposal was uneased, it would be known that the company should pay the stock price in a sound state, and if the company should deduct the company from the current capital?” (182-186 pages).

C) On September 23, 2014, Q sent text messages to Defendant B, S, and BO on September 23, 2014, “B was dismissed from K representative director on the present part of September 23, 2014. As such, Q would have immediately deposited KRW 600 million in company funds (18 pages).”

D) On October 8, 2014, Q issued a notice of contract invalidity on the following grounds: “I am back to the form of making down down payment with a withdrawal of KRW 600 million from the company’s funds, and I am back to the company’s money, and will bring the representative director to M&A?” It is confirmed that Q made notification of contract invalidation and returned this letter to Q.” (25-227 pages).

E) In this Court stated that “The KRW 600 million withdrawn on September 19, 2014 was re-transfered to the company account, and the bank went back to the company, A gold KRW 600 million by leaving S and attempted to bring it to another person. There was a dispute in the process of preventing this.” (No. 3-16 pages of Q Recording No. 3-16).

3) On September 20, 2014, S stated that “B shall assume the responsibility for the funds” in the telephone conversations with Q Q (132 pages). However, B merely lent the name upon A’s request and did not have the ability to raise funds (353,569 pages).

4) On September 30, 2014 and October 1, 2014, the Defendant loaned money to Q and Q and demanded to re-let money (one right 156, 163-165 pages).

D. Sub-committee

This part of the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

2. [Attachment 2015Gohap863] Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) to K

A. Summary of the assertion

Since K corporation account at the time is kept and managed by Q Q, the defendant is not the custodian.

Even if the identity of the custodian is recognized to the defendant, Q has been understood in advance to the effect that the funds were withdrawn under the direct involvement of Q, a major shareholder, and that it would be used for the repayment of debts to the bond company, so it cannot be said that the defendant has an intention to acquire unlawful profits.

B. Determination

A stock company is an independent right holder separate from its shareholders, and thus its understanding does not necessarily coincide with its understanding. In a case where a shareholder or representative director arbitrarily disposes of the company’s property for private purposes, such as providing it as collateral for financing to a third party, the liability for the crime of embezzlement may not be exempted, regardless of whether there was a resolution by the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors regarding such disposal. In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intent of disposing another person’s property in violation of his/her occupational duty for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, such as the case of holding another person’s property in custody. It does not interfere with the recognition of the intent of unlawful acquisition even if the intent to return, compensate, or preserve it later. Moreover, if the representative director who intends to dispose of the company’s property at his/her discretion takes advantage of the embezzlement act of the representative director who takes part in the embezzlement act of the representative director (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045, Aug. 19,

As alleged by the Defendant, Q held 90% of the K’s shares and added up to 10% of the shares held by it to 10% of the total number of the shares held by it, the fact that at the time of withdrawal of KRW 600 million from the K account on September 19, 2014, Defendant, Q and S were accompanied by it, and Q did not have to allow Q to allow the Defendant to use the above KRW 600 million for debt repayment to the bond company at the time of its withdrawal (82, 345, 492, 528-529, QP record 10-18, 3-8 of the record).

However, even if Q, who is a major shareholder, was aware of withdrawal and use of the company’s funds under the determination that Q2 is inevitable, insofar as such withdrawal and use was used for the repayment of the Defendant’s individual’s obligations irrespective of the company’s business, the

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

3. [Attachment 2016 Highly8] Embezzlement for Defendant A’s Mesophsenenenzs Korea Co., Ltd.

A. Summary of the assertion

1) The Defendant did not have any intent to obtain unlawful acquisition. The rent was originally paid by the Defendant. The Defendant was delivered that the Defendant did not directly call with the Victim BH staff member BH, and that the Defendant continued to operate the vehicle in excess of the lease fee via X. Around October 2014, the Plaintiff continued negotiations through the transfer of the victim’s sports and the name, and subsequently returned the leased vehicle.

2) Since parties to a contract are W, the defendant cannot be deemed to have the status of custodian.

B. Whether the custodian is recognized

In the crime of embezzlement, “the custody of goods” refers to the status of actual or legal control over the goods. The custody is based on the consignment relationship, but it does not necessarily require that the goods be established by a contract, such as loan for use, lease, delegation, etc. The management of affairs, customs, cooking, and good faith can also be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1778, Oct. 13, 1987; 97Do666, Apr. 15, 199). Even if an occupation assistant under the Civil Act exercises de facto control over the goods, the custody under the Criminal Act may be deemed the subject of custody (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3840, Sept. 23, 2003).

Even if it is not a party to the lease contract, the defendant can be recognized as "a person who keeps another's property in embezzlement unless the defendant occupies and uses the Zenz S500 car subject to the lease."

C. Whether there exists an intention of unlawful acquisition

According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence, it is difficult to deem that there is a justifiable reason for the Defendant to refuse to return a vehicle. It is difficult to deem that the Defendant was engaged in negotiations in good faith by presenting a reasonable alternative to the extent that the Defendant could have been able to obtain the victim’s benz. The date of return that has been repeatedly promised for several months is also the same as the embezzlement.

1) At the police investigation on May 4, 2014, W representative X stated that “one time lease fee of 4,340,000 won was paid by the Defendant, and the remaining installment or usage fee was paid by the Defendant. The Defendant notified that the Defendant would return the vehicle several times, and that the Defendant would return the vehicle until May 13, 2014.” [The number of pages 72-74, 162 of the evidence record of 2016Kahap8 (hereinafter referred to as “the number of pages”)] A stated that X sent all the contact from the victim’s sts to the Defendant (AX recording 2 pages).

W at W, it is confirmed that the sending of text messages from January 15, 2014, February 27, 2014, and March 6, 2014, demanding the Defendant to pay rent or return vehicles, etc. (one right 79-82 pages).

2) From the police investigation on July 28, 2014, BH paid the lease fees at all, following the first time on November 15, 2013, the Defendant and the end of February 2014 demanded the return of the vehicle in several calls from December 2, 2013 to the end of February 17, 2014. While the Defendant had been willing to continue to use the vehicle by paying the lease fees, the Defendant provided that the vehicle would be returned to February 17, 2014. Although the Defendant was notified of the need to return the vehicle due to the failure to comply with the commitment, the Defendant was said to have been under the law. The Defendant stated that “The Defendant continued to do so only talk that he would pay the lease fees at once once if the company was listed in one’s economic situation (i.e., the first right97-99 page).”

BH’s statement, from December 10, 2013 to December 10, 2013, it is confirmed that the Defendant sent text messages to the Defendant and urged the payment of lease fees or the return of vehicles (i.e., one right 105-108).

3) On June 3, 2014, the police investigation stated that “A criminal complaint would be filed without paying rent, and the contract would be terminated by X’s telephone around March 6, 2014.” On June 16, 2014, the Defendant stated that “A vehicle will be returned by not later than June 16, 2014” (one right 85-86 pages). On August 7, 2014, the Defendant stated that a vehicle will be returned to the prosecution investigation (one right 139-140 pages).

4) On March 3, 2014, the victim benz notified X of the termination of the lease agreement and filed a complaint for embezzlement of W on March 7, 2014. However, on June 19, 2014, a non-prosecution disposition was issued against X. The victim benz filed a complaint against the Defendant on June 25, 2014. Nevertheless, the leased vehicle was returned around October 2014.

D. Sub-committee

All of the arguments of the defendant and defense counsel shall not be accepted.

4. [2016 Height8] Fraud against Defendant A’s U.S. injured party

A. Summary of the assertion

Although it is true that the defendant told the victim U as stated in the facts of the crime, all of them are believed to have been heard from AD that directly accepts AB and from BX (her husband of AF) that accepts AE, and merely delivered it to the victim as it is. The defendant did not deceiving the victim, nor did he had the intention to acquire the victim.

B. Determination

According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim as to the process of acceptance of AB and AE with the intent to acquire money. The criminal intent is recognized.

1) AB-related

A) The Defendant actively created false evidence.

(1) The Defendant issued a written confirmation issued on January 23, 2014 under the name of AD stating that “AD keeps 28,800 common shares of AB Co., Ltd.” (No. 2) to the victim.

(2) However, AD stated, “AD lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant and asked the Defendant to issue a written confirmation. However, at the time, AD did not keep the shares at that time.” AD is a subsequent copy of the Defendant’s high school (of note 46, page 1 of AD).

(3) As to the process of preparing a written confirmation different from the fact, AD stated that “AD will have been prepared in such a way as to read “the defendant would have taken over AB, to what extent much?” or that “AD will not have any content to be delivered for a written confirmation, which is not to be shown in what future, but to what extent it will be a problem,” it is not the same. AD made a statement on the following grounds: “AD will enter the last time of a written confirmation, which would not have been known at the time, and could not be delivered,” (AD No. 12-14 page), it is difficult to obtain it.”

B) The Defendant did not deliver the parts from AD as they were to the victim, but instead sent a false statement.

(1) At around January 24, 2014, and around 7:10 p.m., the Defendant sent a text message to the victim stating that “I will deposit more than one million won in the draft, which is important. I would like to do. I have the honor to the President of AB. IB.” (20 pages).

(2) However, AD did not state that there was a problem in the process of distributing shares of AB, or that the president of AB had been required to use entertainment expenses, and stated that there was no fact that the Defendant was involved in KRW 8.8 million and KRW 9.5 million received from the victim (AD recording No. 12 pages).

C) The Defendant did not use the borrowed money from the victim for its own name.

(1) On January 8, 2014, the victim deposited KRW 15 million into AD’s account (20 million) and deposited KRW 17:20 million into B’s account used by the Defendant on the same day (2: 16; 522; 1; 522); and D deposited KRW 10 million into B’s account on January 10, 2014 (1; 522; 20,000 won).

(2) At the prosecution, AD stated, “When the Defendant entered U, he sent money by asking him to transfer money.” The Defendant did not think that he borrowed money to U, and the Defendant had no choice but to return the money immediately after lending KRW 20 million. As to the difference of KRW 5 million, the Defendant was only aware of the amount that the Defendant was unable to use. The Defendant was allowed to do so, and the reason was not known.” (No. 452-454, 757-762). However, in this court, I stated, “The Defendant was allowed to do so, and the reason was unknown” (No. 1:452-454, 757-762). However, it is difficult to understand this part of this court’s statement, stating, “AD-25 million won or more after undergoing the anesthesia surgery, and it is hard to understand.”

(3) The Defendant stated that it was necessary to borrow money from AD for acquiring a company, such as BY Co., Ltd. (one right 454).

2) AE-related

A) The Defendant’s statement is not consistent with the amount received under the pretext of the acquisition price.

(1) On April 30, 2014, the Defendant stated in the police investigation that “BX lent money and requested U to deposit KRW 5 million, and KRW 4 million received from B’s account in the name of the Defendant.” (2) The Defendant stated that the office’s operating fund in the name of the Defendant borrowed her mother-and-child.” (2)

(2) However, on August 7, 2014, the prosecutorial investigation stated that “I would purchase AE shares in the wife, and 5 million won of money, and first sent 5 million won of money to BX, and later received 4 million won of money from U after sending 5 million won of money to BX” (2 right 134 pages).

(3) On the other hand, from the time of complaint to the time of this court, the victim stated that "if the defendant sent 9 million won to the defendant's acceptance of AE, he will make shares within 3 days from the date of payment at the same time or after deposit, he will send 9 million won to the defendant" (2: 2.3, 5, 60-61, 2: 2.3, 5, 60-61, 2.51, 2.51, 2-3 of U record), the victim's statement is more reliable.

B) The Defendant, other than the Defendant, was peeped in the circumstances where the Defendant made a false statement.

(1) The BX stated that “AE is the chairperson of AC, and the representative shall be AY.” (2° 49-50 pages).

(2) However, in the investigation into other cases, “in the Republic of Korea from January 2013 to the present ( August 18, 2014)” was stated as follows: “The Republic of Korea is performing the AC Chairperson position from January 1, 2013 to August 18, 2014 (No. 36, No. 132

C) AE M&A; AE vice president who mainly participated in negotiations, stated that “Although having attempted to meet or negotiate many partners from January 2014, there was no specific M&A which was conducted due to the failure to pay down payment; name A, BX, AF, and B was not included in the name of A, BX, AF, and B” (one right 369 pages).

C. Sub-committee

This part of the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

5. [2016 Height8] Fraud against Defendant A’s victim corporation V

A. Summary of the assertion

There is a fact that AI and AJ only stated that B made a lot of money to the Defendant’s shares with the Defendant’s virtue, and there was no fact that B made an attempt to sell the money by disposing of the shares equivalent to KRW 2 billion. Although it made efforts to discount bills through B and CA to obtain a loan with the victim’s shares or bills, it did not cooperate with the “CB” company that received the victim’s electronic bills, and eventually, the said electronic bills were returned.

C. Determination

According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor's evidence, it can be recognized that the defendant made a false statement to AI and AJ on the stock ownership and lending ability.

1) The victim was in an imminent situation to the extent that he/she attempted to bring about KRW 50 million (No. 2 rights 105, 109-110 pages) even if an insolvent financial institution was unable to carry out (No. 105, 109

2) The Defendant introduced AI and the AC representative director AY to the AC representative director AY is the friendship of the chairperson of theCC, and B was an extremely large number of self-sufficiency (Nos. 4, 35-37, AJ recording Nos. 2-3), but it was not all true.

3) At the time the Defendant and B could not dispose of the shares with the financial standing of the Defendant and B and set up two billion won.

C. Sub-committee

This part of the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

6. [2016Gohap9] Fraud on May 16, 2013 against Defendant A’s P

A. Summary of the assertion

In fact, AL acceptance was promoted, and the seller paid 300 million won to CE as an underwriting contract. Since the victim prepared to prepare 200 million won and prepared 86 million won, the contract was reversed.

B. Circumstances that seem consistent with the Defendant’s assertion

In fact, the defendant started the AL acceptance through Staff AY, and was confiscated down payment (No. 1, No. 14-15, No. 200, No. 5, BF recording, No. 1-3, No. 11-12).

C. Determination

According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim by explaining the fact about the progress and prospects of the AL acceptance with the intent to acquire money.

1) The victim’s statement on the contents explained and promised by the defendant in relation to the AL acceptance is consistent and specific. The victim’s statement that the defendant said that the AL underwriting contract will be sexually executed if only the amount of KRW 100 million is more than that of the defendant is credibility.

(A) P intended to hold a meeting on the sale of a Co., Ltd. 3G apartment at the time of SF's 1,000, CH, CI, CJ, CJ, K, CMF, CMF, BF, and CN, and found the Defendant at a coffee shop at "CO." The Defendant requires 1 billion won as a contract deposit, 50 million won as a notary, and 40 million won as a credit card. At the same time, CE representative made a statement at KRW 9,00,000 through KRW 10,000,000 as a deposit, and at the same time made a public notice of the contract at KRW 1,60,000,000,000 from KRW 1,000 to KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 more than KRW 1,000,000,000,000.

(B) On May 16, 2013, P made a deposit of KRW 100 million from the CF I bank account via the CF I bank account (C Q). The fact that KRW 80 million was remitted from the above national bank account to the new bank account (CR) bank account in the name of the Defendant’s management from the above national bank account, KRW 6 million was withdrawn, and the fact that the money was remitted to the above B account via the CI’s husband’s husband’s national bank account (No. 28,97-98, 191-193, 4, 25-26, 4, 1) is confirmed (No. 1). This conforms to the circumstances described by P.

(다) BF도 "피고인이 2013. 5. 16. AK 근처 'CO'에 찾아왔는데, 'AL 인수에 10억 원이 필요하다. 빨리 돈이 들어가야 마무리가 되고, 돈이 들어가지 않으면 계약금이 뜯긴다. 인수하게 되면 바로 원금과 이자를 해결해 주겠다. CH을 AL 이사로 선임해주겠다'고 하였다. '돈을 부탁해놨으니 금방 된다'는 이야기를 여러 번 들었다. 저에게도 '전남 CT에 있는 주식회사 CU에도 5~10억 원을 투자하여 AL 자회사로 인수하겠다'고 하였다."고 하여 P 진술과 부합하는 진술을 하였다(2권 41-43면, BF 녹취록 1~5, 9면).

2) Even according to the Defendant’s statement made by the investigative agency, P was not an amount of KRW 200 million, but an amount of KRW 100 million, and there was no other way to prepare an underwriting contract. Defendant’s assertion that P was failure to obtain AL underwriting is difficult to believe. Defendant’s statement on other circumstances is not consistent, and is inconsistent with account transaction details or BF statement.

A) On November 23, 2014, the Defendant, at the police station, stated that “P initially intended to offer a down payment of KRW 1 billion to AL acceptance, but thereafter, intended to offer a lender of KRW 500 million and KRW 300 million. Ultimately, the Defendant intended to pay KRW 200 million and KRW 100 million. As to P and AL, the Defendant agreed to take over and operate the same as P and agreed to jointly engage in the same business. However, P agreed to appoint a female CH and the type CJ of P as the representative director. However, P agreed to only KRW 96.5 million. Ultimately, P did not grant all the amount promised to pay KRW 300 million (i.e., KRW 26-28).”

B) On February 24, 2015, the Prosecutorial Office only two persons when doing P and AL stories.

At the same time, P intended to make an investment of KRW 50,00,000,000 was sent to KRW 80,000,000. There was no fact that there was no specific talking that P would appoint a director or make an investment in the mine of BF and CN. There was no specific talking that P would make an investment of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000. There was no specific talking that P would be an investment of KRW 50,000,000. Of KRW 50,000,000, KRW 40,000 and KRW 10,000,000,000,000. The contract was reversed (No 1:79-83).

3) AC’s nominal representative director, who received the Defendant’s order, entered into a contract with CE to take over the AL shares of KRW 8,625,907 and the management right of KRW 11 billion. The contract was determined as KRW 1 billion, intermediate payment of KRW 3 billion, and the balance of KRW 7 billion. The date of conclusion of the contract was postponed several times due to the Defendant’s failure to prepare the down payment. CE demanded that KRW 200 million be paid by April 26, 2013, and notarized the contract. CE paid KRW 200 million to CE. By May 3, 2013, if the remainder down payment of KRW 80 million was not made by May 15, 2013, the condition under which the down payment was made.

The remainder of the down payment was extended until May 3, 2013 because it was impossible to pay the said down payment by the end of May 3, 2013. The remainder was fully paid by P; however, P did not pay KRW 80 million, and P was confiscated KRW 400 million already paid (BE record 1-3 pages).

However, it is difficult to believe that this is different from the Defendant’s statement. Even if following the BE statement, the Defendant did not prepare the remainder down payment only P, and eventually, the Defendant was found to have no intent and ability to pay the borrowed money to the victim after taking over the AL or accepting the AL.

D. Sub-committee

This part of the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

7. [2016 Height10] Fraud against Defendant A’s victim AM

A. Summary of the assertion

AO Bonds with Warrants, Q Shares, and AP Shares are subject to investment recommendation from CV, and the AP shares are subject to investment recommendation from CW, trusting them, and providing the victim with investment opportunity. The parties implementing the investment clearly explained that CV and CW are parties to the investment. CW was to look at shares from CX, which is the Vice-Chairperson of AP and the bond company. CW paid KRW 50 million received as the purchase of AP shares to CV, and most of the KRW 160 million received as the purchase of AP shares were paid to CW.

In order to acquire AO bonds with warrants, there was investment of KRW 150 million in CV.

B. Circumstances that seem consistent with the Defendant’s assertion

1) CV received KRW 150,000 from the Defendant around September 2013, and said that “AV would make an investment if there is any ability to make a loan even around November 2013.” However, CY made an investment through CY, which means that CY would make a share of AP instead of AP as AO bonds are not available. The Defendant also made a repayment of some of the investment funds around December 2013, 2014. After LY made a repayment of KRW 50,000 to the first patroler on January 2014, 2014, CY again changed the payment of AO-related taxes, thereby receiving money from the Defendant. After which CY did not receive money from AO-related bonds, CY also continued to receive money from the Defendant, and at the end, CY returned to the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant would have been liable for fraud (hereinafter the same shall apply).

2) The Defendant filed a complaint against CW, which introduced AP Co., Ltd., on the charge of fraud. The written notice of the reason for the non-prosecution of the above complaint case states that “CW is expected to pay back to the Defendant the amount of 6 to 7 months of the deposit amount of 'AP stocks’, and that if the money is lent, the amount of KRW 1,60,00 per share would be transferred to the Defendant, and that it would have the Defendant borrow KRW 20 to 3 billion of the company acquisition fund as collateral, there is no dispute over the fact that “CW would have the Defendant borrow KRW 1,60,000 per share.”

C. Determination

However, according to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that the defendant used investment funds, etc. for purposes other than those explained and notified to the victim.

1) On November 21, 2013, AM deposited KRW 50 million into a new bank account under B’s name on November 21, 2013. The remaining amount of the said account was KRW 5625,000,000. After deposit of KRW 50,000,000, not later than six days prior to deposit of KRW 26,20,000,000, the said account was not separately deposited, and the details of the deposit from the said account are as follows: (i) the evidence of KRW 2016,10,000, and (ii) the statement of the Defendant is based on the Defendant’s statement. The Defendant stated that CZ was a bond business operator and stated that it was an employee subsequent to the deposit of KRW 494-501,00,000,000,000 paid to 301,000,000 won paid to 301,000,000 won to the account under its name.

A person shall be appointed.

2) On November 26, 2013, AM deposited KRW 20 million with a new bank account in the name of B on November 26, 2013, and on November 29, 2013, 4 days before the deposit of KRW 6.7 million again, there is no separate amount deposited from the said account, and the details deposited from the said account are as follows (122-123), and even according to the Defendant’s statement, the amount used to purchase bonds with warrants is only KRW 1 million deposited with the DB account. The bond company was paid KRW 5.5 million to DB, and the employees was paid KRW 8.3 million, and the remainder of the expenditure did not clearly specify the place of use.

3) On November 29, 2013, AM remitted KRW 6.7 million to the said new bank account, and thereafter, the Defendant’s post-paid X was deposited in the Defendant’s post-paid X as well as KRW 2.7 million on December 29, 2013. They were released as follows (123 pages) and used in relation to AO (tax settlement). It is only two million won deposited in the name of DB. Considering that two million won deposited in the said name X, it is difficult to deem that AM was used in the name of explanation and notification.

4) Prior to deposit of KRW 160 million with the above new bank account of KRW 2013.12,44,000,000,000,000 to KRW 46388. The above account was deposited with KRW 160,000,000 from the above account, and at least KRW 137,000,000 were deposited with cashier's checks, and the fact that KRW 1,00,000 was remitted to the account designated by the Defendant for KRW 30,000 (No. 124,49-501,), however, AP protection certificate presented by the Defendant was not an original, but a copy of the account (No. 88-101,498-50) to KRW 200,000,000 to KRW 300,000,000,000 to KRW 170,000,00,000).

(124-125 pages) The defendant stated that he is an employee of EM and stated that he is the bonds company following the following (501-504 pages):

5) On December 20, 2013, AM deposited KRW 50 million with the said new bank account. After deposit of KRW 50 million from the said account, KRW 50 million to EM (bonds) was deposited with KRW 10 million,00,000,000 to KRW 10,000,000,000 to EM (bonds) and KRW 10,000,000,000 to KRW 9,000,000 to EP (bonds) and KRW 50,000,000 to KRW 4,50,000 from the said account. (128,000) was deposited with cash.

6) On January 7, 2014, AMF stated that the balance of the said account was KRW 19,190,000,000 prior to deposit with the said new bank account. After deposit with the said KRW 14,070,000, the following withdrawals are confirmed from the said account (129-130), and Q is an affiliate of AC operated by the Defendant. ER stated that “ES’s wife that arranged BY acceptance to the Defendant and the Defendant was remitted to ES for brokerage commission (506 pages).”

7) On January 14, 2014, before AM deposited KRW 20,100,000 into the said new bank account, the balance was KRW 469,585. After deposit of KRW 20,100,000 in the said account, the following details of the withdrawal are confirmed from the said account (131-132 pages).

A person shall be appointed.

D. Sub-committee

This part of the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

8. [Attachment 2016 Height819] Defendant A and Defendant C’s fabrication of private documents, uttering of a falsified investigation document, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Victim BC.

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Defendant A

The part concerning the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a private document is the sole criminal conduct of Defendant C. Defendant C merely knew that Defendant C signed and sealed AX’s contract with the seller’s consent, but did not know the forgery. Defendant C was recommended to accept AT from Defendant C and believed that an underwriting contract will be concluded normally and notified to the victim.

2) Defendant C.

Defendant A’s request and custody of KRW 800,000 upon Defendant A’s request and did not participate in the instant crime at all.

B. Determination

According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor's evidence, it can be recognized that Defendant A and Defendant C conspired with the victim to acquire the acquisition price from the victim, and presented the victim a forged contract for acquisition of stocks and management rights (hereinafter "the contract of this case") and thereby received KRW 800 million by deceiving the victim.

1) On January 4, 2013, at the time of preparing the instant contract at AW hotel, a person who was referred to as AX was not a AX representative director. The Defendants introduced that person to BD, AY, etc.

(A) BD explained that “A has explained that one of the men in one group is AX,” and that he also left AX. At that time, C also was seated adjacent to it (2016 high-scale 819 evidence, 147,256,683 (hereinafter referred to as “surfing number”), BD recording, 1,7-8, 17-23, 29-31, 37-38 pages].

(B) AE, which was on the same day, stated to the effect that it was AX (BE recording No. 8-9, 24 pages), and AY also stated that “C is a seller as 2-3 male who was sitting in a set of a coffee shop separate table, and is the same as the contract is well-known.” The seller’s personal information was written in AX, and this was written in the instant contract. The seller stated to the effect that “AX was stamped” (61-66 pages).

(C) However, AT representative director did not know the defendant A and C, and did not deliver "the share and management right transfer agreement" to them, and there was no fact that he sold the company to 6 persons, such as BE. Under the contract of this case, he stated that "the name was stolen" (27-54, 239, 448-49 page), and BL statement was the same purport (502-503 page).

2) The credibility of Defendant A’s statement

From the investigation stage to the court, Defendant A stated that Defendant C was in the possession of Defendant C. However, there are various circumstances where it is difficult to believe this.

A) In the police investigation conducted on July 17, 2013 following the victim’s first accusation, Defendant A stated, “C was believed to have engaged in AX, and the contract was concluded, but later, it was confirmed that there was no later public announcement of stock acquisition. AX was not made. AX was not a party to whom C was an AX. Ultimately, AX was not a party to whom C entered into a fake contract, and eventually, C was not an acceptance. The victim was the victim who entered into the fake contract, and the victim was the victim’s complaint. The Defendant filed a complaint against C. The amount of KRW 730 million was returned over five to six occasions after C was failed to take over the company, and C was able to pay KRW 600 million, but the remainder was not repaid to the victim” (Article 97-99).

B) In the police investigation on July 30, 2013, Defendant A believed that “AT representative was unable to meet in advance, but C was well aware of it. AX was a person on the date of the preparation of the contract. On the date of the preparation of the contract, Defendant A made a statement that “AX was a person of AX.” The fact was asked to C due to the lack of public notice, and that C would return money. Of which the amount was paid KRW 7.3 billion over seven to eight occasions, Defendant A was paid KRW 6.48 billion to the victim.” Of these, Defendant A stated that “The remainder would be repaid upon preparation of money.” At the time, Defendant A and the victim, who was subject to an investigation on the substitution with Defendant A, was paid KRW 498,800,000,000 (section 111).

C) However, in the insular currency between the victim and the victim from April 2013 to October 2013, 2013, with respect to the physical drinking of the victim who is asked to 'AT acceptance fund', it is still 'unfortunate at the time of avoiding the answer.' Dials, we repeated the statement that 'I will not see damage' (55-67). It is difficult to understand that this is the attitude of the person who was affiliated with the defendant C, and that 'I would file a complaint against 'I'. The full amount of money received from the defendant C was not returned to the victim, but the remainder is paid by the victim himself.

The same holds true. Defendant A did not accurately notify the victim of the return of money from Defendant C, while Defendant A did not immediately return money.

D) On August 10, 2015, according to the inventory office of the victim on March 4, 2015, Defendant A stated that “AX, which he had taken place, was fake.” The Defendant stated that “AX was not a normal contract, since it was asked C to delay two to three days without immediately making a public announcement. A return of money was returned on the condition that it was returned.” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 227-28 pages).

E) On June 2, 2016, at the prosecution investigation, Defendant A issued the instant contract at the Gangnam-gu FG coffee shop with the seller and the buyer’s disturbance. After reviewing, Defendant A’s personal information was recorded in the buyer’s name. On January 8, 2013, the seller’s portion at the AW hotel shop was in blank, and the buyer’s portion was in front of the contract stating personal information. C was in Y’s personal information. Upon receipt from C, the contract was sent to A.T. The buyer’s seal was stamped, and C signed AX and AX seal, and C sent it to the victim. On January 9, 2013, the following day of the payment of the down payment, the payment of the down payment was made to C.1 billion won, and C-1 billion won was not returned to the victim’s previous KRW 400 billion.5 billion, and C-1 billion was not returned to the victim’s portion.

F) On July 8, 2016, Defendant C 1 and CY did not verify the identity of the AX on the day of the contract. The seller was unaware of the fact that C had taken place in the prison, and the seller was informed of the fact that CY 1 and CY 10 billion won, and CY 1 and CY 50 billion won had been informed of the fact that CY 1 and CY 60 billion won had been informed of the fact that CY 1 and CY 60 billion won had been informed of the fact that CY 1 and CY 60 billion won had been informed of the fact that CY 70 billion won had been 1 and CY 60 billion won had been informed of the fact that the other 60 billion won had been informed of the fact that C had been 10 billion won on the day of the contract. The other 60 billion won had been informed of the fact that C had been 60 billion won on the day of the purchase or sale of the checks.

However, the BE made a statement to the effect that the process of making the contract does not seem to be the process of making the contract, and that it would not be possible for the BE to return the money to A by finding C (BE record 9, 14, 16 pages).

G) As above, as seen in the above, Defendant A stated that it became aware that there was a problem in the contract due to the lack of public notice of stock acquisition. However, the victim provided a different explanation.

It is not consistent with the defendant A's vindication that he was aware of the fact that he was affiliated with C.

BD concluded a stock acquisition agreement with AX on January 4, 2013, and made a public announcement on January 8, 2013. However, with respect to the company's shares to be issued to Defendant A due to the lack of a public announcement, 200,000 won of the company's shares to be asked to Defendant A to be delivered to Defendant A, there was no problem with the corporation's side. The representative was aware of the approval of the public announcement. The representative was to make a public announcement on a business trip, rather than a temporary general meeting of shareholders, rather than a temporary general meeting of shareholders. It was to make a resolution on a general meeting of shareholders, rather than a regular general meeting of shareholders, but did not implement a promise. The representative of A company heard that the representative of A was going to a Chinese business trip, and the representative of AT made a statement on a commercial trip to BT and made a statement on a commercial trip to B-16, 36, 17, 16, 37, 16, 36, 17, and 4.

A victim made it difficult to make a public announcement on January 8, 2013, that it would be the same as that of a regular general meeting of shareholders in March. Even after three months, BD was not appointed as a registration director, and rather, BD again asked A for the public announcement that it was acquired by another company, regardless of the content that it was known that the purchaser was not a registration director. C would be able to hold a temporary general meeting of shareholders in order to meet the balance and to make it possible for A to do so. After that, A made a statement that it would have received a fake contract with C on June 2013 (20,713).

H) On April 6, 2016, the victim also stated in the prosecutor's investigation that "A had been aware of why I had the shares because I had not held the shares with the instant contract at 5:00 p.m. on the same day," and "A went to go off because A had no shares." At the same time on the next day, A stated that "I would have to receive shares again because I did not hold the shares." The same formula was that "I would have to receive shares again since I did not want to do so," and that "I would return KRW 800,000,000 as I did not want to do so." (455-460 pages).

Although Defendant A was in a situation in which the victim was continuously receiving a claim, it is difficult to understand that Defendant C or AX only made public notice of stock acquisition without demanding to resolve the issue by changing shares.

I) Defendant A voluntarily recognized the fact that at least KRW 700 million was returned from January 10, 2013 to Defendant C.

However, Defendant C stated that the amount that he did not receive from Defendant A is 1 billion won or more. BE also stated that “C is aware that the amount that he would receive from A is at least one billion won. There may still remain until now, but the obligation may remain at the time of January 4, 2013 (BE record No. 12-13), and if Defendant C uses the Defendant as the Defendant’s assertion, there is no reason to return the money that he received from Defendant A only in the above circumstances where there is the money that he would demand.

3) Defendant C’s statement

Defendant C’s statement is not consistent on its own, and it is difficult to believe that it does not coincide with the statements of the aforementioned persons. It is recognized that Defendant C was actively involved in the preparation of the AT acceptance contract on January 4, 2013.

A) Defendant C was sentenced to two years, on February 12, 2016, to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da2888 Decided February 12, 2016, to lend KRW 2 billion in the acquisition contract amount to ATR Co., Ltd. on October 23, 2012 and to obtain KRW 200 million in the name of prior interest on October 23, 2012, and KRW 150 million in the name of cash security on October 24, 2012, and acquired KRW 350 million in the name of cash security. According to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016-79 Decided September 2, 2016, Defendant C was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor. According to the Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15093 Decided November 14, 2016, Defendant C’s final decision on the acquisition of shares between the Plaintiff and the Seoul Police Station 2012 was dismissed.

B) On May 23, 2013, Defendant C issued a receipt to FI by requesting the police investigation to find out whether A had no legal entity to take over at the end of 2012. The introduction was made only. On January 4, 2013, Defendant C’s request to keep the balance of KRW 1.2 billion until it reaches the balance of KRW 1.2 billion. Of KRW 80 million, Defendant C stored the National Bank account in the name of FJ, and issued a receipt to FI. The remaining KRW 30 million was a check. However, the number of corporations was 1 month after the shortage of corporate number and 2 months was returned to A, and the entire amount was returned to A. 1.28 billion if the check was requested to be “1.8 billion won” (the small amount of KRW 1.8 billion).

C) On November 20, 2013, Defendant C only explained that it was a company A, and the representative of AT only knew. On January 4, 2013, Defendant C asked A to keep KRW 800 million with telephone and AW hotel. On January 4, 2013, Defendant C was able to keep the company’s acquisition fund by taking 80 million into account the company’s acquisition fund and having received money. The person who was gathered in that place was not aware of the first fact. AX was no longer written contract at AW hotel, and only received KRW 80 million from A, but only returned the entire amount of KRW 80 million until February 24, 2013, Defendant C made a statement that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she had received money.

(196-199)

D) On April 12, 2016, after the victim's inventory, Defendant C recommended 3-4 companies, including AT management, to recommend the above 4 billion won to the prosecution investigation. It was said that A knew of AT management, and it was a problem that I would know that I would know that I would know that I would have well her will to receive AX. It was the same birth that I would not receive money if I would like to receive money from 40 billion won from 5 billion won to 70 billion won, and that I would not receive money from 200 million won to 30 billion won before the date of entry into a foreign country, and that I would not receive money from 30 billion won to 40 billion won.

E) On July 20, 2016, C sent KRW 200 million to A at the relevant coffee shop on the day on which he received KRW 800 million, and later later sent KRW 100 million to A. The remainder of KRW 500 million was placed in the National Bank account in the name of FJ. Of them, the amount of KRW 450 million was remitted to another account designated by A, and the amount of KRW 100 million was withdrawn in cash or check, and both were given to A. The amount of KRW 100 million was withdrawn. A could have a few million difference on the day of receipt, but it is memory that KRW 800 million was returned.”

(728-729)

4) Documents prepared between the Defendants

A) Defendant A received KRW 300 million out of the amount of KRW 800 million on January 10, 2013, and “the amount of KRW 300 million out of KRW 800 million remains after receipt of KRW 200 million on January 10, 2013.” Defendant A confirmed that there remains KRW 50 million out of KRW 800 million on January 16, 2013, “the receipt from January 16, 2013,” “the confirmation from January 28, 2013,” and “the completion date from February 14, 2013, 204-206, 474-475,” and issued a written confirmation to Defendant C (the page 2000 million).

This is consistent with Defendant C’s statement that he returned all KRW 80 million to Defendant A in a month.

B) Also, on April 24, 2013, Defendant A confirmed that the C remains abroad for a period of three months until the end of July, 2013, and confirmed that Defendant A is responsible for the payment of KRW 3 million per month of the cost of stay and living and KRW 4 million per month of the cost of stay while leaving the Republic of Korea.

The remittance of KRW 2 million on April 24, 2013, and the remittance of KRW 7 million on April 25, 2013. The living expenses of this month shall be paid KRW 3 million on a gold day ( April 25, 2013) and KRW 4 million on a subsequent weekly demand ( April 30, 2013). The payment of KRW 30 million shall be made on May 31, 2014. The former obligation shall be settled at KRW 200 million and paid KRW 10 million until July 31, 2014, stating that “payment of KRW 10 million by August 31, 2014,” which shall be prepared on April 23, 2013, and issued a written confirmation to Defendant C (Article 476 and 497 of the Act).

A promised to pay and remit to 'C' the cost of living and the cost of stay (overseas) on the agreed date. He confirmed that 'I will not have any legal problems by resolving it at the end of this year'. A issued a written confirmation of August 14, 2013 to C (526 pages).

C) If Defendant A unilaterally belonged to Defendant C, the reason why Defendant A received most of the acquisition price of KRW 800 million from Defendant C, and the reason why Defendant C would be liable for the overseas stay cost. The reason why a written confirmation was prepared and issued, and the motive for Defendant C’s criminal act is not explained.

On June 2, 2016, Defendant A: (a) at the prosecutor’s investigation conducted on the prosecution on June 2, 2016, “FL had been using money from C while operating the FL company in 200; (b) Defendant C was unable to receive KRW 200 million; and (c) Defendant C was able to receive KRW 690 million from C without receiving KRW 80,000,000 from C, with the mind that his body was seeking special drugs on the four occasions in the Asia-Pacific region. The aforementioned written confirmation document issued on April 23, 2013 was under the police investigation conducted on August 14, 201, but was prepared as required by C, solely because C was aware that it would have committed a joint crime, and was able to receive KRW 80,000,000 from C.

In February 14, 2013, it was due to C’s coercion.”

(517-5202)

On the other hand, Defendant C, at the prosecution investigation on June 2, 2016, drafted a written confirmation of April 23, 2013, stating that “The confirmation document of April 23, 2013 was prepared by the Prosecutor’s Office, immediately before the examination of the quality of the Gangnam Police Station, that “A may be detained,” and that B would be staying in a foreign country while I would be free from detention. As the body is not good, Defendant C appeared at the police station and would go to go to a foreign country after an investigation. As such, Defendant C additionally prepared a written confirmation document of August 14, 2013. If the written confirmation document was written to the effect that he was forced to receive 80 million won in full, 50 million won will remain, and there is no reason to separately prepare a written confirmation document of January 28, 2013.”

(518 pages), Defendant C’s statement is more reliable.

D) Only on the premise that Defendant A and Defendant C conspired to commit the instant crime, but only on the premise that these documents were naturally explained.

(v) Other abnormal circumstances.

A) The seller and seven seals affixed to the instant contract are all seals (12-24, 156-176 pages) and the seller’s seal impression was not prepared. AX’s seal impression was not prepared. While BD had a seal imprint and a certificate of seal impression, the Defendants placed a pre-determined BD name tag.

(220, 679)

B) “A” has been prepared. BD has sold a seal imprint. In advance, it was necessary to promptly conclude the contract, and all of which should be stamped and later changed. At the site, BD received only a receipt of KRW 800 million from C. A received a receipt, which is called “A will complete the contract and have the completed contract.” On the other hand, A considered A’s contract that had been made at the victim’s office in the P.M. The copy and the original copy. There was no word to request a seal imprint even after the date, and the victim stated that “A” is “A’s representative should enter into a formal contract if he voluntarily takes a business trip in China.”

(252-253, 256, 674-680, 1-2, 24 pages)

C) On this issue, BE made a statement that “I am under a sudden contract, so I am flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish flish f

The acquisition by transfer of a company whose total amount of the acquisition price reaches 10 billion won, and it is also difficult to obtain the same luxly, in carpets, to prepare a contract without good faith, and without good faith. The date of the instant contract is erroneously printed on January 8, 2012 (21,44), which is also difficult to obtain in light of the contract amount.

D) Defendant A prevented the victim from leaving the place of contract (9, 25, 219 pages).

C. Sub-committee

All of the arguments of Defendant A, Defendant C, and Defense Counsel are rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by sentences;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years nor more than 50 years;

(b) Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years but not more than 40 years;

2. Scope of recommending types according to the sentencing criteria;

All the Defendants do not apply the sentencing criteria as concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39 of the Criminal Act.

3. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant A

There are many criminal records of the same kind and repeated crimes. The victim Q Q has cancelled the management right and stock acquisition contract, thereby dismissing B, and reverted the down payment of KRW 600 million paid by the Defendant to K, and thereby, Q or K does not have any economic damage. The victim agreed to return the leased vehicle to Q or K. The social service Korea Ltd., Inc., which has developed the M or Q., and agreed to pay part of the amount of damage. The victim agreed to reimburse and agree to compensate for the damage to the P. The victim AM was an attorney-at-law from the former chief prosecutor, and was responsible for the occurrence of the crime and the expansion of the damage. Some of the damage was reimbursed to the victim AM. The victim BC returned to the victim BC and agreed to withdraw the complaint against the Defendant. The victim BC was also the latter concurrent crimes of Article 39 of the Criminal Act.

B. Defendant C.

The damage suffered by the victim BC was fully returned. The latter concurrent crimes of Article 39 of the Criminal Code are concurrent crimes.

The acquittal portion

1. [Attachment 2015 Gohap863] Each part of the occupational breach of trust against Defendant A and K Co., Ltd.

A. Facts charged

Defendant B is a person who has been engaged in the business of Defendant A by being entrusted with a nominal representative director in the course of acquiring the company with capital without capital. Defendant B provided real estate owned by the company as security or offered to Defendant A with a promissory note issued in the name of the company and offered to pay the borrowed money with the acquisition fund of the company, etc. by using the fact that Defendant B received the transfer of the K representative director on September 18, 2014.

(i) offering K-owned real estate as security;

The Defendants had a duty to not offer real estate owned by the Company as security for obligations unrelated to K business.

Nevertheless, in violation of this, in order to secure the repayment of principal and interest for KRW 150 million borrowed from KRW 0,000,000 from the end of August 22, 2014, Defendant A promised to sell FM apartment 601 (hereinafter referred to as “FM apartment 601”) owned by K to FN of the right holder of the reservation at KRW 158,00,000,000, in order to secure the payment of principal and interest, around September 22, 2014, Defendant A promised to sell the FM apartment 601 (hereinafter referred to as “FM apartment 601”) to FN of the right holder of the reservation at KRW 158,00,000,000 from the purchase price, signed and delivered by Defendant B, thereby having FN obtain a power of delegation on the application for provisional registration as of September 22, 2014.

(ii) the issuance of K Promissory Notes.

In issuing K-registered promissory notes, the Defendants shall issue them as normal means of payment, etc. related to the business of the company in accordance with the articles of incorporation and the resolution of the board of directors, and shall issue them for the purpose of paying personal debts, etc. and shall not cause property damage to the company.

Nevertheless, in order to secure the repayment of principal and interest for KRW 150 million borrowed by Defendant A from the end of August 2014, the Defendants made a letter of delegation necessary for the compulsory execution of a promissory note and a promissory note with a face value of KRW 100 million on September 22, 2014 as of September 22, 2014, and delivered it to Defendant A with the seal of the corporate seal of the company and the seal of Defendant B, respectively, and caused damage to the property equivalent to KRW 300 million on the victim K.

B. Whether to recognize Defendant B’s status as an administrator of administrative affairs

1) Legal principles

The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party obtain it by doing so through an act in violation of his/her duty, thereby causing damage to the principal. The subject of the crime of breach of trust refers to a person who is deemed to have a fiduciary relationship to handle the business in light of the principle of trust and good faith with another person, and does not necessarily require that a person has the authority to conduct the business in an external relationship with a third party. In addition, such business is not required to conduct the comprehensive entrusted business, but may arise through the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, i.e., the ground for the conduct of business, namely, the ground for a fiduciary relationship, may arise through legal act, custom, or business management. This constitutes a case where a person who administers the business after the extinction of legal authority, or performs the business before the transfer of the business after he/she was dismissed from his/her office (see, e.g.

2) Determination

The Defendants asserted that they were prepared on September 23, 2014, as the letter of promise to sell and purchase, letter of delegation for application for provisional registration, and letter of delegation for compulsory execution of promissory notes and promissory notes as stated in the facts charged, Defendant B had already been dismissed from office as K representative director and completed registration of dismissal, and thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have been in the position of "management manager" at the time of the preparation

In the K corporate register, the registration of the appointment of the representative director of Defendant B was completed on September 17, 2014, and on September 22, 2014, the fact that the registration of dismissal was completed on September 22, 2014 (referring to the fact that only the number of pages is indicated without separate indication) 87-89, 321 of evidence record 2015 and Q Q on September 222, 2014 that "the full revocation and cancellation of the contract for the sale of the purchase of the K will be made" by Defendant A, Defendant B, S, and BO is recognized (one title 90-94).

However, even if Defendant B prepared each of the above documents and issued a promissory note subsequent to the dismissal of Defendant B, it can be recognized as “the person who administers another’s business” as long as he used the status of K representative director before dismissal.

C. Whether property damage has occurred

1) Legal principles

In the crime of breach of trust, ‘when property damage is inflicted’ includes not only cases where a real loss is inflicted, but also cases where the risk of actual loss of property has been caused. However, if the risk of such loss has not been caused, no crime of breach of trust shall be established. If the representative of a corporation has no legal effect, it cannot be said that any loss has occurred or is likely to occur to the corporation, barring any special circumstances, and the representative’s act does not constitute a crime of breach of trust. In the event that the representative of a corporation, etc. exercises his/her power of representation for the purpose of promoting his/her own or a third party’s interest, not only the company’s interest but also the company’s interest, if the other party knew or could have known of the intention of the representative director, etc., the act becomes null and void, thereby not constituting a crime of breach of trust (see, e.g

2) Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged as a result of the instant trial, it may be deemed that zero was already aware or could have been aware of the fact that Defendant B was dismissed at the time of receiving a provisional registration regarding FM apartment 601. In such a case, Defendants’ act of offering security becomes null and void against K. A promissory note as stated in the facts charged may also be deemed null and void, even if Defendant B knew or was unaware of it. There is no circumstance to deem that the said promissory note was distributed. There is no circumstance to deem that the said promissory note was distributed. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that there was damage or risk to K, and there is no evidence to prove it otherwise.

A) From the investigation stage to this court, the Defendants stated that, after the Defendant B was dismissed from K representative director to this court, they had been aware of the fact of dismissal of Defendant B. Defendant A consistently stated that the said promissory note was issued after being notified of the dismissal of Defendant B, and that it was known that Defendant B was aware of the fact.

(1) On October 28, 2014, the Defendants filed an application for provisional registration by creating necessary documents, such as a loan certificate, in accordance with the proposal of 0 that “I wish to find the company,” and “I wish to find the company. At the time of applying for provisional registration, A, B, andO knew that B is not the K representative director at the time of applying for provisional registration. The promissory note was also prepared after being aware that the representative director was changed, and all three persons were aware at the time of preparation and authentication that B is not the K representative director at the time of the completion.” Q submitted the confirmation document to Q. Q submitted it as evidence to prove the Defendant’s fraud and embezzlement (32-33, 529-531 page).

(2) On September 9, 2015, Defendant A made a statement to the prosecutor’s investigation that “after being notified of B’s dismissal, he/she would well know the law to comply with it, including provisional registration documents, promissory notes, notarial deeds, and power of attorney. immediately after his/her dismissal, he/she sought a certified judicial scrivener’s office.” (See 529-531), and Defendant B made a statement to the police investigation on March 9, 2015 that “A, while making a telephone call at the time of this call, he/she could not gather the fact of 0 degrees dismissal because he/she made a real-time reservation contract, power of attorney, etc.” (See 354-356).

B) This was written in writing by the Defendants that Defendant B was dismissed from the office of K representative director at the time of issuance of a promissory note.

However, even according to the statement 0, at least, it can be recognized that the court was aware of the dismissal of Defendant B at the time of applying for provisional registration. This statement is inconsistent or unclear with the date of applying for provisional registration, the certified judicial scrivener in charge, the time of recognition of the dismissal of Defendant B, the circumstance of the authentication of promissory notes, etc.

(1) On March 13, 2015, the police investigation stated, “The date of this case is very important.” The application for provisional registration was received through FO certified judicial scrivener on September 22, 2014. Promissory notes received on September 22, 2014 at the FP law office, and the date was recorded retrospectively. The fact of dismissal B became known as of September 26, 2014. The fact of dismissal was stated as “No authentication was made immediately because the payment of the promissory notes would not be notarized if it was paid (363-365 page).”

(2) On September 15, 2015, the Prosecutor’s investigation: (a) “The documents related to provisional registration were prepared at the F Q Q Q2 office office around September 9, 2014; (b) on September 22, 2014, an application for provisional registration was filed on September 23, 2014. Promissory notes also received at the time when B written representative director’s statement was made; (c) on September 22, 2014, the date of issuance was written retroactively. The Prosecutor’s statement that “The said promissory note was notarized on September 30, 2014, because the representative director was informed of the wind to change to Q Q.” (e.g., 540 pages).

(3) On February 23, 2016, the court prepared a pre-sale contract at around 9-10:00 on September 22, 2014, and the application for provisional registration was known to have been filed by a certified judicial scrivener on September 23, 2014, the following day. Since both sides were in the form at the time of the preparation of the contract, contact was made between a certified judicial scrivener and a telephone. If the certified judicial scrivener was removed from the certified judicial scrivener on September 22, 2016, then B was still the representative director.

The F QR certified judicial scrivener stated that “A seller’s seal impression is required to apply for provisional registration, and there was a talk that the Defendants have no seller’s seal impression and no seller’s seal impression is available to register.” On the other hand, as to a promissory note, the Defendants stated that “as to a promissory note, it was prepared along with the above sales contract, etc. on September 22, 2014, and prior to being lent KRW 10 million and received corporate seal impression (certificate) on September 18, 2014, it was prepared retroactively on the date of issuance” (No. 4-7 pages 0);

(4) On September 12, 2016, in this court, "the preparation of a pre-sale contract, etc. by the Defendants was around 9:30:0:0 on September 22, 2014. (10:0:00:0:0:00:0:00:0; and (2) more than 100:00:00:0 on September 24, 2014; (3) a certified judicial scrivener made an application for provisional registration as of September 24, 2014; and (4) a certified judicial scrivener made a call that "the change of the representative director" was known that he was dismissed. There was no talk from Defendant A. There was no '30,000 won at face value of a promissorysory note'. The date of issuance was written on September 18, 201.

(1) The electronic application for the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim regarding FM apartment 601 prepared by the certified judicial scrivener FO was completed at around 13:41 on September 23, 2014, beginning with the first preparation at around 13:05 on September 23, 2014. The registration fee was paid at around 13:56 on the same day (98-10), acquisition tax was also paid on September 23, 2014 (108 pages).

(2) On September 23, 2014, the following text messages are confirmed: (a) the content of text messages sent and received between Defendant A and this is confirmed (2016 high-scale 110 evidence page 122-123). This overlaps with the time at which the above provisional registration application was made.

(13:19) 0: A person who has made a provisional registration and needs to be FS.(13:25) 0: Money to be paid by him is not deposited. FS? (13:25) Defendant A: A certified judicial scrivener.

(13:27) 0 : 자서하고 빨리 와요.(13:27) 피고인 A : 자서 중.(13:31) 피고인 A : 자서 다 했어.(13:44) O : B 매도용 인감 떼놨어요? 돈 확보하자구.(15:04) 0 : Q과 잘 협상해. 유리하게.(15:04) 0 : K 차주로 해서 내가 돈 뺄게 30개.

(3) It is confirmed that Defendant A told on September 30, 2014 that “A had expertise in real estate 0” in Q and Q, and that “B had been registered for dismissal, and the provisional registration was sought.” (See 193 pages).

D) Even according to the statement 0, the amount that he lent to Defendant A is KRW 62 million. Nevertheless, there is doubt as to whether the amount amount column of the said Promissory Notes is written in KRW 300 million (No. 120, 550, No. 14, No. 120, No. 550), and 0 is delivered on the basis of the true claim.

(1) TheO stated that B stated the amount column (No. 6 of the 0th transcript), but B stated that there was no fact in the amount column (no. 570 pages).

(2) As seen in Section (c)(2) above, there was a fact that, as seen in this Section, Defendant A sent text messages “30 as soon as possible in advance” to Defendant A as the borrower.

(3) A notarial deed on a promissory note as stated in the facts charged was written on September 30, 2014 following September 30, 2014 (119-126 pages).

on October 16, 2014, Q sent a text message stating "on September 29, 2014, at around 18:35, 2014, B was dismissed from the representative director on September 22, 2014, and completed the registration by September 23, 2014, and directly listened to and recognized the fact through one's own currency. Therefore, on September 30, 2014, a notarial deed drawn up by B, who is not the representative director, as the representative director, is null and void. If a compulsory execution or other lawsuit is instituted on the grounds of a notarial act, it would be liable for civil damages as well as for criminal litigation fraud." This would be determined in the law. On this basis, Q sent a text message to Q Q29-29, "I knew that the president had no intent to solve damage from K's representative director," and "I sent it from Q29 to Q25, 29-4, 295."

(4) On October 17, 2014, 00, 00 won the authentic deed of a promissory note as stated in the above (3) as the title of execution, and filed an application for the attachment and collection order with the Seoul Central District Court 2014TY 29316, and on October 21, 2014, 000. (370-372, 200), however, on June 22, 2015, 00 filed an application for the return of title to the above court, the cancellation of the attachment and the waiver of the collection order, and returned it to Q Q without distributing the said promissory note (01-15 pages).

E) Defendant B stated at an investigative agency that “The Promissory Notes was issued on September 18, 2014 as stated in the Promissory Notes,” but it is difficult to believe in light of each of the facts stated in Section A(1) and some of the statements stated in Section A(1).

D. Conclusion

Since each of the facts charged is without proof of crime, all of the charges are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. [2016 Height6] Fraudulent part against Defendant A L

A. Facts charged

Defendant A, around July 15, 2007, at the 12nd floor of the Seoul National University Hospital located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Sungnam-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul National University University University University University Hospital”), the printing center is expected to take over the FT Group L who is the president of the FT Group, and the FUIS project sector (hereinafter referred to as the “FU”) due to the increase in the capital of the FT corporation. There are many printed materials in the process of acceptance. Since there is a need to clarify other shareholders to understand, if the participation in the FTU capital increase is required, new stocks are issued more than two weeks after the deposit and the production of printed materials necessary for the process of acceptance is ordered. However, even if the Defendant received the money from the victim as the price for capital increase, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to issue the FTIS corporation, or to place the order by issuing the printed materials.

The Defendant transferred the victim's KRW 30 million on July 16, 2007, and KRW 20 million on July 18, 2007 to the bank account (Account Number FV) in the name of FT corporation as the price for capital increase.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim and let the FT corporation receive a total of KRW 50 million, thereby deceiving the victim.

B. Circumstances suspected of being guilty

1) The Defendant’s statement that FT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FT”) is not a statement that the FT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FT”) does not have any connection with it.

A) The Defendant was sentenced to a five-year sentence of imprisonment for a crime, such as “the actual manager of FT, thereby incurring property damage to FT and embezzled funds from FT” (see Supreme Court Decisions 200-108Da108, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Da1122, Jan. 15, 2015 (195-286, Sept. 11, 2015), Seoul High Court Decision 2015Do436, Sept. 11, 2015; 2015Do14610, Jan. 14, 2016); and

B) In relation to the foregoing case, the Defendant called L on September 25, 2013 and asked L to make a witness for a trial on the same day. The Defendant asked L to submit a written reason for non-appearance. On November 7, 2013, the Defendant provided that L would be given a fine for negligence on behalf of the witness upon the same request. On November 13, 2013 (No. 48-57 pages), in the foregoing case, L provided that L would be present as a witness (the first right 48-57 pages), and on September 17, 2013, the Defendant was absent on the date of September 25, 2013, and was served with a writ of summons on October 23, 2013, and was absent on the date of service on October 23, 2013, and was served with a witness on October 18, 2013.

2) The Defendant divided LAB’s talks about capital increase with capital increase, and it can be recognized that the Defendant informed LA of the account number of the bank account in the name of FT and caused L to remit money to the said account.

A) FW introduced L to assist L printing business. FW stated in the prosecution investigation on November 4, 2013 that “L and A only divided talk about printed matters, but did not have any stock talked. A merely stated that FT will be operated well.” Specifically, FT would not have known the method of participating in capital increase with capital increase, or the telephone number of the head of the FT finance department.” However, on April 3, 2015, the Defendant was present as a witness, stating that “the Defendant was in the form of having the right to operate the FT Group because he was in the form of establishing the FT Group at the time. Two persons were in the same way as the Defendant and L were in the presence of two persons (FT No. 1-5 page).”

B) Upon the Defendant’s instruction, BE, who had worked as the AC representative director, stated that “the Defendant, L, or FW was in the same place as at the time of delivery at the Seoul National University Hospital at the branch of Seoul National University Hospital, but the Defendant had not solicited L to participate in the FTA capital increase with capital increase (BE record No. 4-7), but it was stated that “When the Defendant gets an elevator while sending FW and L, the two people were able to enter the capital increase with capital increase, they were able to say that there was no problem even if they were aware of it out of the outside (BE record No. 5).”

C) The account number of the bank account in the name of the FT is information with which L is not known unless the defendant is informed.

(1) In the police investigation on October 31, 2013, the Defendant stated that “FX, the head of FT re-general, was informed L” (section 59). On April 9, 2014, the police investigation stated that “FT director AD stated that “The FT re-general was FX,” and the FX bank account is a corporation’s general account. However, the FX account was separate account for capital increase. If L were to be notified of the account number in order to receive capital increase, there was no reason to inform L of the account number, and that there was no reason to inform of the above bank account number, the general account of a corporation (section 83-84, 3-5, 3-5, 2014).

(2) From November 12, 2007 upon receipt of the written complaint, L consistently stated that the Defendant was informed of the account number of the above bank as a witness of the court from November 12, 2007 to April 3, 2015 when L was present at the court in relation to the instant case. There is no circumstance to deem L to have telephone conversationsd with or passed with FT-related persons, such as FX and FY.

On the other hand, according to the recording record in which the defendant and L have recorded several conversationss from September 28, 2013 to November 13, 2013, it appears that the defendant asked to the effect that "the defendant will ask the defendant to make a statement as "the defendant will have met FY as a result of performing his/her obligation" (one right 38-57 pages).

3) KRW 50 million remitted by L was not directly used for capital increase with capital increase.

A) On July 16, 2007, L deposited KRW 30 million with the said bank account, immediately after deposit of KRW 30 million, L was withdrawn in the said account in the name of the Suhyup FZ, GA, and Nonghyup GB, respectively (No. 54 pages).

B) On July 18, 2007, L deposited KRW 20 million in the above bank account, in addition to the above account, KRW 60 million in the name of FT, KRW 297 million in the name of AD, and KRW 300 million in the name of GC. On the same day, the amount of KRW 250 million in the name of Nonghyup FT, KRW 30 million in the name of GE, KRW 60 million in the name of GE, and KRW 4.5 million in the name of national GF on July 19, 2007, KRW 4.5 million in the name of GF, KRW 40 million in the name of foreign exchange, KRW 50 million in the name of GH, KRW 10 million in the name of GH, KRW 50 million in the name of 50 million in the name of FT (section 54.54).

C) On November 11, 2013, FX stated to the police officer by telephone that “the investors would receive shares if they participate in the capital increase with capital increase, and would return investments if they failed to receive the capital increase. If L participated in capital increase with capital increase, he would not know the reasons why he would not receive the capital increase or receive the capital increase. If L participates in capital increase with capital increase, it would not be used for any other purpose until the approval is granted. If L has been used directly in another place, the account would not be the same as the one that has received the capital increase.” Even on April 8, 2014, the account that FT used in relation to the FU issue is not the one bank account, but rather the one bank account. If there are many details of the capital increase in capital increase, it is a general account. The account is also a procedure to disclose to the Stock Exchange, and thus, it does not constitute a payment of money from the bank without legal verification.” (See 14).

D) L did not have any fact that L received FT shares or received any production of FT Group printed materials (LM No. 2 pages), and even after the FU acquisition was not made on August 2007, 2007, L did not receive a refund of KRW 50 million (No. 28 pages). FT was delisting as its audit opinion on April 2008 (No. 4 books 132, 157 pages), and the Defendant merely repaid L the amount of KRW 10 million (L No. 45 pages).

C. Determination

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having no reasonable doubt that the defendant had no intention or ability to issue FT new shares to L or to place an order for the production of printed materials.

1) On October 1, 2013, the Defendant stated in the police investigation that “FT paid KRW 4.5 billion to the FU, but thereafter, it was found to have failed to accept the contract amount finally due to the problems in the process of the actual inspection (section 15).” On October 31, 2013, the Defendant stated that “In addition to “L” in the police investigation, other individuals are aware of the fact that they participated in 9 billion won in the cost increase and are to receive all investments (section 61).” On April 9, 2014, the Defendant stated that “The target amount of the recruitment of oil voters was KRW 50 billion, but the amount of capital increase and capital increase were lost because of 2 billion won, and that they were aware that they were returned the increased capital (section 173).”

In fact, the FT entered into a memorandum of understanding on the takeover of the FU business on June 29, 2007, but it was confirmed that the FU finished the sale procedure on August 23, 2007 due to the uncertainty of the possibility of raising the FT’s capital increase and the uncertainty of the possibility of financing in the future, and it is consistent with the statement of the Defendant (No. 66-70 pages). The amount of the warranty bond confiscated at the time would amount to KRW 4.24 billion, and the warranty bond confiscated at the time would amount to KRW 4.24 billion, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have any actual business takeover. In light of the amount of the confiscated warranty bond, there is no false fact in order for the Defendant to take over KRW 50 million. There is no circumstance to doubt that the Defendant planned not to issue new stocks to L even if the capital increase was successful.

2) As seen earlier, even if the Defendant did not directly use the FT’s de facto manager, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant prepared and deliver FT new shares to L by means of other methods, or that he did not have the ability to place an order to produce printed materials. There is no evidence to recognize this part in addition to the Defendant’s false statement.

D. Conclusion

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 Act.

3. [2016 Height7] Fraudulent part against Defendant A’s M

A. Facts charged

1) On March 12, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at the coffee shop on the first floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu GJ hotel, the Defendant would purchase GK convertible bonds with the said money and pay KRW 150 million to the victim M, the Defendant would pay KRW 50 million if he/she borrowed KRW 150 million as an internal amount.

However, in fact, the Defendant was unable to secure KRW 4.85 billion at all, and there was little possibility to take over GK, and there was no particular property or income. Rather, the Defendant was in arrears with the total amount of 10,322,926,000 won of national and local taxes, and even if GK was acquired, there was no intent or ability to repay the borrowed money from the victim, considering that it was the financial status of the Defendant, such as the failure to properly pay the company employees’ benefits around 2013.

On March 13, 2014, the Defendant received a letter of KRW 150 million at the GM coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and acquired a face value of KRW 150 million from the victim.

2) On March 16, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at a reciprocal coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong, the Defendant would immediately repay the money to the Defendant, as acquired by the Defendant, to the maximum extent possible, by raising the money that the Defendant would receive, “GN” (hereinafter referred to as “GN”). The Defendant made most of the KRW 2 billion was prepared for acquisition fund and partly short of the funds.

However, since the Defendant was unable to secure funds necessary for acquiring the company at all, there was little possibility of acceptance, and even if GN was considered as financial status, there was no intent or ability to repay the borrowed money from the victim even if GN was acquired.

On March 17, 2014, the Defendant acquired 40 million won from the victim through a new bank account in the name of B designated by the Defendant.

3) On March 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would immediately repay the principal upon the acquisition of a company.” At the same time, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would immediately repay the principal when the company is acquired.”

However, since the Defendant did not directly engage in the business of acquiring the above company, such as securing funds, it was not well aware of whether the above company can be properly accepted, and even if GO was considered as financial status, there was no intention or intention to repay the borrowed money from the victim.

On March 27, 2014, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim take advantage of it by allowing the victim to pay KRW 25 million as a check at the coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul to GP.

4) On March 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would immediately repay the borrowed money received by the company as the company borrowed money,” to the effect that “BY Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BY”) is needed to take over to the victim at the same time in the coffee shop in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.”

However, the Defendant did not directly participate in the procedure for acquiring the above company, and was delegated to the ES, so it was not well aware of whether the above company can accept it properly, and even if BY is deemed to be financial status, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money from the victim even if BY was accepted.

On March 24, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the victim to the new bank account in the name of B on March 24, 2014. On March 27, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 10 million as a check at the coffee shop in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

B. Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances recognized as a result of the instant trial, there is no room to doubt that there is a criminal intent to acquire by deception, or that there is a criminal intent to acquire by deception, etc. It is difficult to see that the acquisition of each company based on the foregoing facts charged is almost certain, such as that M is sufficiently prepared for acquisition funds. It is difficult to say that even if the defendant lends only the amount of money to the defendant, it would be able to obtain a repayment of the loan because the number of companies is the same as that of the company, or that the money lent to the defendant would be only visible to the acquisition price itself. In other words, M lent money by taking the words of the defendant and making a mistake.

It is also insufficient to recognize the causal relationship.

1) M is likely to have provided a loan, even though it is well aware that the acquisition business promoted by the Defendant is dangerous, with the knowledge of the fact that it is likely that M would have been at risk.

A) Since around 2002, M was aware that there was a fact that the Defendant was working in a company run by the Defendant, and that the Defendant had experience in acquiring the company several times by means of capital-free capital, capital M&A, and methods [referring to the evidence records 61, 95, 375, 381, M records, 5, 7 pages 61, 95, 375, 381, 7 pages].

나) GQ은 'M이 M&A; 시장구조를 정확히 알고 있고, 피고인의 회사 인수 방식을 훤히 꿰뚫고 있다'고 진술하였다(GQ 녹취록 8면).

C) It is difficult to view that M has been able to lend money to the Defendant at a similar time in March 2014, even though the Defendant was promoting the acquisition of four different companies, due to the fact that M was fully aware of the Defendant’s business method, and that M was expected to be able to receive the money borrowed even if one of the two acquisitions was successful.

D) It is true that M made a detailed explanation about the process “GK M&A” (388 pages), and “Defendant was aware that the amount of KRW 6 billion acquired at the time of acquiring GO should be lent from GP, but it was not considered that the amount of KRW 25 billion would be a large amount of money if he would normally be required to borrow KRW 6 billion from the bond company.” The degree of understanding about M&A in the way of using the bond fund by stating that “(414, 507 pages, 14 pages).”

E) If the prosecutor knew that the Defendant would use the money borrowed from the Defendant as bond holders, he/she is premised on the prosecution that M would not have any way to lend money to the Defendant (517,519, etc.). However, as stated in the facts charged, M voluntarily lent money as a prior interest for bond funds, as stated in the facts charged.

2) From M’s point of view, if only success in the acquisition of a company, it is unlikely that the borrowed money would not be used in itself as the acquisition price, and even if it is used for other purposes, such as interest costs necessary for acquisition at Defendant’s discretion.

A) The GR, which arranged for the borrowing of the Defendant’s funds through three statements, sought the opinion that “the Defendant raised funds due to the shortage of funds, four persons, such as M and S, will give priority to the Defendant’s corporate number of the Defendant. It was also necessary to keep the Defendant in any way to meet the Defendant. To say that M will not make a decision, M would be able to take over the Defendant’s company by telephone to the Defendant, and M would turn off the Defendant’s response to the Defendant. In addition to the acquisition fund, M would take place in all expenses (including preparation of a contract necessary for the acquisition of the Company, legal expenses, loan interest, etc.). The Defendant stated that M would not have any legal solution between the Defendant and the Defendant, “No. 1534-4, 374, 37-4, 374, 15-4, 15-7, 15-7, 15-7, 15-7, 15-7, 15-7, 15-7.

B) M provided the Defendant with a total of KRW 245 million, and it is difficult to view that it is a meaningful amount to be used only as the price for taking over the company four copies.

3) The Defendant actually promoted the acquisition of the company indicated in the facts charged. There is room to deem that there was a possibility that at least one of them would have been successful, and that M&Do was also understood.

A) GK Public Prosecution 1)

(1) The Defendant entered into a letter of understanding with GK by giving 20,000 won consulting fees to GT and promoting the acquisition of GK. The content is that “the purchaser shall be 5 billion won with the subscription price for new shares and the subscription price for new shares and the subscription price for new shares and the subscription price for new shares, and if GK decides to pay the subscription price for new shares, the seller shall appoint a person designated by the purchaser as a manager of GK and run the registration procedure (33-58 pages).

(2) While GT requested the bond company that provided funds to the Defendant to replace the Sk corporation and prepared 5 billion won to the law firm on March 14, 2014, it did not go on the seller’s side but unilaterally reversed the contract by demanding the increase of the acquisition price. The Defendant introduced G Q to the Defendant at an in-depth mind, and G Q introduced GN to the Defendant, but was aware that it was later delisting (GT record).

(3) On March 2014, GU, which consulted on taking over at the GK’s side, also stated that “the Defendant’s side (GV) and the first patrolman proposed to offer to the amount of KRW 5 billion for subscription to new shares, and promoted the work to raise the amount of KRW 7 billion among March 2014,” and that “the amount of KRW 502-503,000,000,000,000,000 won.”

B) GN [Fact-finding A. 2] G Q introduced from GT was in charge of raising funds while serving as a consultant of GN.

G Q intended to sell a third party with a capital increase of KRW 2 billion due to the issuance of privately placed convertible bonds due to difficulties in GN circumstances in the middle of March 2014. GT proposed that the Defendant acquire GN through GT. However, during the negotiation process, management premium amounting to KRW 1 billion was increased, and pull was not disposed of by a pull company. The Defendant and GT was aware that he/she made efforts to attract the acquisition price, and that the Defendant would be able to obtain a sufficient amount of KRW 1 billion increased due to the fact that he/she is a person who is well aware of the fund market. M was transferred to the employee, but M was also believed to have been well aware of the fact that the Defendant would take over the management right by lending money from the bonds company, etc. (a record of G Q recording).

C) GO [Facts A. 3]

M initially met the GP of the day. The Defendant stated that “The amount of KRW 25 billion shall be the interest rate for KRW 6 billion to the GP, and the Defendant first left the place. After the Defendant left the place, the Defendant paid KRW 25 million to the GP. At that time, there was a person called the GW Vice-Chairperson of the Defendant Company.”

(M-record 13-15 pages) In other words, M has trusted the defendant and paid 25 million won to GP first on the day.

(d) BY (Facts A. 4)

(1) On March 2014, ES introduced BY as M&A; 2.10 million won of the acquisition price, which was 2.1 billion won of the down payment, was first paid, and the balance was paid after one year after the acquisition of management rights. Of them, 50 million won received from the Defendant on March 21, 2014 and 20 million won received on March 23, 2014 and BY M&A; however, the remainder was appropriated for the repayment of claims against the Defendant. The introduction of BY was consistent with the introduction of BY to the Defendant, and it was consistent with the date of diving, but now, M&A was abandoned on the ground that the non-name member whose name was not memory was given did not process as soon as possible, M&A was given up his management right from GY 250,000 won.

In other words, according to the ES statement, it is true that the defendant promoted BY acceptance, and at the time it was a condition that the down payment can be received only KRW 100 million. The defendant is likely to think that it will not be easy to accept it.

(2) A contract for acquisition of shares and management rights on March 24, 2014, stating that the Defendant acquired BY from BY representative GY in the name of B and GX exists. If the Defendant merely intended to acquire money, and the said contract is merely a false one, it is unnecessary to create the said contract in the name of B and GX instead of himself/herself by receiving money in the name of contract deposit. If the Defendant shows the said contract to ES, the Defendant is more likely to believe that the said contract was genuine. The Defendant filed a complaint against the crime of forging the above contract, etc., and then is currently pending trial (No. 8-10 pages).2)

C. Conclusion

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

4. [2016 Height9] Fraudulent part against Defendant A’s P

A. On April 2013, 201, the part concerning fraud by a police officer

1) Facts charged

On April 2013, the Defendant stated, at the coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong, that “GZ(hereinafter referred to as “GZ”) the president of the HA of the Z(hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) did not have any friendly ties. He left all to HAB, thereby making an endorsement in the name of GZ in the bill, because he left all of it to HAB. That said, as the operating expenses of the company, etc., the Defendant loaned money of KRW 10 million.”

However, in fact, HA was not the president of the GZ, and the defendant was aware of the condition that he would make an endorsement on the bill in the name of the above company. The defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the borrowed money in time because there was no particular revenue or property at the time.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received from the victim as the borrowed money, KRW 2,00,000 on April 6, 2013 and KRW 3,000,000 on April 11, 2013 from the victim to the new bank account in the name of B, and acquired it by deception.

2) The assessmentP, around the day of the Defendant’s delivery, planned to conduct the commercial construction of the officetel near HB in Gyeonggi-do [2016 Gohap9, 2016, 10, and 4, and 6, the evidence record (hereinafter the above evidence record)] P stated that “P, with the business plan for HB commercial construction, is able to take over the above commercial building upon receiving endorsement (guarantee) of the GZ. If it is not endorsed, there is no reason to lend KRW 10,000 to 10,000 if it is not endorsed.” (P record 8-10, the evidence record).

3) Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged as a result of the instant trial, even if the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant operates the GZ to P, or is in close relation with the president of the GZ,” it is not reasonable doubt that the Defendant had the intent to deceive the Defendant, or that the P has delivered KRW 5 million by mistake due to the Defendant’s speech. It is insufficient to deem that the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to repay KRW 5 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A) The motive for P to meet the Defendant was rather than due to the specific purpose of the endorsement of the bill of exchange. Since P had a high-level evaluation of the Defendant at ordinary times, there is a possibility that the Defendant extended money to the Defendant with a vague expectation that he would be able to receive endorsement of the bill in the name of the GZ or HA, by evaluating the horses with respect to GZ or HA.

(1) P came to know of the Defendant while living in the Seoul detention center or the Ansan Prison in around 2005. He heard from HC that the Defendant released from prison on December 2, 2012. On April 2013, 2013, P made contact with the Defendant first (P. recording No. 8, 18, BF recording No. 11, 21, 21, 24);

P made a statement to the effect that "The defendant was aware that he was engaged in a normal business in the course of operating three listed companies." The defendant was well aware that he was a person who operated a normal business in the course of operating three listed companies. There was no time to talk about only a few times, and the prison did not have any time to talk about the defendant." (P record No. 18-19), and BF also made a statement to the effect that "P was flick," and "P was flickly friendly with the defendant, as well as the defendant and the Ansan prison." While in the prison, P also introduced the statement to the effect that "P was an excellent kind of friendship to take over two listed companies." A company was aware that the defendant was a person who has a considerable ability. It was basically a few hundred million won (No. 44, BF record No. 11)."

(2) It is somewhat unclear that the defendant's introduction of P or himself could have distortedly expressed the influence over the GZ or the pro ratas with the HA (one sphere 70-72, two sphere 11): Provided, That the PP statement about its content is somewhat unclear, such as "the defendant was the chairperson of the GZ," "the defendant was operating the GZ jointly with the HA," "the chairperson of the GZ," "the HA, who was the chairperson of the HA, was in charge of the operation of the company," and "the HA, who was in charge of the operation of the company, has been in charge of the defendant (2 sphere 8-12, four sphere 6,33 pages, P recording 9-10 pages).

(3) Rather, even according to P’s statement, the Defendant was only aware that it was difficult for him to live in the first time when he met. The Defendant was merely aware that he was in need of money (No. 10, No. 4, No. 6, 33, P Recording No. 1-2, No. 8-9).

(4) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, P was believed to have been able to obtain endorsement of the GZ, which is the listed company in the bill, and was asked the Defendant whether the Defendant would be able to receive the endorsement of the GZ first at the time of the second arrival (P record 9 pages).

(5) At the time when the Defendant lent money to P, it is unclear whether P was prior to the receipt of a bill’s endorsement, and whether it was subsequent to the Defendant’s statement alone (P record 8-10 pages). Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant received the bill’s endorsement from the old room. In other words, the quid pro quo relationship between the above five million won and the endorsement of the bill is unclear.

B) It is not specific whether the Defendant has made an endorsement on any bill of exchange, in any manner and condition, and whether the Defendant has made an endorsement. The GZ did not provide any benefits to be received in return for an endorsement (P Recording 9-10 pages 9-10 of the P Recording);

C) There is no evidence to acknowledge whether the Defendant did not have the ability to accept endorsement in the name of the GZ.

(1) At the time of April 2013, it is difficult to find out what status the HA had been in the position at the time. HA had not been registered as a representative director of the GZ, but had been served as an outside director.

(2) It appears that HA had a fact that P, B, etc. were met in accompanying the Defendant (Nos. 2, 45-46, BF transcript 6).

D) Meanwhile, there may be room to view that the Defendant repaid KRW 5 million to P. The Defendant wired KRW 1 million to P on April 18, 2013, and KRW 20 million on April 21, 2013, as well as remitting KRW 20 million to P on November 21, 2013 (one right 89-180,), which is assessed as the Defendant’s repayment of the Defendant’s obligation to P, and is likely to include KRW 5 million in the above repayment amount.

Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant had no intent and ability to repay five million won as stated in the facts charged at the time of borrowing five million won from P as stated in the facts charged. The same shall also apply even if the Defendant borrowed additional money from P.

3) Conclusion

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 Act

B. The part on fraud around April 13, 2013

1) Facts charged

On April 13, 2013, the Defendant stated to the effect that “If the president of the GZ lends the victim KRW 50 million as he/she requires the money, he/she will make a joint payment to the bill, regardless of whether he/she will do so.”

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to make a endorsement in the name of the GZ, or to make a timely repayment of the borrowed money.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained three copies of the cashier’s checks of KRW 10 million from the victim as the borrowed money from the victim.

2) Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged as a result of the instant trial, it is not clear whether P delivered KRW 30 million to the Defendant. There is no reasonable doubt that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the Defendant was unaware of P, or that the Defendant did not have an intent and ability to repay KRW 30 million received from P.

A) The Defendant asserted that, from an investigative agency to this court, the said KRW 30,000,00 was charged by HE for the purpose of paying money borrowed from the investigative agency to HE, or that HE was charged for fraud, and that, if the agreement is not reached, it would be under detention, and thus, the Defendant borrowed money to assist HE (one right 24-25, 74 pages, etc.).

B) On the contrary, there is any difference between the explanation on the background of lending P money.

According to P's statement, it was due to the fact that P proposed the business first.

P Around April 18, 2013, the Defendant took a phone, and “HF took a look at the land from auction to HG in Sungnam-si, the Sinnam-si, and “HF obtained a prior oral approval.” There is a lot of profit to resell the land. It is the same day to resell the land, but it is called “I will give a guarantee or endorsement in the GZ, or will take a joint business.” At the same day on the 20th day of the same day, HF and the Defendant moved in at the above coffee shop. At that day, the Defendant stated that “HF and the Defendant has given a certain amount of money in need of money individually by giving him a full amount of money.” Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 30 million from HF to take a cashier’s check, and stated that the Defendant has a right to record on the PF 13-14, 3000,000, 300,000,000 won.”

In other words, in order to explain the business to the defendant, it is explained that "the defendant requested the loan of funds in the first place, and the HF in the last place was prepared in advance and was delivered again to the defendant." However, it is difficult to obtain such explanation from the defendant.

C) The statement of P and the Defendant is what is. However, there is no circumstance to find out that the P’s statement is more reliable.

(1) P stated that “HF was given KRW 30 million to the Defendant, along with HF, at the place in which HF was present (No. 7 pages). However, the Defendant did not know that the Defendant was HF was at the time when receiving KRW 30 million above, and later stated that “IF was at the time when receiving KRW 30 million, and there was a deficit found while HF filed a complaint for P” (No. 75 pages).

(2) P was lodged a complaint from HF with respect to KRW 30 million (No. 12 & 45 pages). If P was made, the above H H’s business is led by HF. However, as HF filed a complaint except for the Defendant, it is difficult for HF to accept a complaint only by P, with the exception of the Defendant.

D) Meanwhile, P issued KRW 2 million on April 6, 2013, and KRW 3 million on April 11, 2013 to the Defendant, and issued KRW 20 million on and after 2-3 days to the Defendant, and agreed to make an endorsement on a general bill. However, it is difficult to readily believe that the HA Chairperson issued KRW 30 million on the part of the Defendant, reliance on the fact that he/she issued the said KRW 30 million to the Defendant.

3) Conclusion

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

C. The portion by fraud of money received as a preparation of a monthly rent contract around June 29, 2013

1) Facts charged

On May 23, 2013, at the Defendant’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul FK, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant loaned money to the victim in the name of the building manager of the office he rents.” However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to prepare the monthly rent contract or to repay the borrowed money in a timely manner. The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, acquired KRW 9,660,000 in total from May 24 to June 29, 2013 to the new bank account in the name of the said B from May 24, 2013 to June 29, 2013.

2) Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged as the result of the instant trial, there is no reasonable doubt that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove that the Defendant received a remittance of the amount indicated in the facts charged, or did not have the intent to repay the borrowed amount, in return for the preparation of the monthly rent contract as above.

A) The amount that the Defendant received under the pretext of preparing a monthly rent contract from May 24, 2013 to June 29, 2013 is KRW 9,60,00,00 in total, 60,000,000 for the monthly rent contract, KRW 3.1 million on June 3, 2013, KRW 6.67 million, KRW 6.7 billion on June 13, 2013, KRW 6.5 million on June 13, 6.5 million, KRW 6.5 million, KRW 15,000,000 in total, and KRW 60,00 in June 29, 2013 (4No 17-23 pages), however, in light of the period and frequency of remittance, such as KRW 60,00,00 remitted on June 7, 2013, it is difficult to recognize a 'the details of the above monthly rent’ and the above monthly rent.

B) P asserts that, in addition to that, there was a volume of money in cash delivery of KRW 2 million in more than once, a total of eight times remittances under the pretext of making a monthly rent contract. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant also remitted money of KRW 25,00,00 to KRW 19,200,000,000 from April 18, 2013 to November 21, 2013, the amount of money of KRW 1,00,000 to KRW 4,000,000,000,000 to KRW 1,920,000,000,000 is in friendly between 1,89-180,000,000 and 1,000,000 won, if there is no money, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant did not have any intention on the part of the Defendant.

3) Conclusion

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

D. Fraud on June 17, 2013

1) Facts charged

On June 17, 2013, the Defendant: “AL CE representative fails to comply with the promise; I wish to conclude the agreement with the Association of Persons with Disabilities; if I have leased KRW 4 million as the money needs to be paid for the purpose of contract formation, the sum of the amount that has not been repaid is to return KRW 200 million.” However, the Defendant did not have the intention or ability to repay the borrowed money in a timely manner or to return KRW 200 million to the victim. The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, acquired KRW 4,00,000 from the victim to a new bank account in the name of B as of the same day.

2) Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged as the result of the instant trial, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not enough to prove that the Defendant was transferred KRW 4 million under the pretext of promoting the HU contract as above, or that the Defendant was not able to repay the borrowed amount, without any reasonable doubt.

A) The evidence as to this part is that “the Defendant” entered into HJ contract and borrowed KRW 300 million from the investor. However, there is only a P statement that “When intending to engage in the contract, 400,000 won is required.” However, in addition to the above loan circumstances, P made a request for submission by the Defendant by stating that “the Defendant was detained and tried, and that 30,000,000 won would be avoided,” and even if 4,000,000 won would be loaned, the Defendant would have borrowed KRW 20,000,000,000,000 won, which was later later than 4,000,000 won.” This was a statement made by an investigation agency, which was not erroneous, and the circumstances leading up to the loan of money could not be known.

B) The Defendant asserts that the above KRW 4 million was paid for the acquisition price of AL or the expenses necessary therefor. According to the BE’s statement, the negotiations on the AL underwriting agreement were extended until the end of May 2013 (BE recording Nos. 3).

C) Furthermore, as seen in the preceding C. 2, P alleged that the monthly rent contract was prepared from May 24, 2013 to June 29, 2013, 1,660,000 won were transferred to the said bank account under the said B, and among them, the said amount includes KRW 4 million remitted on May 24, 2013, and KRW 3.1 million remitted on June 2, 2013, and KRW 2 million for which the date of remittance cannot be known. It is doubtful whether each of the above details of remittance, which is adjacent to the time, can be distinguished from this part of this Act.

D) There is room to view that the Defendant repaid KRW 4 million from P. P. P. P. The P stated that “the amount of KRW 2 million of KRW 4 million has been received” (P record 7 pages), other than that, the details that the Defendant remitted a total of KRW 15 million to P even after June 17, 2013 (i.e., right 89-180, page 89-180, page 1). It is likely that the said KRW 4 million has been included in the above repayment amount.

3) Conclusion

The facts charged in this part fall under the case where there is no proof of crime, and thus the innocence is pronounced under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

5. [2016 Height11] Fraudulent part against Defendant A’s N

A. Facts charged

around July 24, 2014, the Defendant shown that, at the office of a certified judicial scrivener operated by the victim in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the victim "HL", "HM corporation," "HN corporation," "HP corporation," "H Q corporation," "HP corporation," "the transferee of the above three companies," "the transferee of the HR shares of 8,220,281 shares," "the transferee of the HR shares of 8,20,281 shares of HR to 13 billion won (if each company is named separately, "stock corporation" is omitted)," "The acquisition limit and transfer contract will be 00,000,000 won for the acquisition of HR listed on the KOSDAQ, which will be 0,000 won per share, and if so, 00,000 won per share, 00,000 won per 15,000,000 won per share.

However, in fact, the above share acquisition agreement was already terminated on June 27, 2014 on the ground that the transferee company did not pay any balance to the transferee company, and there was no fact that the Defendant entered into a contract with the transferee to take over the shares again, and the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to transfer the shares 31,000 shares to KRW 1,515 won per share.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, wired the victim to a new bank account in the name of HR stock transfer proceeds, KRW 20 million on July 25, 2014, KRW 20 million on July 29, 2014, KRW 50 million on July 30, 2014, and KRW 50 million on July 30, 2014, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

B. Circumstances suspected of being guilty

1) The Defendant, around July 24, 2014, indicated that “A transferee company will take over shares of HR 8,220,281 shares from the transferor company in KRW 13 billion,” and received the remittance of KRW 50 million (20-16 and 30 pages of evidence No. 2016 and 4 of record No. N record).

2) On June 12, 2014, between the transferor company and the transferee company, the transfer of HR shares at KRW 8,200,281 (hereinafter “HR shares”) is to be made. The down payment of KRW 1.5 billion was concluded on June 12, 2014; and the payment of remainder was made on June 19, 2014; and the payment of remainder was postponed until June 26, 2014; and the contract was terminated on June 27, 2014 (70, 99-102).

C. Determination

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances recognized as the result of the instant trial, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to transfer HR shares to N.

1) The actual operator of HL drafted a “joint management agreement” on July 8, 2014, stating that the HL and HN jointly take over the management rights of the HR and will jointly manage the HR in the future (section 68), and the transferee companies, including the above two companies, entered into a contract on July 27, 2014 (hereinafter “the first stock acquisition agreement”) with the transferor, namely, the company, on June 27, 2014, with the same content as the contract terminated on June 27, 2014 (hereinafter “the second stock acquisition agreement”). The second stock acquisition agreement was written on July 1, 2014, and the second stock acquisition agreement was written on July 2014, and the remainder payment was not made on July 2014.

(12-16 pages)

2) The HS entered into a contract on September 2, 2014 through HT (hereinafter referred to as “HT”) for acquisition of shares of KRW 5,770,281 from the transferor company at KRW 8.7 billion (hereinafter referred to as “third share acquisition contract”). Under the above contract, HT was fully paid on September 4, 2014 and became the largest shareholder of HR on the same day (hereinafter referred to as “CP 2-3 pages, etc.”).

3) The HS decided to transfer HR shares equivalent to the above amount by August 1, 2014, in consideration of the fact that the Defendant received a total of KRW 500 million from the Defendant, including HR acquisition funds, from June 2014. In fact, the HS stated that the 100,000 shares were given to CV, and that it was known that it was a frying against the Defendant (No. 3-4 of the HS record), and that CV, which arranged for the Defendant to take part in HR joint acceptance from the HS and the HS, attempted to deliver the TR shares received from the HS to the Defendant, but it was impossible to keep contact with the Defendant as the contact was closed (CV record 4-5, 912 pages).

4) The HS was nominated on May 28, 2014 as fraud (103-106 pages), which was set aside around August 2014 (section 5 of the HS, page 5 of the CV record), and which was “unfulfillment of implementation of N and commitments due to the locking of the HS,” is consistent with the Defendant’s consistent statement from the investigative authority.

5) It is recognized that the Defendant gave an explanation to some extent of the circumstances such as N’s above. The N showed that “the Defendant had been well aware of the contract previously concluded,” and that “the Defendant became well aware at this time,” and that the contract for acquisition of shares was also shown. However, on August 1, 2014 of the promise, the Defendant asked not to grant shares, and even on August 1, 2014, the Defendant asked that “the Defendant would not receive shares from the person to receive shares,” and that “the Defendant would receive shares from the said person.” After the price drop, the Defendant stated that “after the price drop, it would be appropriate for the Defendant to make settlement in cash without giving shares as agreed.”

(N Recording No. 3-6 pages) also conforms to the defendant's statement.

6) The facts charged are premised on the fact that even though the assignee company had already terminated the contract to acquire the HR shares from the transferor company, the Defendant presented the share acquisition agreement to N as if the said contract was effective, and otherwise there was no way for the Defendant to secure the HR shares and transfer them to N.

However, as seen earlier, a contract terminated on June 27, 2014 was also the first share acquisition contract concluded on June 12, 2014, which was concluded by the Defendant on June 12, 2014, and the second share acquisition contract that was concluded on July 11, 2014, which was concluded by the Defendant to N was also the second share acquisition contract that was concluded on July 11, 2014. The Defendant was the subject of the transfer of HR shares from the HS, and the HS was also the third share acquisition through the third share acquisition. It is recognized that the Defendant was not entitled to HR shares because of the other cases in the HS. NN was aware of the fact that the contract was terminated once, and the Defendant did not think that the Defendant was obligated to perform the obligation in kind only.

D. Conclusion

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

6. [[2016 Gohap110] Fraudulent part against Defendant A 0

A. Facts charged

On August 28, 2014, the Defendant owned the past savings bank to the victim running the FS corporation (hereinafter referred to as “FS”) at the coffee shop near Gangnam-gu Seoul on August 28, 2014. Also, as if the Defendant had operated two listed companies, the Defendant stated that “FS would transfer the amount of KRW 100 million at the face value of KRW 95 million at the face of the issuance of the electronic bill with HV, which is the cooperation company of Korea, as the addressee.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to lend funds at a discount even if he received an electronic bill with a face value of KRW 100 million issued by the FS from the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and allowing the victim to issue an electronic bill with the face value of KRW 100 million issued by the light of 15:30 on the same day, and HV as the addressee, acquired profits equivalent to the same amount.

C. Determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances recognized as the result of the instant trial, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to discount the said electronic bill, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

1) On August 2014, theO requested HW to arrange for a discount of KRW 100 million electronic bills issued by FS, while it is difficult to finance the FS’s financial resources that it is its president. HW introduced the Defendant to 0 (No. 1, 1, 33, 107 pages).

2) The Defendant issued the foregoing electronic bill to HX (No. 1: 33 pages). HX asked HV HY to keep the electronic bill (No. 1: 51-54 pages), and the Defendant issued HV HY’s certificate to 0 on August 27, 2014 (No. 1:7 page), and the Defendant stated that HX had the money to receive HX test, and that HX would not offer a discount on the bill, and that HX would not offer a discount on the bill (No. 33:5 page). Meanwhile, HX demanded the payment of discount to HX (the record on September 12, 2016).

3) Recognizing that the bill was not discounted due to the circumstances such as HX, HY, etc. upon which the Defendant requested a bill of exchange, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant received the bill of exchange, despite having predicted such circumstances.

C. Conclusion

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

The presiding judge, Kim Dong-dong,

Judges Powers Presiding Justice

Judges Kim Jae-won

1) The term " February 14, 2012" is written as "2."

2) On November 24, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced 2014Kadan8502 Decided November 24, 2016 to be acquitted of ES. Accordingly, the prosecutor appealed on November 29, 2016 as Seoul Central District Court No. 2016-5099 and is currently pending the appellate court. Meanwhile, ES was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for perjury by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da3357 Decided February 6, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.