(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.3.27. 선고 2013고합1103 판결

When the Defendant came to know that the documents of pre-paid money (tentatively called ‘Masty') granted to workers of entertainment establishments, such as Gangnam-gu entertainment business operators, such as a prompt license and entertainment loan, are used as security at the Korea Savings Bank as a specialized entertainment business loan (tentatively named ‘Masting loan)' and that the loan is easily made if it is offered through D, which is a brorder for providing the loan. In order for E to take over and operate the 'Y' of entertainment tavern operated by the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, it was intended to invite persons to prepare false pre-paid documents and receive a loan from the Korea Savings Bank in the name of H, the business owner of the said establishment, through the above D.

The defendant recruited those who did not work at the above business establishment and did not receive the prepaid money, and applied for a loan under the name of H, a business operator of the above business establishment, by pretending that they are employees, and received the loan by deceiving a person in charge of the Japanese Savings Bank loan. The defendant asked I to ask I to ask for the above entertainment drinking house to request that he be engaged in the business of employees who received the prepaid money in the above entertainment drinking house (the so called "defin"), and asked E to request that he receive a more prepaid payment than the actual prepaid payment. The defendant also recruited the above "b", and the above 1 is recruited "as requested by the defendant, on condition that the above 1 is paid 5 million won per person", and E would have received more prepaid payment than the actual prepaid payment so that the defendant is able to obtain a drinking loan.

On March 18, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around March 18, 2010, the Defendant had 29 total employees, such as J et al., to prepare a document of prepaid amount equivalent to KRW 210,000,000,000 for the total amount of prepaid amount, such as a letter of credit guarantee, power of attorney, etc., and then submitted the document of prepaid amount equivalent to KRW 2210,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

As above, the Defendant, in collusion with E, I, etc., deceivings the person in charge of the victim's Japanese savings bank, and then, by deceiving the person in charge of the victim's Japanese savings bank from the victim's Japanese savings bank on March 18, 2010, KRW 798,328,500 from the victim's Japanese savings bank account under the name of H, and acquired the total amount of KRW 200,000,000 on March 24, 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of the witness N;

1. The entry of witnesses E and 0 in the third protocol of trial;

1. Each police interrogation protocol on P, Q, D, L, and R;

1. Each police statement given to S, H, T, U, V, X, Z, AA, AB, and AC;

1. Investigation reports (Submission cases of entertainment tavern G prepaid documents), investigation reports (Investigation into AD Telephone Communications), investigation reports (Investigation into AE Telephone Communications for Witnesses), investigation reports (Investigation into AE Telephone Communications for Witnesses), investigation reports (Investigation into AF Telephone Communications for Witnesses), investigation reports (Investigation into AH Telephone Communications for Witnesses), investigation reports (Investigation into AH Telephone Communications for Witnesses), investigation reports (Investigation into AH Telephone Communications for Witnesses), investigation reports (Investigation into AH Telephone Communications for Witnesses), investigation reports (Investigation into AJ Telephone Communications for Witnesses), investigation reports (Investigation into AK Telephone Communications for Witnesses), investigation reports, and investigation reports (Investigation into AL Telephone Communications for Witnesses);

1. An application for a loan for payment ( March 18, 2010), a credit transaction agreement, a guarantee agreement, an authentic copy of a notarial deed, a protocol of transactions of ordinary deposits, and a contract for transfer or takeover ( March 15, 2010);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012; Provided, That the upper limit of the punishment shall be governed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010); Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10259)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act)

Application of Statutes

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] 50 million won or more of general fraud, and less than five billion won

[Special Sentencings] Mitigations: Where the victim is fully responsible for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage;

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Extent of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months to 4 years of imprisonment

2. Determination of sentence;

The crime of this case is not a crime in light of the amount of fraud by acquiring a loan equivalent to KRW 1.0 billion in total by submitting false prepaid bank documents to the victim bank, and the criminal act of this case is poor. The damage suffered by the victim bank is not completely recovered, and the defendant has not made any effort to recover damage. The defendant has already been sentenced to imprisonment three times with prison labor due to the same kind of crime.

However, the Defendant reflects the Defendant’s mistake. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, which is a single cause for the deliberation and execution of the non-performing loan and the commission of the victim bank. The defrauded of the instant crime was used as the fund for acquisition of entertainment taverns, which is the original purpose of the loan, and the acquisition of entertainment taverns was not carried out smoothly, and the profits actually acquired by the Defendant do not considerably exceed one billion won, which is the money obtained through

The same sentence as the disposition shall be determined in consideration of all other conditions of sentencing and the circumstances prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.