B. Whether it constitutes an illegal cause that affected the conclusion of the judgment, which separately acquitted part of the facts charged in the ordinary concurrent relation, constitutes an illegal cause.

C. The nature of the crime of taking property in breach of trust in a case where money and valuables are received to the maximum extent permitted simply by the provision (negative)

D. Whether the receipt for export goods is the object of fraud, and even if there was no monetary damage, whether the issuance itself of the receipt alone can be deemed to have caused damage.

(e) Whether an employee of a licensed customs broker who deals with the business of issuing export amnestys can be the principal agent of misappropriation in relation with that licensed customs broker;

F. Whether acceptance of money and valuables at an anti-public place and acceptance of money and valuables are denied for the reason that the amount is a small amount (negative)

B. In a case where a part of the facts charged in the ordinary competitive relation is judged not guilty, it is not necessary to separately indicate them in the text of the judgment, but even if it was indicated in the text of the judgment, it does not constitute an illegal cause affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the first instance judgment maintained by the court below judged that the facts charged in the crime of violating the Trade Act brought against the ordinary competitive relation and the facts charged in the crime of attempted fraud are in a substantive concurrent relation, and thus, the allegation that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of facts charged in the violation

C. The crime of giving and receiving property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act is not established unless an illegal solicitation is accepted between a donor and a purchaser of property or benefits. Since the term “illegal solicitation” refers to a solicitation that goes against social rules or the principle of good faith, if the solicitation is merely a mere fact that the contents of the solicitation merely disrupt the highest preference to the extent permitted, it cannot be deemed as an unlawful solicitation in violation of social rules. Therefore, accepting money and valuables as a case of such solicitation does not constitute a crime of giving and receiving property in breach of trust or a crime of breach of trust.

D. The receipt of the instant export goods is obviously a certificate of non-necessary resolution to be attached to the issuing bank of the local letter of credit opened at the request of the non-indicted company, and it can be deemed that there is economic value and property value. Thus, even if the victim did not actually incur monetary damage due to the delivery of the certificate to the defendant, the victim shall be deemed to have suffered monetary damage. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant provided considerable security to financial damage that may occur to the victim in relation to the delivery of the above receipt of the export goods and did not cause any damage.

(e) If the defendant, as a head of the sales office of the customs office, deals with the affairs of application for issuance requested by the exporter in the name of the licensed customs broker, it shall be limited to a person who deals with another person's affairs as the principal agent of breach of trust in relation to the customs broker;

F. The mere fact that the place of receiving money and valuables related to the duties was open to the public, or that the amount offered by the Defendant compared to the value-added tax amount refunded through the performance of duties by the Nonindicted Party was the small amount, cannot be given a bribe.

65 days of detention prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be included in the original sentence against Defendant 2.

(1) As to the violation of the Trade Act against Defendant 1, 2, and 4

Article 29 subparag. 4 of the Trading Business Act prohibits an exporter or importer from exporting or importing defective goods different from the goods stipulated in the export letters of credit or export contract, which disrupt the order in export or import. Article 33 subparag. 5 of the same Act provides that "export under Article 29 subparag. 4 of the same Act means shipping domestic goods out of the Republic of Korea." However, as the court below duly determines, there was no fact that the goods in the decision that the defendants attempted to export were carried out to a foreign country. However, if the goods arrive at the customs inspection office established at the wharf of Busan Port, which was transported to the second port of Busan for shipping, after search by the investigative agency and the contents were discovered, and the goods were not carried in to the wharf of the bonded area, the defendants' act cannot be seen as having been taken out of the bonded area even if the defendants received the export inspection request by the head of the customs office prior to shipping in a fraudulent manner, and there is no violation of Article 29 subparag. 4 of the same Act concerning the export act. 4 of the same Act.

In addition, it is identical to the theory of lawsuit that it is not necessary to separately indicate the facts charged in the ordinary competitive relation even if some of them are judged not guilty. However, even if it was indicated in the order of judgment, it is not an illegal cause affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the first instance court's judgment maintained by the court below is in a substantive concurrent relationship with the facts charged in the violation of the Trade Act in the theory of lawsuit which was instituted as an ordinary concurrent criminal and the facts charged in the crime of attempted fraud, and thus, the argument that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of facts charged in the violation of the Trade Act, which was acquitted in the order of the facts charged in the violation of the Trade Act, shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal without considering

(2) As to the receipt of property in breach of trust against Defendant 2 and 5 and the receipt of property in breach of trust against Defendant 6:

Article 357 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act provides that an illegal solicitation under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall not be established unless there is an illegal solicitation between a person who provides property or benefits and a person who acquires property. This illegal solicitation refers to a solicitation that goes against social rules or the principle of good faith. Thus, the court below's judgment affirmed that a series of payment guarantee and loans granted three times to an industrial company at the Daegu branch of the Korean Commercial Bank based on adopted evidence confirmed that all were made within the legitimate law, and there was no violation of any provision in its procedure. In light of this, the court below's decision that Defendant 2 and 5 solicited to an industrial company for export support to the ordinary commercial company does not merely go through the contents that the above provision would disrupt the export support to the ordinary commercial company to the maximum extent permitted. Accordingly, the acceptance of money and valuables as such solicitation does not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the rules of evidence, and therefore, the court below's decision is justified.

(3) As to the offering of bribe and acceptance of bribe to Defendant 3 and 7

Examining the original judgment in comparison with the records, the lower court’s ruling maintained the first instance court’s decision that acquitted Defendant 3 on the ground that the entertainment amounting to KRW 20,000 received by the Defendants was delivered and delivered to a close-down relationship, such as the contents of the judgment among them, and that there is no evidence to deem it as being related to Defendant 3’s duties, and there is no error of law in violation of the rule of experience in the process of fact-finding. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

2. Determination on Defendant 2 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

(1) As to the attempted fraud:

In light of the records at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts charged against the defendant at the time of original testimony. According to the records, it is like the theory that the court of first instance tried separately for the case against the defendant and the case against the defendant on the second, third, and fourth trial date. However, since there was no separate deliberation on the case against the defendant on the separate trial date, since there was no separate examination on the case against the defendant on the above trial date, it is reasonable to hold that the defendant's statement related to the facts charged was made on the above trial date, and that there was an error of violation of law by misunderstanding that the defendant's statement deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine was admitted as evidence as evidence of guilt.

In addition, according to the contents and records established by the court below, the receipt of export goods in the name of the Seogyeong Industrial Co., Ltd. in the name of the defendant is a certificate of no necessity to be attached to purchase a bill of exchange issued by the local letter of credit opened at the request of the above company by the non-indicted Industrial Co., Ltd. in the above company to the issuing bank of the above local letter of credit, and it can be seen that there is economic value and property nature to the extent of this. Meanwhile, as long as the property nature of the above receipt of export goods can be recognized, even if the other party delivers it to the defendant and the other party does not incur any real monetary loss, it shall be deemed that the other party suffers any loss by the delivery itself of the receipt. Thus, it shall not be deemed that the defendant provided considerable security to the other party for monetary loss that may occur

Therefore, the court below's decision and the first instance court's decision should be viewed as a crime of attempted fraud, since the defendant deceivings co-defendants of the court below and the first instance court's decision like the original decision and did not achieve the purpose of obtaining a receipt of export goods from the Seocho Industrial Co., Ltd. as stated in its reasoning, and the so-called of the defendant at the time of attempted crime should be regarded as a crime of attempted fraud. Therefore, there is no argument that

(2) As to the receipt of breach of trust:

As determined by the court below, if Defendant 7’s status as the head of the business office of the large-day customs office is a person who deals with the export face-to-face application affairs requested by the exporter in the name of the above Kim Hong-si, the head of the business office of the large-day customs office, and is a person who deals with another’s business, which is the subject of the crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 of the Criminal Act, in relation to the above Kim Hong-si, in relation to the above Kim Hong-si, and the party members cited by the theory of lawsuit are different from the case, and thus, it is not appropriate to this case. Therefore,

(3) As to the offering of a bribe:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the judgment of the court below, the defendant's offering of gold KRW 300,000 and entertainment granted to co-defendants of the court of first instance can be legitimately recognized at the time of the original judgment that they are related to the duties of co-defendants of the court of first instance, such as the contents of the judgment, and the location of receiving money and valuables was contrary to the duty of co-defendants of the court of first instance, and the mere fact that the defendant offered money to Co-defendants of the court of first instance in comparison with the amount of value-added tax refunded through Co-defendants of the court of first instance was small amount cannot be denied.

(4) As to occupational embezzlement:

According to the trial evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below, the criminal facts of occupational embezzlement in the judgment of the defendant can be duly recognized, and there is no illegality in the process of the preparation of evidence, and there is no evidence that the defendant used a promissory note in the original market with the consent of the victim, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is not reasonable to discuss

3. Judgment on Defendant 3’s grounds of appeal

According to the evidence at the time of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, the preparation of a false official document and each crime of the same events against the defendant can be lawfully recognized. The argument that there was no sufficient human resources to confirm the contents of the document daily, making a false document as a result, and that there was no awareness that the purpose of the document was false, and the contents of the document are false, is merely denial of the criminal facts of the defendant who was lawfully recognized by the judgment of the first instance court, and in this case, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case because it merely denies the facts of the crime, and the reason that the relevant provision on the confirmation of goods shipped into or out of the bonded storage site of a customs officer was repealed after this case is not related to the defendant's preparation of a false official document and whether it constitutes a crime of the crime of the

4. Ultimately, the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants and the appeals by Defendants 2 and 3 are without merit. Accordingly, the part of the detention days prior to the judgment is to be included in the original sentence against Defendant 2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)