Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, by a fine of 60,000,000 won, and by imprisonment for a period of eight months, respectively.

When Defendant 1 does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day.

As regards Defendant 1, 175 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 170 days shall be included in the above imprisonment.

However, the execution of a sentence against Defendant 2 shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Seven copies of each export agency contract for the export paper, the certificate of deposit of the export price, shall be confiscated by the defendant 1.

50,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 2.

Defendant 1’s charge of aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting a violation of the Petroleum Business Act, the fact of each crime listed in the attached Table 4 from among the events of forged official documents, and the uttering of falsified investigation documents, and the fact of granting KRW 200,000 to Defendant 2 on February 23, 1978, and the fact of offering of bribe.

Defendant 2’s charge of the acceptance of bribe of KRW 200,00 from Defendant 1 on February 23, 1978, and the charge of the good offices accepted acceptance of bribe of KRW 200,000 from Defendant 2 is not guilty.

Defendant 1’s dismissal of prosecution against the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

However, the judgment of the court below ex officio prior to the determination on the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of law by a judge (name omitted) who did not participate in the deliberation at the time of the closing of argument, and in the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with respect to the illegal refund of value-added tax in 1978 against Defendant 1, and there is no accusation by the tax office in the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with respect to the illegal refund of value-added tax in 1978.

Since these illegality has influenced the judgment, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the judgment shall be ruled again in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Defendant 1:

(1) On August 10, 1978, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 4 were listed in the name of 6 U.S. customs office at the Busan BY 1 and the name of 6 U.S. customs office at the end of Busan 7 U.S. office, and the name of 10 U.S. office at the end of 6 U.S. office at the end of 10 U.S. office (the name of 6 U.S. office at the end of 10 U.S. office) and the name of 6 U.S. office at the end of 7 U.S. office, and the name of 6 U.S. office at the end of 8 U.S. office at the end of 6 U.S. office at the end of 7 U.S. office, and the export declaration at the end of 10 U.S. office at the end of 6 U.S. office at the end of 7 U.S. office, the export declaration at the end of 36 U.S. office.

B. Upon receipt of the original or electronic copy of the above documents forged by Nonindicted Party 1, each of the above documents and private documents forged by submitting them to the public official in charge of the revenue and expenditure officer for refund of value-added tax (if a copy is submitted, it shall be deemed that the original is used at that time) to each of the above documents, as described in the attached Table 1-3 (10) through (11), 17 through 20, 4-2 (22) through 7-4;

C. At around November 15, 1978, the Export Promotion Department of the Jeonnam-do Office applied for the certification of the actual cost required for raw materials by an end-user, such as lead company and Saturdays, a staff member in charge of issuing the certificate, by deceiving the above defendant 2, etc. to submit a forged export paper, export agency contract and export price deposit certificate as shown in attached Table 1 to the non-indicted 6 corporation located in Incheon City, along with a copy of the forged export paper, export agency contract, and export price deposit certificate, and submitted it to the non-indicted 6 corporation located in Incheon, as stated in attached Table 2, and had the staff in charge of the non-indicted 7 receive payment from the non-indicted 6 corporation after putting the defendant to the end-user of the raw materials for export, and received the payment from the non-indicted 6 company, and received the payment from the non-indicted 7, as shown in attached Table 2. The total amount of the purchase price of the raw materials from January 6, 1979 to 198.

D. At around 10:00 on August 21, 1978, Defendant 2, who is in charge of promoting the export of the Jeonnam-do Office and issuing a certificate of actual user of raw materials at the Jeonnam-do retail shop in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, requested that he promptly issue 150,000 won to the relevant Defendant at the request of an actual consumer for the delivery of raw materials for export as required for the manufacture of such materials for export, and delivered 150,000 won to the said Defendant at around 13:00 on September 13, 1978; around 10:00 on November 10, 1978; around 10:00,000 on the same day; and around 0:0,000 on the duties of the public official in Gwangju-do at the office of Jeonju-ro 1, Seoul-do around 12:0 on January 15, 1979; and delivered 10:00,000 won to Gwangju-do 100.

E. Notwithstanding the fact that Nonindicted 8’s office located at the central 400,00 on January 15, 1979 had the head of the tax office 2,764,142 won for the preliminary return of KRW 31,316,140, as stated in the above paragraph (a), to apply for the refund of value-added tax for KRW 2,764,142 for the sales price of KRW 31,31,316,140 for the previous year, together with the original or copy of the export paper, export agency contract, and export payment certificate, which was forged as described in the above paragraph (a), and the head of the tax office received KRW 2,764,142 from the head of the tax office by fraud until November 6, 1980, as stated in the attached Table 3, the amount of value-added tax shall be refunded to him for the year 1979,73,117 won, value-added tax, 1980, 930

F. (1) On November 13, 1979, around 15:00, the Defendant requested the non-indicted 10, who is a staff in charge of the refund of value-added tax from the No. 15:00 on the No. 10s. 15:00 to request that the copy of the export pages, the export agency contract, and the export payment certificate be comparisoned with the original and be refunded as soon as possible after omitting the procedures for comparison with the original from among the documents of refund of value-added tax requested by the Defendant to the non-indicted 10, who is a staff in charge of the refund of value-added tax from the No. 10s. 3

(2) At around 19:00 on May 10, 1980, Nonindicted 11, in charge of the refund of the value-added tax and the value-added tax at the Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si, respectively, deliver a bribe of KRW 200,000,000 to the public official’s duties under the same conditions as the preceding paragraph, and August 10, 1980, respectively, at the Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si Man-si

G. Around 17:00 on August 10, 1980, at the office of Non-Indicted 8 Certified Tax Accountants located in Sinil City, for the purpose of accepting an application for early refund of value-added tax returned by the Defendant to Non-Indicted 9 at the office of Non-Indicted 11 in charge of the said value-added tax and the tax office, which requested Non-Indicted 11 to make it refunded as soon as possible, and at the same time, 300,000 won is delivered as a honorarium provided to Non-Indicted 11 for the purpose of accepting a bribe.

H. The defendant, around November 30, 1980, issued a check number 09373, and the date of issuance on December 31, 1980, in the office of the non-indicted 12 Co., Ltd., a check number 3,00,000 won per share at the face value of the non-indicted 12 Co., Ltd., and the holder of the check presented for payment at the above bank's net point on November 5, 1981, in the name of the non-indicted 12 Co., Ltd., located in the name of the president, and issued a copy of the check at the office of the non-indicted 12 Co., Ltd., a check number 0,000,000 on December 31, 1980.

2. Defendant 2:

On August 21, 1978, 10:00 Gwangju Metropolitan City 10:00 on August 21, 1978, he received 150,000 won or more from the above defendant 1 upon the request of the above defendant 1 to promptly issue a certificate of actual demand for the delivery of the price required for the production of the fishbox as requested by him, and received 50,000 won or more from the time and place specified in paragraph 1(e) of the above 1, and received 500,000 won or more in relation to the public official's duties.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (i) Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted 7, 13, and 14; (ii) Nonindicted 15 mix so-called fake gasoline for sale; (iii) Nonindicted 15 mix it with lead and be sold to customers without knowledge of its circumstances through the gas station operated by him mix it with normal gasoline; (iv) from April 28, 1979 to June 7, 1980; and (v) from January 3, 1980 to January 26, 197, Nonindicted 6 mpiced the 525 dyke and 525 dyke for sale; and (v) Nonindicted 7 mpicing Nonindicted 7 mpics with the name of the 50 mpic and 525 mar for sale by mixing it with that of Nonindicted 15 mpicers; and (v) Nonindicted 50 marc with the 97 mar-18 mnic.

(2) Nonindicted 7, 13, and 14 conspired with Nonindicted 7, 17, and Nonindicted 17, to manufacture so-called fake gasoline and to sell it to its customers by mixing it with normal gasoline, and to commit the crime of Nonindicted 17 with the oil stations it manages, with the intention of committing the crime of Nonindicted 17, from February 1979 to September 25, 1980; the 1,480 dynasium purchased at the oil reservoir of Nonindicted 6 to 70 dynasium 1,480 dynasium 1,480 dynasium and 1,480 dynasium 28 dynasium and 50 dynasium 50 dynasium 70 dynasium 50 dynasium and 70 dynasium dynasium 50 dynasium.

(3) After public tender with Nonindicted 7, 13, and 14, Nonindicted 18 made so-called fake gasoline for the purpose of sale, mixed it with a little amount of sulfur for the purpose of sale, and made it possible for the Defendant to sell it to its customers by mixing it with a gas station it with normal gasoline. From April 28, 1979 to September 25, 1980, the Defendant conspired with Nonindicted 6’s oil reservoir to sell it with a large number of its 1980 dys and 1980 dys and 50 dys and 1980 dys and 50 dys and 197 dys and 50 dys and 50 dys and 50 dys and 50 dys and 50 dys and 50 dys and 175 dys and 31 dys and fys of Seoul.

Therefore, even if the defendant knew that it was used as a raw material to manufacture fake gasoline at the time of sale, it is difficult to view that the defendant had the intention to assist the above crime (the so-called crime of the defendant, which resulted in aiding and abetting the crime, cannot be viewed as realizing the defendant's intention with it).

Ultimately, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Parts of the uttering of forged official documents and private documents;

From August 30, 1978 to October 25, 198, Defendant 1 held 44 copies of the forged export paper export agency contract, export price payment certificate as shown in attached Table 1.(C) of attached Table 1.(C) of attached Table 1 to the indictment from August 30, 1978 to October 25, 1980 in order to purchase a payment letter from Nonindicted Company 6, or receive a refund of value-added tax, Defendant appears to be guilty of each of the facts stated in attached Table 4 of the facts charged that Defendant exercised 44 copies of the above documents. The Defendant stated that most of the above documents were electronically copied, and that they are not originals, and one copy of attached value-added tax return (No. 16 of attached Table 17) may be recognized, and there is no evidence that the above documents were originals.

Therefore, all the above documents that the defendant exercised are not originals but copies electronically copied, and furthermore, in the case of using electronic copies of forged documents, whether the crime of uttering of forged documents is established is considered as the crime of uttering of forged documents. Even if today's copies are distributed in society with considerable credibility, it is not a forged document itself, so it should not be the object of the crime of uttering.

In the same way, the above part of the charges should not be proven for a crime or not be a crime. Thus, not guilty should be pronounced in accordance with Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. The part of the offering of a bribe, the offering of a third party, the offering of a bribe, and the offering of a bribe.

Defendant 1: around 11:30 of February 23, 1978, Defendant 1 made a false statement to the above 20-year police officer, asserting that the above 20-year testimony was not made by the above 10-year police officer, and that the above 200-year testimony was not made by the above 10-year police officer, and that the above 10-year testimony was not made by the defendant 2 to the above 9-year police officer, and that the above 10-year testimony was not made by the defendant 1 to the 19-year police officer, and there was no other evidence that the above 10-year testimony was made by the defendant 2 to the above 9-year police officer, and that the above 1-year testimony was made by the defendant 2 to the above 10-year police officer, and that there was no other evidence that the above 1-year testimony was made by the defendant 30-year police officer, and that the above 2-year testimony was made by the defendant 1 to deliver 30-year 10 or 1000.

In the same way, the facts charged do not have proof of the crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)