In addition, the defendant was well aware that the above E was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment in the first instance under the name of the crime, such as the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and that the above E was concealed in the Hong Kong F, etc., and that C was trying to transfer the above criminal fund from E to B under the pretext that it subrogated the damage amount to D victims.

Around May 5, 2017, the Defendant received instructions from C, and set up the G Corporation to set up a false consulting contract for a person who has subrogated, and submitted it to the financial institution. C from E, around June 5, 2017, to the H Bank I account in the name of the F Company in the name of the K Bank in the name of the F Company in charge of the resolution to set up a false consulting contract.

6. around 29.29. 565,250,000 won, and 3.

7.4.As above, around 568,613,606 won and 4. The same year

7. 20. 234,066,00 won around 20. 5

8. Around 30.30. Around 242,488,000 won, etc., a total of KRW 2,718,812,064 won may be remitted, and the crime of receiving criminal funds of the above C was facilitated by managing the remitted criminal proceeds as above, and by making E’s attorney’s fees, corporate acquisition funds, etc. disbursed with respect to the aforementioned crime.

2. Determination of admissibility of evidence (the interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor against the defendant) is a means to prove the actual authenticity of the interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor, and “the video recording or any other objective method” under Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is sufficient to correspond to the video recording or such video recording produced in accordance with the methods and procedures prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act and the rules on criminal procedure.