A. The Prosecutor’s appeal on the acquittal portion among the judgment of the court below

B. Both appeals against the convictions of Defendant 3 corporation

2. Of the judgment of the court below, the part of conviction against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 is reversed.

3. Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment of three years and fine of two billion won, and by imprisonment of two years and fine of three hundred million won, respectively.

4. If the above fine is not paid, KRW 10,00 won for Defendant 1, KRW 3 million for Defendant 2, and KRW 3 million for the period converted into one day shall be confined in a workhouse, respectively; and

5. As to Defendant 1, 81 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

6. From the date of the conclusion of this judgment, the execution of each sentence of imprisonment shall be suspended for four years for Defendant 1, for three years for Defendant 2, and for three years for Defendant 2.

7. The following facts charged in the instant case are acquitted:

A. Defendant 1, in 1999, evaded corporate tax of KRW 21,428,946 by using the scamers of vehicles and drivers, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 1,457,137,829 won and corporate tax of KRW 21,428,946>

B. Defendant 1, in the year 1998, evaded corporate tax of KRW 34,585,315 with respect to the change of ownership of shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. < Amended by Act No. 270,927,965, Dec. 20, 198; Act No. 3485, Mar. 315

C. On October 27, 1995, Defendant 1 embezzled KRW 406,195,510 as the amount for the second capital increase of Nonindicted Company 1.

D. On January 16, 1998, Defendant 2 embezzled KRW 776,658,195 of the extra-capital invested by a Korean Joseon Shipbuilding on January 16, 199.

Of the facts charged in this case, most of the charges of this case found guilty and found not guilty are likely to have grounds for suspicion of crime. The defense counsel asserts that the investigation and prosecution in this case were made as a policy to suppress (name omitted) the government’s policies on North Korea. However, even so, the prosecution against the charge of crime cannot be deemed as abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution. Even if Defendant 3 Company (hereinafter “Defendant 3”)’s tax payment performance is superior to other media companies, or the investigation and prosecution against the media companies are reduced to the freedom of speech, the prosecution against the charge of crime cannot be deemed as infringing the right to equality or the freedom of press guaranteed by the Constitution.

2. Part concerning the evasion of gift tax

(a) Basic facts

Defendant 3 was accepted by Nonindicted 3 on or around March 193. After Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4 ( May 1954), and Nonindicted 5 ( November 1964), Defendant 1 was appointed as the president of Defendant 3 on March 10, 1993.

The shares of Defendant 3, Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) and Nonindicted Co. 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”) are owned in fact by the KbC day (A. 1) but only part of the shares were owned in the name of the private company, and the remaining shares were trusted in the name of the executive officer, etc. In addition, Defendant 1, who is Defendant 3 president, was responsible for the allocation and management of shares of the private company, and the management of the stock title trust relation (the selection and change of the trustee and the allocation of the number of shares) with respect to the executive officers, etc. was disposed of by Defendant 2 from around 1995 upon the delegation of Defendant 1. When the trustee title trust or the trustee retires and changes the shares, the title trustee prepared a share transfer contract and reported the transfer of shares. Nonindicted Co. 4 or 2) 5 did not delegate any involvement in the management of shares of Nonindicted Co. 1’s business and the private company.

Table 1 attached Table 1 â……………………………………………â…………………………â………………â………â……ââ………â………ââ……………ââââââââââââ…………ââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ

Defendant 3, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2 do not deliver share certificates to all shareholders. Defendant 3 adopted the system of non-ownership of share certificates on or around March 1994 and abolished the already issued share certificates, and if the ownership relationship changes, only the entry in the register of shareholders is changed accordingly. Nonindicted 1, who was established on March 14, 1985, shall recover all the share certificates issued by May 24, 1998, keep them in the depository of the company, and thereafter does not issue the share certificates, and no subsequent issuance of the share certificates is made in the register of shareholders. Nonindicted 2, established on December 21, 1989, without issuing the share certificates from the beginning.

B. The part on Defendant 3’s 65,00 shares

[Criminal facts constituting an offense of the original judgment 2.a. (1)]

(1) Facts of recognition

Table 2 attached Table 2: number of trustees on December 10 through 12, 197, and from December 15, 1997, Non-Indicted 65,000 on December 23, 1997, Non-Indicted 54,000 Shin Young-young on December 23, 1997, which held title trust to the relatives of Defendant 1. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15508, Dec. 30, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 17075, Dec. 30, 1997>

Defendant 1: (a) around December 1997, part of the Defendant 3’s shares owned by Nonindicted 5, which was held by Nonindicted 5, under title trust to friendship-gu as shown in the attached Table 2 ‘Attachment Table 2’. The document was prepared as if the shares were traded in 5,00 won per share, and transferred the shares to the title trustee, but the shares were not received from the title trustee; (b) obtained prior consent from the title trustee, and reported it later to Nonindicted 5. Nonindicted 5 merely stated complaints regarding the said facts that did not report in advance.

Defendant 1’s son, Nonindicted 8, one of the above trustees, was to enter into a matrimonial engagement on January 3, 200 and marriage on May 24, 200. As a result, Nonindicted 19 was placed in a special relationship with Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 8, Defendant 2 obtained Defendant 1’s approval, and Nonindicted 3’s employees, and 65,00 won per share of KRW 785,750,00 per share of KRW 99 on December 14, 199, and subsequently, Nonindicted 8 was to receive KRW 980,00 from Nonindicted 29 on December 18, 199, to return KRW 98,00 to Nonindicted 28,00 on September 29, 209.

Defendant 3’s shareholder registry entered 65,000 shares of this case as owned by Nonindicted 8, and reported such stock change to the tax office. From December 29, 1999, the dividend payment on 65,000 shares of this case was paid to Nonindicted 8. However, it was not reported to the tax office that 65,000 shares of this case was donated to Nonindicted 8.

On October 1, 1999, the 190 million share price of Defendant 3, 190,000, which was donated to Nonindicted 8 on October 1, 199, assessed the value per share of KRW 89,383, and reported and paid KRW 6.5 billion.

(2) Determination

As long as the shares of Defendant 3,65,00, which were owned by Nonindicted 5, were transferred to Nonindicted 8, who was the owner of the instant shares via Nonindicted 19, and Nonindicted 8 is treated as its beneficial shareholder, it is reasonable to deem that the shares of the instant case were donated from Nonindicted 5 to Nonindicted 8. Even if it was not notified at the time of transfer of the name, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1, who was allocated shares of the owner of the instant shares of Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 8, a donee, was a share transfer on behalf of both Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 8.

In addition, Defendant 2 not only prepared a false contract as if Nonindicted 8 acquired 65,00 shares of this case from Nonindicted 19 to 7,500 won per share, but also remitted the acquisition price as if it actually paid, but also reported and paid the transfer income tax on the stock transfer margin of Nonindicted 19 and the gift tax on the transfer price of shares of Nonindicted 8, thereby making it substantially difficult to collect the gift tax on the transfer of shares by actively manipulating as if it was a substantial sale, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 evaded gift tax by fraud or other unlawful act. Since such unlawful act by Defendant 2 was committed by delegation by Defendant 1, Defendant 1 cannot be exempted from liability.

In light of the fact that the value of Defendant 3’s shares donated as of October 1, 1999 is assessed as KRW 89,383 per share and the gift tax is declared and paid, it is deemed appropriate to assess the value per share of 65,000 won per share of the instant shares as of December 14, 1999.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which recognized that Defendant 1 evaded KRW 2,355,414,750 of the gift tax on Defendant 3’s 65,000 shares is justifiable. This part of the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the establishment of a gift contract and the requirements for

B. The part on the shares of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2

[Facts 2.A. (2) and (3) and facts constituting an offense of the original judgment [2.a. (2) and (3)]

(1) According to the delegation by Defendant 1, Defendant 2: (a) prepares a false share transfer/acquisition contract as if Nonindicted 8, 170,000 shares out of the shares of Nonindicted 1, which were trusted in the name of an officer or employee from November 5, 1998 to June 25, 199, as shown in [Attachment 2 (b) and (3) of the judgment of the court below; (b) as if Nonindicted 8, 170,00 shares out of the shares of Nonindicted 1, which were trusted in the name of an officer or employee from November 5, 1998 to June 25, 199, were acquired from the previous name; (c) prepares a false share transfer/acquisition contract (the share purchase price was not received); (d) as shown in [Attachment 4] of the judgment of the court below, as if the shares were transferred from Nonindicted 2, 200 to July 22, 200; and (d) did not transfer/acquisition shares under the name of Nonindicted 700, or transfer shares respectively.

(2) Since the shares held in title by the executives of the company, which were owned by private shares and were transferred to Nonindicted 8 or Nonindicted 7, the ownership of the shares held in title by private shares, was changed to that of Nonindicted 1’s shares, it is reasonable to deem that Nonindicted 8, 166,000 shares were donated to Nonindicted 7, and that Nonindicted 2’s shares were donated to Nonindicted 7, respectively, and that Nonindicted 2’s shares were donated to Nonindicted 7.

① However, when changing the ownership of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2’s shares to Nonindicted 8 or Nonindicted 7 from the nominal trustee’s officers and employees, it is difficult to conclude that, even if the shares were transferred to Nonindicted 8 or Nonindicted 5, Defendant 1 or Nonindicted 5, the real shareholder of the title trustee, was in a way to make a donation to Nonindicted 8 or Nonindicted 7, and did not manipulate as if the actual payment of the acquisition price of shares was made, or as if the actual sale of shares was made. ② The above shares were the shares registered in a title trust before October 1995, and it is difficult to deem that the title truster was in a title trust for the first time planned donation to Nonindicted 8 or Nonindicted 7. ③ In a case where the shares were held in a title trust or the title trustee was changed, ④ it is difficult to establish a form of donation to Nonindicted 8 or Nonindicted 7, the actual shareholder of the title trustee, and it is difficult for the former title trustee, merely because it was a title trustee, to promptly withdraw the shares under the name of the title donee and immediately transfer the shares to the title truster.

Therefore, it is unreasonable for the court below to recognize Defendant 1 to have committed a crime of evading gift tax on the transfer of ownership of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 shares.

3. The part concerning the accounting management of the defendant 3

A. Part on withdrawal and use of welfare expenses

[Criminal facts of the original judgment 1., 2. E., 3. A. and 4.]

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the court below, ① Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 withdrawn KRW 63,5620,000 as if they were to have paid welfare expenses as of January 1 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and then he evaded corporate tax of KRW 177,973,600 on April 7, 1997; ② Defendant 1’s order on December 19, 196 to Defendant 2, as of December 19, 1996, using KRW 1,30,000,000,000,000,000,000 won were embezzled as of KRW 1,562,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and Defendant 1 used KRW 1,50,000,000,000,000.

(2) A specific work process related to withdrawal of funds in the name of welfare expenses was conducted by Defendant 2. However, in light of the following: (i) Defendant 1’s hearing the necessity of the capital increase from Nonindicted 27, the president of Nonindicted 13, and directed Defendant 2 to help Defendant 2 to increase the capital; (ii) the cause of withdrawal of funds in the name of welfare expenses appears to have been aimed at raising the amount of Nonindicted 13 capital increase by five capital owners; and (iii) Defendant 1 may not be exempted from its liability in view of the fact that the shareholders of the company and the private company did not know the remainder of the amount (i.e., KRW 5., KRW 1,60 million out of the amount of capital increase to be paid by the shareholders of the company.

Since the money withdrawn as welfare expenses had been changed into a 100,000 foot check even after the withdrawal, and Nonindicted 28 continued to remain in custody, Defendant 3’s extra loan remains. Specifically, only when Nonindicted 7’s gift tax was paid or paid as the capital increase for a private house and used for personal purposes, it should be deemed that embezzlement was made as much as the amount used.

(3) The defense counsel asserts that, since Defendant 3 paid the transportation expenses for hand-on driving to executive officers from July 1991 to September 195, 195, Defendant 3 withdrawn as welfare expenses in order to repay them with personal funds, there is no direct evidence to determine whether the transportation expenses for hand-on driving by executive officers were paid with the company funds. However, in full view of the statements made by the employees (Nonindicted 30, 31, and 32, etc.) who were in charge of the payment of hand-on driving expenses, it can be acknowledged that the fact that the transportation expenses were paid by the executive officers in the accounting division of the Republic of Korea after the formation of a register stating the person eligible for and the amount of the transportation expenses by hand-on driving expenses by executive officers from the accounting division of the Republic of Korea, and the payment of the transportation expenses by hand-on driving expenses by hand-oning the ledger to the company (the person who performed the ordinary business affairs of Defendant 3).

B. The part concerning the use of vehicles and driving technicians' certificate

[Facts 1.c., 2.f. and 4.; Not guilty of the original judgment]

The judgment of the court below that acquitted this part is justifiable. The reasons are as stated in detail in the judgment of the court below.

The prosecutor asserts that, as if the non-indicted 5's wife and the non-indicted 1's individual vehicle were the vehicles owned by the defendant 3, the purchase cost and maintenance cost were disbursed at the expense of the company, and that the driver was also paid the expenses for the company's remuneration as if the defendant 3 was the employee of the company. It also argued to the same effect. However, there was a case where the non-indicted 5's complaint against the article and debate of the steering boat was taken place, and there was a case where the non-indicted 5's complaint was taken against the non-indicted 5 and the non-indicted 1's house, and it was difficult to conclude that the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 3's driver were the necessity to be present from March 1, 197 to the non-indicted 3's official auction or the non-indicted 1's official official official and the non-indicted 4's employee's need to be present at the time of the non-indicted 1's temporary retirement.

C. The part concerning the recognized interest and the rejection of the paid interest

본문내 포함된 표 〈별표 3-1〉 직원 대여금 내역 (금액 단위 : 만원) 구분 1996사업년도 1997사업년도 1998사업년도 1999사업년도 대여 회수 잔액 대여 회수 잔액 대여 회수 잔액 대여 회수 잔액 김대중 9,972 2,354 7,618 12,544.742 2,300 10,244.742 13,244.742 816 12,428.742 28,928.742 1,700 27,228.742 공소외 58 2,230 2,230 0 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 김종헌 5,492 2,390 3,102 3,102 1,507 1,595 1,595 1,595 0 ？ ？ ？ 박금자 5,220 1,096 4,124 4,124 1,169 2,955 2,955 874 2,081 2,081 986 1,095 공소외 57 1,521 1,004 517 517 517 0 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 백상호 2,815 828 1,987 2,087 914 1,173 1,173 695 478 478 478 0 송형목 1,506 1,506 0 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 안철환 3,467 1,138 2,329 2,329 1,211 1,118 1,118 1,118 0 ？ ？ ？ 이상덕 3,386 933 2,453 2,453 2,453 0 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 한덕희 4,436 1,092 3,344 3,344 3,344 0 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 홍형강 1,922 1,136 786 786 786 0 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 합계 ？ ？ 26,260 ？ ？ 170,85.742 ？ ？ 14,987.742 ？ ？ 28,323.742

[Criminal facts of the original judgment 3.ma and 4.]

(1) Defendant 3 lent 8,077 pages to the employee as shown in attached Table 3-1, to the employee as in attached Table 3-1, and paid 400 million won from before 1996 to the non-indicted 1 as advance payment, and additionally paid 250 million won on November 6, 1998.

The amount of interest recognized to be added to taxable income pursuant to Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 87 (1) 3, Article 88 (1) 6, and Article 89 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act on the above employee loan and the advance payment of non-indicted 1 as deductible expenses from among the interest recognized to be added to taxable income and the interest paid on the loan of a financial institution pursuant to Article 28 (1) 4 (b) of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is as shown in attached Table 3-2>

Table 3-2, attached Table 3-2, included in the main sentence of the attached Table 3-2, and the advance payment of non-indicted 1, as a result of recognition of business year of 1996 40,769, 420 48,131,506 68,859,058 44,172,795 197 26,672,631,631 48,630,000,5656,562,774,7436,745,919827,946,474,474,791,7967,847,9637,47,492, 1993, 3084, 957, 974, 975, 197, 197, 194, 1957, 194

Defendant 2 filed a report on the tax base and amount of corporate tax for each business year of Defendant 3 with his employees, and even if he did not receive the above employee loan and advance payment, Defendant 2 did not submit a statement of tax settlement concerning the amount of employee loan and advance payment at the end of each year as if he received the full amount of the employee loan and advance payment again at the beginning of each year.

(2) According to Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, Articles 87(1)3, 88(1)6, and 89(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where it is deemed that the tax burden has been unjustly reduced by lending the money to a person with special interest, such as an officer or employee, etc., without any interest income, the amount equivalent to the interest rate on a deposit in a commercial bank is added to the company’s taxable income regardless of whether or not the interest income actually accrues. Furthermore, according to Article 28(1)4(b) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree, and Article 28 of the Enforcement Rule, where a corporation borrowed money from a financial institution to a specially related person without any connection with the corporation’s business, the interest paid should not be recognized as deductible expenses in proportion to the ratio of the provisional payment out of the total amount of the interest paid on the loan to the officer or employee and the advance payment on the non-indicted 1, thereby manipulatinging corporate tax every year.

Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that any person who evades a tax by fraud or other wrongful acts shall be punished for the crime of evading a tax, and Article 9-2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act provides that any amount arising from a difference between the tax accounting and corporate accounting in determining the amount of income under the Act shall not be deemed the amount of income arising from such fraudulent or other unlawful acts. Article 9-2 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that where a faithful return is made in accordance with the corporate accounting principles, the difference between the corporate accounting and the tax accounting shall not be deemed the amount of income resulting from such fraudulent or other unlawful acts even if the difference between the corporate accounting and the tax accounting is made in the taxable income due to such fraudulent or other unlawful acts. The purport of Article 9-2 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is not to actively manipulate the accounting documents in order to conceal the illegal acts and exclude the difference arising from such difference from the corporate accounting and tax accounting (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do

Although the defense counsel asserts that advance payment made to Nonindicted 1 is related to Defendant 3’s business, it is reasonable to view that it is a loan that Defendant 3 provided as non-indicted 1 in a special relationship with the non-indicted 1 in light of the fact that there is a large amount of advance payment and Defendant 3 provided for a long period of time without offsetting the printing payment made to Nonindicted 1.

In addition, Defendant 3’s defense counsel asserts that only the portion corresponding to the period in which the loan on the account book was settled shall be deemed tax evasion. However, Defendant 2 declared corporate tax that the loan itself does not exist, not only did it were omitted, but also did not exist, since this portion of the claim is without merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of corporate tax evasion is justifiable.

D. The most recent portion of the advertising fee refund and debt repayment.

[Criminal facts of the original judgment 3.c., 3.d. and 4.]

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the facts constituting the crime in this part of the judgment below can be sufficiently recognized. Even if the amount of credit purchase was not actually disbursed, the amount of credit purchase or the amount of unpaid deposit increased Defendant 3’s deductible expenses by preparing a false statement as if the amount of credit purchase was refunded, and thus, it constitutes a case where corporate tax was evaded due to fraud or other unlawful act.

Even if Defendant 2 withdrawn from the beginning to use it for the purpose of the company, and actually paid incentives and rewards to reporters, the establishment of the crime does not interfere with the establishment of the crime. Moreover, it is deemed that Defendant 2 reduced taxable income in the business year in which the accounting was conducted as if the instant non-verification deposit or credit purchase amount was paid. Therefore, the exclusion period under the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be deemed to have expired.

As to this part, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 guilty is justifiable.

4. The part concerning the embezzlement of foreign funds;

A. The amount of Nonindicted Party 1’s second and third capital increase and the portion used as acquisition tax for oligopolistic shareholders

(1) The second capital increase by Nonindicted Party 1

[Facts 2.B., 2.B. of the original judgment]

(A) Facts of recognition

After Nonindicted Party 1 increased the first capital of KRW 600 million for the relocation of a factory on May 16, 1994, Nonindicted Party 1 increased the second capital of KRW 900 million for the repayment of bank obligations on October 27, 1995.

The president of Nonindicted 1’s president, Nonindicted 36, from April 1993 to July 1993, received the total amount of KRW 1,551,345,126, as shown in attached Table 4-1> among Defendant 3 re-director Nonindicted 37, from April 1993 to July 1993, and accounts as a deposit for capital increase, and keeps it in the deposit account of Nonindicted 1, who used KRW 60 million as a deposit for capital increase.

Of the secondary capital increase amounting to KRW 90,000, 493,80,804,490 was paid for dividends to shareholders on August 18, 1995. The remaining KRW 406,195, and 510 was paid in the name of 23 persons, including Nonindicted 5, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 38 (President 2), and Nonindicted 39 (President 12), out of the balance of deposit deposits in Chapter 15 of the CD 15. Of that, Nonindicted 5, Defendant 10, and the remainder are the substantial shareholders of Nonindicted 5, and are executives and employees of the affiliate president or Defendant 3, and all of the other persons are the shareholders.

(B) Determination

본문내 포함된 표 〈별표 4-1〉 공소외 37이 공소외 36에게 준 CD 15장 내역과 원천 구분 CD 수령일 금액(원) 자금 원천 ⓐ 1993. 4. 3. ←조선일 5,000만원 ←조선인(92.7.8. 조흥 신당동) ←? 98,532,140 ←조선일 5,000만원 ←조선보(92.7.8. 조흥 신당동) ←? ⓑ 1993. 4. 6. ←안병열 108,826,043원(92.10.8. 국민 개봉동) ←? 217,652,086 ←염홍주 108,826,043원(92.10.8. 국민 개봉동) ←? ⓒ 1993. 4. 8. ←이승호 108,826,033원(92.10.9. 경기은행) ←? 217,652,066 ←이승호 108,826,033원(92.10.9. 경기은행) ←? ⓓ 1993. 6. 17. ←김영환 99,356,780원(92.6.18. 조흥 구의동) ←? 202,702,082 ←김영환 99,356,780원(92.6.18. 조흥 구의동) ←? ⓔ 1993. 6. 19. ←박창국 101,351,041원(93.3.20. 조흥 면목동) ←? 202,702,082 ←박창국 101,351,041원(93.3.20. 조흥 면목동) ←? ⓕ 1993. 6. 20. 202,647,412 ←보람은행 ? ⓖ 1993. 6. 26. 101,351,041 ←김영환 99,356,780원(92.6.26. 조흥 구의동) ←? ⓗ 1993. 7. 7. 101,351,041 ←공소외 52 101,351,041원(93.4.7. 서울 서대문) ←? ⓘ 1993. 7. 12. 206,755,176 ←한일 장안동 ? 합계 1,551,345,126 〈비고〉 ⓑⓒⓓⓔⓕⓘ는 CD 2장씩임, ?는 그 이상의 추적이 불가능한 부분을 나타냄

(1) In light of the fact that the funds in Chapter 15 of the CD No. 4-1> in the CD No. 15 were managed by Defendant 3’s officers and employees, and was handed over to Nonindicted 1 president before December 14, 1994, the advertising fees for which no receipt was issued could have been created without entering in Defendant 3’s account books. ③ The source funds in Chapter 15 appears to have been managed by Nonindicted 40 auditors, who are officers of Defendant 3, or Defendant 2. The company’s officers and employees or bank bank was managed by the method of time deposit by using the name or virtual name or virtual name, or the bank bank, and the change, deposit and withdrawal of the deposit account was frequently carried out. In light of the fact that there was a large amount of money deposited and cash, one million won check, etc., it is doubtful that the funds in Chapter 4-15 of the annexed Table No. 3 were insufficient to readily conclude that the funds in the account book were collected by Defendant 3.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found Defendant 1 guilty on the ground that Defendant 1 embezzled the above amount of KRW 406,195,510.

(2) The acquisition tax of the oligopolistic shareholder 1 and the third capital increase

[Criminal facts constituting an offense of the original judgment 2.0(1)(2)]

(A) Facts of recognition

After becoming the president of Nonindicted 1 on January 12, 1999, Nonindicted 38 received, managed and used four (4) a deposit passbook in the name of Nonindicted 36, as shown in attached Table 4-2, from Nonindicted 36, who worked as the president from March 14, 1985 from Nonindicted 1, who had been working as the president from March 14, 1985.

Table 4-2 ‘Attachment Table 4-2 ‘The number of bank account numbers classified by Nonindicted 38 and the bank account numbers classified by Nonindicted 38' contained in the main sentence of this Article shall be deposited 500 million won in the name of Nonindicted 38 on February 19, 1999, and 136,73,555 won interest shall be deposited in the former part of Nonindicted 1, 199; 130,000 won of acquisition tax on August 31, 199; 413 billion won of the Dong bank and 40,000 won of the bank account numbers classified by Nonindicted 38; 38 billion won of the bank account numbers; 50,000 won of the bank account numbers; and 136,000,000 won of the interest shall be deposited in the first part of the former part; 36,780,000 won of the new bank account No. 981,980,00 won of the foreign bank.

Around August 1999, when acquisition tax was imposed on four persons, including Nonindicted 5, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 8, including the oligopolistic shareholder, KRW 103,255,040,00 per week 15), Defendant 2, who was in charge of the duty of tax payment of the company owner according to the delegation by Defendant 1, sent the notice to Nonindicted 1 and did not provide necessary funds. Nonindicted 38 made Nonindicted 1’s accounting staff Nonindicted 41 on August 31, 199 to withdraw KRW 130,000,000,000 out of Nonindicted 42 deposits of the company to be established to pay the acquisition tax.

Non-Indicted 1 increased the capital of KRW 1.8 billion on March 17, 200. The amount of the capital increase was paid in the name of 15 persons, including Defendant 1, as shown in the [Attachment 6] judgment of the court below. Among them, Non-Indicted 5, Defendant 1, Non-Indicted 7, and Non-Indicted 80,00 real shareholders, and the rest is the president of the affiliate that lent the name of the shareholder and the executives and employees of Defendant 3.

The shareholders of attached Form 6 of the judgment of the court below did not give the third capital increase to the non-indicted 1. The financial resources of KRW 1.8 billion for the third capital increase are KRW 823 billion for the 3rd capital increase, KRW 870 million for the 823 billion Funds of the 4-2> attached Table 4-2>, and KRW 17 million for other funds of the 870 million. The third capital increase was ordered by the non-indicted 38 to the non-indicted 41 and deposited in the name of the non-indicted 43.

At the presidential election in 1987, Nonindicted 36 created KRW 200 million for the printed materials of a political party that did not receive the receipts. Nonindicted 36 received KRW 500 million from Defendant 3 re-director Nonindicted 37, around 1991 with the company operation funds. The said money was not entered in Nonindicted 1’s account book, and was managed in the name of Nonindicted 36, and was deposited into the passbook in the name of Nonindicted 36. Such money was managed under Nonindicted 41’s order and management. Nonindicted 36 retired from Nonindicted 1 and transferred all the passbooks, seals, etc. of Nonindicted 38, the representative director.

After discussing with Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 38 decided to absorb all the amount of KRW 1.8 billion of the non-indicted 1’s capital acquired from Nonindicted 36 with the capital increase, Nonindicted 38 decided to increase the third capital.

Defendant 1 was known from Nonindicted 36 and Nonindicted 38 that he was aware of the accurate amount before the third capital increase, but he was in charge of managing the extra capital in Nonindicted 1. Defendant 1 reported the issue of purchasing the site of the Bupyeong Factory from Defendant 2 jointly with Defendant 3 and the fact of Nonindicted 1’s third capital increase, but it was not the fact that the private week paid the price for the capital increase.

(B) Determination

Since both the funds of the Korea Trade Commission No. 4-2 and the Korea Trade Commission in the attached Table 4-2 Act are funds of the non-indicted 1, which are the funds of the non-indicted 1 and have been deposited into the bank account in the name of the representative director and managed, it is reasonable to deem that the non-indicted 38, who managed the funds, paid the 1.8 billion won as acquisition tax to the oligopolistic shareholder of the company and paid the 1.8 billion won as the third capital increase for the personal purpose is used for the non-indicted 1. Since the non-indicted 36 was also the management funds of the non-indicted 1, it is also the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's capital increase.

In addition, Nonindicted Party 1 is a family member of a private company, including Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 is in charge of the management of shares and the payment of the capital increase, but not paying the third capital increase, and Nonindicted Party 38 had Nonindicted Party 38 pay the capital increase with Nonindicted Party 1’s extra capital, so Defendant 1 also cannot be exempted from the liability for accomplice.

Although it is recognized that Defendant 1 was not in the position of keeping Nonindicted Party 1’s extra funds in custody in the course of business, the proviso to Article 33 of the Criminal Act is not applicable since it falls under Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Aggravated Punishment, Etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of embezzlement against Defendant 1 as to the acquisition tax of oligopolistic shareholders of KRW 100 million and the third capital increase of KRW 1.8 billion is justifiable.

B. The portion used as the capital increase of Nonindicted Party 2

[Facts 2.D. (1) (2) and facts constituting an offense of the original judgment]

(1) Facts of recognition

Non-Indicted 2 increased the capital of KRW 3 billion on November 10, 1995. Defendant 3 paid KRW 600 million, and KRW 1.21 billion was paid in the name of Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 6, and Defendant 3’s executive officers and employees. The payment of capital increase was made by Defendant 3’s non-indicted 28 according to the delegation by Defendant 1.

The details of the remaining KRW 110,000 and the source of the funds are as shown in attached Table 4-3>, and the payment work was processed in accordance with the orders of Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 28.

A person shall be appointed.

Of the shareholders of attached Table 4-3> among the shareholders in attached Table 4-3>, both the others except Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 7 are those who lend the shareholders’ name. Nonindicted 24 is the president of Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 46 is the managing director (retirement on July 1995), and Nonindicted 47 is the latter. Nonindicted 22 is the director, and Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 50 is the director.

〈별표 4-3〉 ㈀·㈁ 자금은 주19) 공소외 51 · 주20) 공소외 52 명의로 된 CD를 공소외 45이 주21) 공소외 40 의 지시로 공소외 2의 임직원 명의로 실명전환하여 관리하여 온 것이다. ㈂자금은 공소외 2의 정기예금통장( 계좌번호생략)에 입금되어 있던 10억 원이 1990. 5. 11. 인출되어 5,000만 원씩 20계좌로 나뉘어진 것 중의 일부이다. ㈃자금도 그 일부인 것으로 보이나 정확히 알 수 없다. 〈별표 4-3〉 ㈄ 내지 ㈆의 자금은 공소외 40이 관리하다가 공소외 45에게 넘겨주거나 공소외 45가 조성한 공소외 2의 부외자금으로서 공소외 45가 관리하여 온 것으로 보인다. 공소외 45는 공소외 28로부터 ‘경리부장으로 자리를 옮겼으니 천천히 자금을 만들어 회사에서 필요할 때 사용할 수 있도록 하라’는 취지의 지시를 받고 1992년경부터 약 3년간 자금을 조성하다가 공소외 46의 제지로 중단하였다. 부외자금은 주로 거래상대방에게 영수증을 지급하지 않고 회사 장부에 올리지 않거나 허위 지출전표(출장비·발송비 등)를 작성해서 회사 자금을 인출하는 방법으로 조성하였다.

Defendant 2 retired from office around August 1995, and caused Nonindicted 28 to investigate the amount of funds managed by Nonindicted 2. Nonindicted 28 reported the funds in the name of Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 50, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 46, and Nonindicted 47. Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to use such funds as the capital increase amount of Nonindicted 2, such as attached Table 4-3>

Defendant 1 received a report from Defendant 2 to the effect that “Non-Indicted 2 makes a capital increase. Nonindicted 2 is the same as the one in which the money is in a luxed manner,” and gave instructions to “Ehovah”, but did not pay for the capital increase of Non-Indicted 2 including himself (including the part in which the shareholder’s name was trusted).

(2) Determination

Of the money set forth in the attached Table 4-3 â………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted 2’s extra capital was obviously embezzled by using only KRW 150,00,000 of the Defendant’s capital increase as the capital increase of Nonindicted 2 in Saju, while managing it by Nonindicted 45.

As Nonindicted 2 is a family member of a private company including Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 was in charge of the management of shares and the payment of the capital increase, but did not pay Nonindicted 2’s capital increase, and through Defendant 2, Defendant 2, through Nonindicted 2, is required to pay the capital increase by private capital, Defendant 1 may not be exempted from the co-offender’s liability: Provided, That Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have the status of keeping Nonindicted 2’s capital in custody for business purposes, and it is difficult for Defendant 1 to view that Nonindicted 2’s capital is in the status of keeping it in custody for business purposes, it should be punished for the general crime of embezzlement, not for embezzlement, by applying the proviso to

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which found Defendant 1 guilty of KRW 1.5 million out of KRW 1,190,067,122, which was paid as the capital increase of Nonindicted 2, is justifiable, but the part which found Defendant 1 guilty of over KRW 1.50 million is improper.

C. The portion used as the loan repayment fund of Nonindicted 7

[Fact 3.b. Facts constituting an offense of the original judgment; 3.b.)

(1) Facts of recognition

Defendant 2 repaid KRW 878,474,270 in total, of Nonindicted 29 and Nonindicted 54’s loans under the name of Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 54, which he borrowed from Nonindicted 28 on January 16, 198.

Table 574,974,371 won, 574, 974, 371 won, on the account number of Nonindicted 7’s lending institution’s lending of Nonindicted 29 to Nonindicted 303,49,899.

The source of the repayment fund is as shown in the attached Table 4-5 ‘Attachment 4-5 ‘The source of the repayment fund'. From July 4, 1992 to July 14, 1993, KRW 3,082,827,229 have been deposited in the account in the name of Nonindicted 55 ‘the account holder of KRW 455,322,838 has been deposited in the name of Defendant 3, his business partners, or executive officers and employees, such as the performance table 4-5 ‘the attached Table 4-5 â‘, ‘the Minister of Education, Science, and Technology'. The money in the name of Nonindicted 55 ‘the account holder' was divided into several accounts with KRW 30 million to KRW 30,500,000,000 from the account of Nonindicted 55 ‘the National Bank' (the branch omitted) ‘the account holder of Nonindicted 2 â……§§6850,000.

본문내 포함된 표 〈별표 4-5〉 공소외 7 대출금 변제자금의 원천 이영옥(98.1.16.) 776,658,195원 조흥은 (지점생략) ←공소외 28·공소외 57 5억원(92.12.3.) 서울은 (지점생략) ←공소외 55(92.7.4.) 3,082,827,229원 국민은 (지점생략) ⒜거래처 배서 63,663,295원 ⒝임직원 배서 203,788,153원 ⒞회사 배서 187,869,390원 ⒟미상 26억 2,800만 원

(2) Determination

(1) In light of the following facts: (a) the Fund for the I 4-5 (Attachment Table 4-5) Special Act on the Settlement of Accounts, I am endorsed in the name of Defendant 3, his customer, executive officer, and employee; (b) the advertising fee for which no receipt was issued before January 1, 1995, attempted to promote transparency in the revenue of the advertising fee; (c) the KRW 320 million out of the money of Nonindicted 55 account deposited in the account of Nonindicted 56 on July 14, 1993; and (d) the money of Nonindicted 55 account was transferred in the name of Defendant 3 on October 12, 1993; and (e) the money of Nonindicted 3’s executive officer continued to be managed with several accounts or several names.

However, the amount deposited in the account of Nonindicted 5 exceeds 3 billion won. Despite the National Tax Service’s tracking of the financial data, the part revealed as the source of the fund is only 14.77%, and the amount of KRW 3 billion in the account of Nonindicted 55 was deposited from July 4, 1992 to one year. Defendant 3’s private shares acquired KRW 7 billion in bearer bonds of Defendant 3 on December 17, 1986 but received KRW 3 billion in December 1991, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 3 paid KRW 50 billion in promissory notes, which was paid to Nonindicted 5 on December 1998 (i.e., investigation record 1431), and Defendant 20 billion in the account of Defendant 2’s non-indicted 5’s non-indicted 5’s personal loan, on the ground that it is doubtful that Defendant 3’s non-indicted 5’s personal loan was imposed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found Defendant 2 guilty on January 16, 1998 on the ground that Defendant 3 embezzled KRW 776,658,195 as an extra capital of Defendant 3 on January 16, 199.

5. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing on Defendant 3 Company

Considering the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as indicated in the instant case, such as the background of the instant crime, the degree of evaded tax amount, the degree of involvement of corporations, relevant officers and employees, the financial status of the corporation, and the record of tax payment during the period of Defendant 3 Company, the sentence against Defendant 3 Company is deemed appropriate. An appeal by each of the unfair sentencing decisions by Defendant 3 Company and prosecutor is groundless.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion and both appeals against the guilty portion of Defendant 3 corporation are dismissed, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the conviction portion of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided after pleading.

“2. D. The amount of KRW 1.5 million was deposited into the account in the name of Nonindicted Company 2 on January 21, 1994, among the fixed time deposit amount of KRW 1.00 million deposited in the name of Nonindicted Company 2. The funds was kept in the name of Nonindicted Company 46 on the business by Nonindicted 45 of the Ministry of Accounting and Accounting as a non-indicted 45 of the total amount of capital on November 10, 1995. When the sports coordination team increased the capital of KRW 3.0 billion on November 10, 1995, Defendant 2 instructed Nonindicted 45 with Defendant 1’s consent, etc., and used KRW 1.5 million in total in the name of Defendant 1,64,316 and deposited in Nonindicted Company 46’s name as part of that amount. Accordingly, Defendant 1 embezzled the said KRW 150 million with Defendant 25,545,000,000 won and jointly with Defendant 2.

A. Defendant 1

(1) The point of tax evasion in 197 (No. 1): Article 9(1)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

B. The point of tax evasion in 200: Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 9(1)3 of the Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders Act (or both penalties imposed upon the choice of imprisonment and fines)

Article 356, Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 and the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act (the choice of each imprisonment), respectively, shall be made.

Article 2(c) of the Doll, E, each of the occupational embezzlements of Section 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (excluding Paragraph 2(e) of the market)

B. Defendant 2

Article 8(1)2 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 9(1)3 (Concurrent Imposition of Fines) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (No. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) concerning the tax evasion in 197

B. The point of tax evasion in each of the years 198 through 2000 [Attachment 3(b), (c), and (d) of the date of sales] : The number 2 through 4 of the list of crimes of tax evasion related to false loans: each of Article 9(1)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (each of imprisonment choice)

Article 3.A. A. of the Act on the Business Embezzlement: Articles 356 and 355.1 (Appointment of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 4 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act [In case of Defendant 1, the punishment and punishment for concurrent crimes shall be aggravated to imprisonment with prison labor as provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) concerning the Evasion of Taxes in 2000 with the largest judgment on the punishment and the punishment for concurrent crimes, but each of the fines concurrently imposed on Defendant 2 shall be aggregated, and the punishment for concurrent crimes against Defendant 2 shall be aggravated to imprisonment with prison labor as provided

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Code

1. Attraction in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Calculation in the number of detention days prior to pronouncement of the original judgment (Defendant 1);

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (the defendants);

Article 62 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment)

The defendant, as the representative director of Chosun, evaded gift tax of KRW 2.35 million and corporate tax of KRW 177 million as corporate tax and KRW 177 million as corporate tax, and embezzled KRW 2.57 million in total with capital increase of her and private capital by means of outside-of-the-counter funds, which are affiliated companies, such as Cho Il-ju and Cho Il-ju, and embezzlement of KRW 2.570 million, but the crime is not limited to specific criminal acts with delegation of business affairs to Defendant 2, but is responsible for the criminal acts of Defendant 2, who is a business officer,. The defendant Japan paid large amount of gift tax on the donation of stocks, and the causes for evading gift tax have not been deemed to have been directly evaded. The defendant did not appear to have been directly involved in the creation of the extra capital, and the defendant did not appear to have contributed to the transparency in the accounting of the company after being appointed as the representative director of Chosun Shipbuilding and to have been subject to the improvement of the financial status of the company's affiliated companies or to have more economic losses than the company's affiliated companies of this case.

2. Defendant 2

The defendant actually planned and supervised each of the crimes of this case while serving as the Director General and the Managing Director General of the Korea Shipbuilding, the corporate tax of KRW 430 million is evaded, and the amount of KRW 430 million is found guilty only on the job embezzlement of KRW 43 million out of the extra capital of the Korea Shipbuilding. Defendant 1 et al. al. committed unconstitutionally and unconstitutionally for the first day of the death of the Korea Shipbuilding, Defendant 1 et al., and committed a criminal act, and Defendant 1 et al., made a false list, withdrawn a large amount of money as welfare expenses, and used it for the personal purpose of the private capital, but did not take personal benefits during the course of the crime.

This part of the facts charged are as stated in the judgment below's facts constituting the crime 2.A. (2) and (3) (5 through 7 of the original judgment). However, as examined in the above 2.B., the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as stated in the above facts charged. Therefore, as long as Defendant 1's part concerning the part concerning the part concerning the evasion of gift tax on non-indicted 1 stocks and the part concerning the part concerning the evasion of gift tax on Nos. 1 and 2 of the crime list among the parts concerning the exclusion of the gift tax on sports assistance in Korea and the exclusion of the gift tax on a sports assistance in Korea, the part concerning the corporate tax evasion in 198 and 1999 as well as the part concerning the part concerning the part concerning the part concerning the evasion of gift tax under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act (tax) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the part concerning the part concerning the part concerning the evasion of gift tax No. 3 of the inheritance

2. The portion of corporate tax evasion due to the use of vehicles and driving technicians by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

This part of the facts charged are as stated in the judgment of the court below. However, as seen in the above facts charged, it constitutes a case where there is no evidence of crime as seen in the court below and the above 3.B. Thus, in the case of Defendant 1, the part of the evasion of corporate tax in 1998 (197 business year) and 199 (1998 business year) shall be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, along with the part of the evasion of gift tax on the shares of non-indicted 1 and sports assistance provided by Defendant 1. Meanwhile, in the case of Defendant 1, as long as it is found that Defendant 1 was guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) in relation to each single crime or comprehensive crime against Defendant 2, it shall not be declared not guilty in the judgment of the court below.

3. On October 27, 1995, Defendant 1 embezzled KRW 406,195,510 as the price for the secondary capital increase by Nonindicted 12.

This part of the facts charged is as stated in the facts constituting the crime 2. Na (7-8 of the original judgment) of the judgment of the court below. However, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime as seen in the above 4.A. (1) and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

4. The fact that on November 10, 1995, Defendant 1 embezzled KRW 1,190,067,122 as the price for the increase in sports good

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are as stated in 2. D. (1) and (2) (9-10 pages of the original judgment) of the judgment of the court below. However, as examined in 4. B. of the above facts charged, since the above facts charged exceeds KRW 150 million, there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as it is found guilty of the above part of KRW 150,000,000 in relation to the crime, it shall not be pronounced not guilty separately in the disposition.

5. The fact that Defendant 2 embezzleds KRW 776,658,195 for extra capital of the assistant corporation of the Shipbuilding on January 16, 1998

This part of the facts charged is as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below 3. Na (10-11 of the original judgment). However, as examined in the above 4.C., the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, it is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)

1) A person who is a shareholder of Defendant 3 among the Magazils Day is Nonindicted 4 (before 1998), Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 8, etc., and partially contributed to Nonindicted 4’s shares in this 193 to the Cultural Foundation. He was Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 7 were the shareholders after 1999, and Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11 were the shareholders. Cron who is a shareholder of Nonindicted 2 became Defendant 3, Nonindicted 5, Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 7 became the shareholder from May 1995.

Defendant 2) At the investigative agency around 1990, Defendant 2 considered “B” from Nonindicted 5, the chief executive officer of Defendant 3, at the time of the 1990 investigation agency, to be the president for employment employed by Nonindicted 4. He considered that Defendant 1, the chief executive officer of Nonindicted 4, who was Defendant 4, was in a position to adjust the shares of the private shares, and discussed with Defendant 1 (the investigative record 3,208 pages).

Note 3) (State) Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 were established as an affiliated company of the Defendant 3 before 190, and thereafter, Nonindicted 12 ( February 18, 1994), Nonindicted 13 ( October 2, 1995), Nonindicted 14 ( October 2, 1996), Nonindicted 15 ( August 21, 1997), Nonindicted 16 ( January 3, 2001), Nonindicted 17 ( February 1, 2001), and Nonindicted 18 ( March 27, 2002) were established. The remaining shares of Nonindicted 13, other than Nonindicted 13, are owned by private shares.

Note 4) They had been prior to March 1995 as the shareholder of Nonindicted Party 1.

(5) Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 23, and Nonindicted 24 have been entrusted with the title of shares from the time of the establishment of Nonindicted 2.

6) A total of KRW 190,650,000 as entertainment expenses were also withdrawn in the same manner at the same time. This part was also prosecuted with the amount of welfare expenses withdrawn on August 26, 2002.

Defendant 3’s business year is from January 1 to December 31 each year, and the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax must be reported within three months from the end of the business year (Article 60(1) of the Corporate Tax Act).

8) The amount so withdrawn was changed to 8,210,000 won’s cashier’s checks, which was kept by Nonindicted 28, Defendant 3, and Nonindicted 28.

9) The capital increase in the DNA molded Shipbuilding was KRW 9.18 million. Defendant 3 paid KRW 3.78 billion, and Defendant 1, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 25, Nonparty 21, Nonparty 26 paid KRW 1.88 million in the name of five members, including Defendant 1, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 25, Nonparty 21, and Nonparty 26, and among them, Defendant 1 raised KRW 5.6 million as personal funds.

Note 10) This gift tax is KRW 593,743,00,000,00 in five installments, among the gift tax on Defendant 3’s 88,000 shares that Nonindicted Party 5 donated to Nonindicted Party 7 on June 30, 1992. Nonindicted Party 7 paid KRW 50,000 and KRW 937,00,000,000,000. Of these, Nonindicted Party 7 was paid as KRW 50,000 borrowed from Nonindicted Party 29 and KRW 1,00,000,000,000.

(11) Defendant 2 received a certificate of deposit equivalent to KRW 560,000 from Defendant 1, and gave Defendant 3 to Nonindicted 28, who received the certificate of deposit equivalent to KRW 560,000 from Defendant 1, thereby allowing Defendant 2 to pay

Note 12) Defense Counsel emphasizes the relevance and necessity of the instant advance payment. Since daily newspapers need to be promptly printed, Defendant 3 is always required to grant advance payment to Nonindicted 1, who is in charge of printing the said advance payment, a daily newspaper, and to prepare for printing, such as the purchase of printing paper.

Note 13) In this case, the tax authorities also discovered the case of loans to Nonindicted 13, but excluded Defendant 3’s computer-related service cost offset and excluded it from the evaded amount.

Note 14) From January 195, Defendant 3 enacted and implemented a “tax invoice rule” with the content that the receipt shall be issued 100% for all advertising fees received.

Note 15) The shares of Nonindicted Party 1, which were title trust, are transferred from November 1, 1998 to June 1, 1999 to Nonindicted Party 7 and Nonindicted Party 8 as shown in [Attachment 2] and (3) of the judgment of the court below, and the share ratio of the specially related person becomes 72.11% and imposed pursuant to Article 105(2) of the Local Tax Act.

Note 16) It is not clear whether the said money is Defendant 3’s extra capital or private capital. The said money is the extra capital owned by Nonindicted 1 and was managed by Nonindicted 36, while Nonindicted 36 managed, it was increased to the KRW 4-2 of the attached Table 4-2.

around June 192, 192, Nonindicted 41 entered Nonindicted 1 as an ordinary member and worked in the accounting department, and worked as the director in charge of accounting from March 1999.

Note 18) Nonindicted 45 served as Defendant 3’s vice head, and served as Nonindicted 2’s director from April 1990 to February 2001.

19) Nonindicted 51 was the deaf father who had resided only in the Chungcheong Gongju after birth and was unaware of the fact that the passbook was opened in his own name.

(20) On January 6, 1993, upon Nonindicted 28’s order from Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 28 purchased CDs with Nonindicted 52’s account, Nonindicted 53, the birth denial of Nonindicted 53. Nonindicted 28 was known to the said money as Nonindicted 2’s side capital (hereinafter “Investigative Records No. 13”), Nonindicted 52 had never been in the Republic of Korea since this was in the Republic of Korea to Australia around 1975.

Note 21) Nonindicted 40 was concurrently serving as Defendant 3’s auditor and Nonindicted 2’s auditor.

Note 22) Defendant 2 asserts that the money from Nonindicted 40 to Nonindicted 55’s account was the personal funds of private capital.

Note 23) The repayment was made on December 12, 1991 3 billion won, and the repayment was made on December 1996 4 billion won, which interest is 4.5 billion won.