When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 1 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In regard to Defendant 1, 223 days of detention prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 7 are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 3, the prosecution against the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act against the check number (number 4 omitted) is dismissed.

(a) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice);

Defendant 1 is the actual operator of Defendant 7 corporation in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sungdong (hereinafter omitted).

(1) False tax invoices via Nonindicted Co. 5

Defendant 1, along with Non-Indicted 10, took advantage of the fact that there was a certain export performance with the non-Indicted 10, only the export credit guarantee issued by the Korea Export Insurance Corporation may receive a low interest of trade financing from a foreign exchange bank, even if there is no security, he received a request for a loan from Non-Indicted 6, who was aware of at least October 2007 that he had been operating bedclothes manufacturing business through Non-Indicted 4, and operated the corporation to make the export performance by accepting the corporation and trading a false tax invoice, and thereby, attempted to receive trade financing through this.

Defendant 1, along with the above Nonindicted 10, acquired Nonindicted 6 Co. 7 with the above Nonindicted 10 for the purpose of producing motion pictures on the date of December 2007, and changed the trade name to Nonindicted 5 Co. 3 and changed the purpose of manufacturing bedclothes, etc. on December 20, 207.

On February 19, 2008, Defendant 1 issued and delivered a false zero-rate tax invoice with the above non-indicted 10, 6, together with the above non-indicted 10, 6, and the above non-indicted 7's office on February 19, 2008, notwithstanding the fact that he did not supply the textile, which is the raw materials for export, to the non-indicted 8 Co., Ltd., the defendant 1 issued and delivered a false zero-rate tax invoice with the supply value of 38,640,00 won, and from then to November 25, 2008 as shown in the annexed Table 1.

Defendant 1, along with the above non-indicted 10 and 6, received a false zero-rate tax invoice equivalent to KRW 2,146,039,830 in total from November 26, 2008, as shown in the annexed Table 2, from the time when the above non-indicted 10 and 6 received a false zero-rate tax invoice indicating the value of supply 142,50,000 won, although there was no fact that he was supplied with the fiber-dong (hereinafter referred to as the "4 omitted) office of Gangnam-si (hereinafter referred to as the "non-indicted 5") with the textile goods for export from the non-indicted 9 Co., Ltd.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 did not supply goods or services for profit-making purposes in collusion with Nonindicted 10 and 6, but received or delivered a tax invoice of a total of KRW 4,206,080,890 in total.

(2) False tax invoices through Defendant 7 Company

On April 20, 2007, Defendant 1 issued and delivered a false zero-rate tax invoice equivalent to KRW 3,053,426,050 of the supply value of Chapter 44, as shown in the attached Table 3, from the time on October 28, 2008, even though the fact was not that the textile goods, the raw materials for export, were supplied to the above Defendant 7’s office, together with Nonindicted 10, in spite of the fact that the textile goods, which were the raw materials for export, were supplied to the Defendant 7’s office.

Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 10 on April 5, 2007, was issued a false zero-rate tax invoice equivalent to KRW 3,373,230,000 of the supply value as shown in the attached Table 4, from that time until November 28, 2008, including the issuance of a false zero-rate tax invoice stating the supply value of KRW 60,541,200, although he did not purchase the original team from ○○○ company’s office.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted 10, was issued or received a tax invoice equivalent to the total value of KRW 6,426,656,050 in total, without supplying goods or services for profit-making purposes.

(3) Ultimately, Defendant 1 did not supply goods or services for profit in collusion with Nonindicted 10 and 6, but received a tax invoice in total amount of KRW 10,632,736,940 in total.

(b) Fraud;

Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted Co. 10, received from the Trade Association the certificate of export performance equivalent to USD 270,000 on January 2708, 2008 due to the exchange of false zero-rate tax invoices without real transactions as set forth in the above paragraph (a), or the trading method of foreign exchange with the export declaration certificate, although the above Nonindicted Co. 5 Company exported to a foreign country or supplied raw materials for export to a foreign country.

On April 29, 2008, Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 6, entered into an export credit guarantee agreement of KRW 250 million with the said bank and the said bank and the said bank and the trading credit transaction agreement of KRW 250 million with the said bank, at the Gangnam Branch of Han Bank (the agency entrusted with the issuance of the export insurance contract by the export insurance company) which is the victim in Gangseo-si (hereinafter referred to as “2 omitted), by submitting the above export performance certificate and the false export performance statement to Nonindicted 11, who is an employee of the said bank.

Then, Non-Indicted 6 opened a local letter of credit with the above non-Indicted 12 corporation beneficiary on November 19, 208 under the above credit transaction agreement. Non-Indicted 6 received trade finance by having one bank pay the above 84,856,200 won for goods, and by having one bank pay the above 84,856,200 won to the non-Indicted 5 corporation on November 208, 208, notwithstanding the fact that the non-Indicted 12 corporation was not supplied with an amount equivalent to 84,856,20 won for the raw materials for export from the non-Indicted 12 corporation. On November 19, 2008, the above non-Indicted 6,323,90,900 won for the above non-Indicted 13 corporation on November 20, 208, the above non-Indicted 600 won was provided to the non-Indicted 12 corporation on the basis of the above credit transaction agreement.

As a result, Defendant 1 was delivered KRW 245,311,700 as the price for raw materials for export by deceiving Han Bank, which is the victim, in collusion with Nonindicted 10 and 6.

2. [Attachment 209, 65]

A. Defendant 1

(1) Forgery of an official document

On March 2, 2009, at the office of the above defendant 7 corporation, the defendant 1 forged one driver's license for the non-indicted 1 in the name of the chief of the former North Korean Police Agency, a public document, in a manner that the copy of the driver's license for the non-indicted 1 who was living together without authority for the purpose of exercising the right and the photograph of the defendant 1 prepared for the identification of the non-indicted 1 and the identification of the non-indicted 1 through the non-indicted 1's name and the driver's license-related contents

(2) Use of forged official document

around 11:00 on March 6, 2009, Defendant 1 was investigated by Nonindicted 14 who is a tax official due to the issuance of false tax invoices, suspicion of issuance, etc. at the Seoul Regional Tax Office International Investigation Division 3 located in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Seoul, by presenting the forged driver’s license as shown in the above (1) to Nonindicted 14 who is aware of it, and exercised it.

(3) Forgery of private documents and uttering of private documents

(A) On March 2, 2009, Defendant 1 entered in the International Investigation Division 3 of the above Seoul Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) the fact that Defendant 1 was under investigation with Nonindicted 15, who was a tax official due to the issuance of false tax invoices, suspicion of issuance, etc.; (b) the fact that Defendant 1 did not prepare a product receipt and payment book in Defendant 7’s written form of confirmation without authority for the purpose of exercising as if Nonindicted 1 was Nonindicted 1; and (c) the name column of confirmation; (d) the fact that Defendant 1 was the sole owner of Defendant 7 Company; and (e) the fact that Defendant 1 was the sole owner of Defendant 7 Company; and (e) the name column of confirmation; and (e) the signature of Nonindicted 1’s name on the resident registration number column and forged two copies of confirmation certificate in the name of Nonindicted 1, a private document related to the certificate; and (e) the said Nonindicted 15, who was aware of the fact, submitted it to the said Nonindicted 15 and exercised it.

(B) On March 6, 2009, Defendant 1 was investigated with the International Investigation Division 3 of the above Seoul Regional Tax Office on the grounds of issuance of false tax invoices, suspicion of issuance of false tax invoices, etc., and the fact that Defendant 1 purchased only the original part of the original part of the original part of each customer by using the pen in the written confirmation form without authority for the purpose of exercising as Nonindicted Party 1 and Defendant 1’s name in the confirmation column, and Defendant 1 signed the above Nonindicted Party 1’s name and carried out the confirmation form of Nonindicted Party 1, which is a private document concerning the certificate of fact, signed by the above Nonindicted Party 1, and used it by submitting it to the said Nonindicted Party 15 as genuinely constituted the said written confirmation form.

(C) On March 18, 2009, Defendant 1 was investigated with the International Investigation Division 3 of the above Seoul Regional Tax Office on the grounds of issuance of false tax invoices, suspicion of issuance of false tax invoices, etc., and stated in the letter of confirmation that Defendant 1 made a monetary transaction with the ○○○○○ using the pen on the paper of confirmation without authority for the purpose of exercising as Nonindicted Party 1 and in the letter of confirmation’s name, Defendant 1 signed the above name on the letter of confirmation and forged one copy of the letter of confirmation under the name of Nonindicted Party 1, which is a private document on the certificate of fact, and exercised it by submitting it to the above Nonindicted Party 15, who is unaware of the fact that it was actually formed.

(4) Forgery of private signature, and use of a false investigation or signature

On March 18, 2009, Defendant 1 completed questions and answers due to the issuance of false tax invoices, suspicion of issuing false tax invoices, etc., and entered “Non-Indicted 1” in the column of the written answer without authority for the purpose of exercising the right after inspecting the written answer, and then forged the above Non-Indicted 1’s signature by signing it next to his name and using it. In other words, Defendant 1 submitted the forged written answer to the above Non-Indicted 15 who is unaware of the fact at the seat to the said Non-Indicted 15 as if it was duly formed.

B. Defendant 7 corporation

Defendant 7: (a) on April 20, 207, Defendant 1, an actual operator of Defendant 7’s Co., Ltd., issued and delivered a false zero-rate tax invoice in the supply price of KRW 11,900,000, which was entered in the supply price of KRW 11,900,000, from that time to October 28, 2008, and issued a false zero-rate tax invoice in the amount equivalent to KRW 3,053,426,050, which was entered in the attached list 3 of the crime list 208; and (b) on April 5, 2007, Defendant 7 Co., Ltd. received the supply price of KRW 60,541,200, which was entered in the zero-rate tax invoice from 0,000,000, which was issued from November 28, 2008; and (c) received the false zero-rate tax invoice in the above Defendant 7’s office.

As a result, Defendant 7 Co., Ltd. did not supply goods or services for profit-making purposes by Defendant 1, who was the actual operator of Defendant 7 Co., Ltd., and received a false zero tax invoice of KRW 6,426,656,050 for the business of Defendant 7 Co., Ltd.

3. [Attachment 2009 Highis70]

Defendant 2 is the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 16 and the representative of chip chip, who operates bedclothes and retail business.

Defendant 2 became aware of Defendant 1 through Nonindicted 10 on February 2008, while Defendant 2 had been in need of operating funds due to the default of the business partners, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 had the intention to receive a loan by manipulating the export performance with Nonindicted 10 along with Nonindicted 10.

(a) Lending trade loans in the name of the dedicated deposit;

From February 2008, Defendant 2 and Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 10, made false export performance by trading foreign exchange with the export declaration certificate in the name of chip, or by trading a zero-rate tax invoice without any real transaction, etc., Defendant 2 and 1 entered into an export credit guarantee agreement of KRW 250 million at the Daegu Branch of Hana Bank Co., Ltd. on February 25, 2008, and entered into an export credit transaction agreement of KRW 200,000,000 as security of the said guarantee, etc.

After that, on February 28, 2008, Defendant 2 and 1 opened a local letter of credit with the beneficiary who was supplied with the raw materials for export from the non-indicted 17 corporation even though they had not been supplied with an amount equivalent to KRW 76,100,00 for export from the non-indicted 17 corporation. The above single bank received a loan of KRW 76,10,000 in trade finance by having the above one bank pay the above goods to the non-indicted 17 corporation, and in the same way, the above one bank received a loan of KRW 87,50,000 in the non-indicted 18 corporation on February 29, 2008 and KRW 79,90,000 in the non-indicted 19 corporation as the purchase price of the goods.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 10, Defendant 2 and 1 received KRW 243,50,000 in total as the price for raw materials for export by deceiving Han Bank, a victim corporation, in collusion with Nonindicted 10.

B. Trade financing loans in the name of Nonindicted Co. 16

Defendant 2 and Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 10, made the export performance falsely by means of trading foreign exchange with the export declaration certificate from November 2008 to Nonindicted 16, or by trading the zero-rate tax invoice in the name of Nonindicted Company 16, and made the false financial statements of Nonindicted Company 16, and entered into an export credit guarantee agreement with Korea on November 18, 2008 with the issuance of the export credit guarantee certificate of KRW 120 million at the Seongbuk branch of Korea Bank, at the same time as the above guarantee certificate was secured.

After that, on November 27, 2008, Defendant 2 and 1 opened a local letter of credit with the beneficiary of Nonindicted Co. 17 as if he had not been supplied with an amount equivalent to KRW 87,100,000 for export raw materials from the Nonindicted Co. 17 Co. , Ltd., and borrowed KRW 87,10,000 in trade financing by allowing the said bank to pay the above goods to Nonindicted Co. 17 Co., Ltd., and in the same manner, the said bank received KRW 87,10,000 in total from the said company on December 2, 2008 by requiring the said bank to pay KRW 62,60,000 for the goods of Nonindicted Co. 20 Co., Ltd. as the price for the goods of Nonindicted Co. 16.

Accordingly, in collusion with the non-indicted 10, the defendant 2 and 1 received a total of KRW 149,700,000 as the price for the raw materials for export by deceiving our bank that is the victim, in collusion with the victim.

4. [The 2009 Highest 77]

Defendant 4 is the representative director in the name of Nonindicted Co. 21.

Defendant 4: (a) made Defendant 1 and corporations known through Nonindicted 4 around March 2008; (b) fabricated the export performance; and (c) made it possible for Defendant 4 to receive a loan for trade finance by manipulating the export performance.

Defendant 4 and 1, along with the above non-indicted 4 and 22, made false export performance by trading foreign exchange with the export declaration certificate in the name of the non-indicted 23 corporation from March 2008, or by trading zero-rate tax invoice or tax invoice without any real transaction. On June 27, 2008, Defendant 4 and 1 entered into a trade credit guarantee agreement of KRW 120 million as security at the same time by submitting a false export performance confirmation certificate, false value-added tax base verification, false financial statements verification, etc. to the North Korea branch of the Korea Export Insurance Corporation, a trust guarantee bank of the Export Insurance Corporation, the Chang-dong branch of the Korea Export Insurance Corporation.

After that, on July 3, 2008, Defendants 4 and 1 opened a local letter of credit with Nonindicted Company 9 as beneficiary even though they did not receive an amount equivalent to KRW 48,780,00 for export from Nonindicted Company 9, and Defendant 4 and 1 received a loan of KRW 48,70,000 in trade financing by having the said branch pay the above goods to Nonindicted Company 9, and by having the said branch pay the above goods to said Nonindicted Company 21 on the same day, and on the same day, by having the said branch pay KRW 50,40,000 to Nonindicted Company 23 and KRW 50,40,000 in total from Nonindicted Company 19 to Nonindicted Company 19 on July 4, 2008, Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 149,500,500 in the aggregate of the goods price for Nonindicted Company 21.

As a result, Defendant 4 and 1 conspiredd with Nonindicted 22, 4, etc., and received a total of KRW 149,50,000 by deceiving our bank that is the victim.

5. [Attachment 2009 Highis78]

As the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 18, Defendant 3 is the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 18, who operates a manufacturing wholesale and retail business such as textile and clothing.

Defendant 3 became aware of Defendant 1 through Nonindicted 24 around July 2007, when the operating fund was needed, and Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 were willing to receive a loan by manipulating the export performance.

From October 2007, Defendant 3 and 1 made false export performance through trading foreign exchange with the export declaration certificate under the name of Nonindicted Co. 18 or through trading of zero-rate tax invoices or zero-rate tax invoices without real trade, etc. The financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 18 were falsely prepared, and around November 13, 2007, Defendant 3 and 1 entered into a trade credit transaction agreement of 200 million won with the said letter of guarantee, etc. as well as with the issuance of a written credit guarantee for 160 million won at the former branch of Korea Exchange Bank at the former branch of Korea Exchange Bank.

After that, on November 14, 2007, Defendant 3 and 1 opened a local letter of credit with the beneficiary of the above Defendant 7, even though they had not been supplied with an amount equivalent to KRW 53,018,00 for export raw materials from the Defendant 7 corporation, Defendant 3 and 1 received a loan of KRW 53,00,000 from the above Korea Exchange Bank in the same manner as the above foreign Exchange Bank on November 14, 2007, and received KRW 80,100,000 from the above Korea Exchange Bank on November 16, 2007 by having the above foreign Exchange Bank pay the above goods to the Defendant 7 corporation, and received KRW 90,000,000 for the loan of KRW 53,00 for export from the above Defendant 7 corporation on November 16, 2007, under the pretext of the loan of Nonindicted Company 90,000 for the loan of KRW 10,900.

As a result, Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 were delivered KRW 199,90,000 in total as the price for raw materials for export by deceiving the Korea Exchange Bank, Inc., the injured party, in collusion.

6. [Attachment 2009 Highis79]

Defendant 5 is a representative director in the name of Nonindicted Co. 13 who is engaged in the signboard business in the trade name of Nonindicted Co. 27.

Defendant 5, on July 2007 to August 2007, when the operation fund of the above Nonindicted Co. 27 was required, had been able to manipulate the export performance with Defendant 1 through Nonindicted Co. 1, Defendant 1, who was the birth of Defendant 1, thereby getting a loan.

Defendant 5 and 1, together with Nonindicted 28, made false export performance by trading foreign exchange with the export declaration certificate in the name of the said Nonindicted Co. 13 or by trading zero-rate tax invoices without any real transaction, etc., Defendant 5 and 1 falsely prepared the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 13. On April 30, 2008, at the same time, entered into a trade credit transaction agreement of KRW 250,000,000,000,000 as security for the said letter of credit guarantee at the branch of Han Bank B, a bank B, around April 30, 2008.

After that, on May 7, 2008, Defendant 5 and 1 opened a local letter of credit with Nonindicted Company 29 as beneficiary even though they did not receive an amount equivalent to KRW 60,997,00 for export raw materials from Nonindicted Company 29, and received a loan of KRW 60,90,000 from the said Han Bank as beneficiary by allowing the said Han Bank to pay the above price for the goods of Nonindicted Company 13 to Nonindicted Company 29, and in the same manner, around May 13, 2008, the said Han Bank received KRW 41,90,000 for Nonindicted Company 9, and around May 19, 2008, KRW 6,400 for the goods under the name of Nonindicted Company 19, and KRW 300,00 for the goods under the pretext of a loan of KRW 40,00 for 30,000 on May 14, 2008.

As a result, in collusion with Nonindicted 28, Defendant 5 and 1 received a total of KRW 248,400,000 as the price for raw materials for export by deceiving the only bank for the victim corporation.

7. [Attachment 2009 Highis80]

Defendant 6 is the representative director of Nonindicted 30 Corporation.

Defendant 6, through Nonindicted 31 on November 2008, received a proposal from Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 22 to leave the representative director of the corporation, and received a proposal from Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 22 to grant a loan of 20%, and agreed to give a loan of 1 million won per month.

Defendant 6 and Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 22, traded foreign exchange with the export declaration certificate in the name of the said Nonindicted Co. 30 from February 2009, or falsely made the export performance by means of zero-rate tax invoice transaction without any real transaction, etc., and made the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 30 by false means, and entered into an export credit transaction agreement of KRW 150 million with the said letter as security at the Seocho-Nam branch of Han Bank Co., Ltd. around February 23, 2009.

After that, Defendant 6 and Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 22 on February 27, 2009, at the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu Branch of Han Bank on February 27, 2009, and the fact was not supplied by Nonindicted 20 Co. 20 with an amount equivalent to KRW 73,015,80 for export raw materials from Nonindicted Co. 20, but opened a local letter of credit at which Nonindicted Co. 20 is a beneficiary. The above Han Bank borrowed KRW 73,00,000 for trade financing by allowing the above Han Bank to pay the above goods to Nonindicted Co. 20.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 22, Defendant 6 and 1 received KRW 149,90,000 as the price for raw materials for export by deceiving only one bank for the victim corporation.

8. [Attachment 2010, 1]

Defendant 3 concluded a check contract in the name of the Chang-dong Branch of the Bank and the above Nonindicted Co. 18 on December 9, 2008 with the representative director of the Nonindicted Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of textile manufacturing, and made a transaction of the check number per unit.

A. On December 31, 2008, Defendant 3 issued a check number “(number 1 omitted),” “11,500,000 won”, and issuance date “18 April 18, 2009” in the name of the non-indicted 18 corporation in the name of the office located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daegu, Seo-gu, Daegu, and presented a check payment presentation to the above bank on April 20, 209, when the check holder is within the payment presentation period. However, Defendant 3 did not receive the suspension of transaction.

Defendant 3 issued a total of 92,980,00 won per share as stated in the list of crimes No. 5, including this, and presented payment to the above bank within the period for which payment was made by the holder, but did not receive each of the suspension of transaction.

B. Around February 25, 2009, Defendant 3 issued a check number (number 2 omitted), a check number (number 2 omitted), a face value 20,000,000, and a check number in the name of Nonindicted Co. 18, the date of issuance as of June 25, 2009, and presented a payment proposal to the above bank on June 25, 2009, when the holder of the check presented payment. However, Defendant 3 failed to receive payment as suspension of transaction.

C. On April 5, 2009, Defendant 3 issued one check number (number 3 omitted), face value 8,500,000, issue date, and one check number in the name of Nonindicted Co. 18, which became the date of July 10, 2009, at the office of the said Nonindicted Co. 18, and presented the check payment proposal to the said bank on July 10, 2009, when the check holder was within the time limit for presentment for payment. However, Defendant 3 did not receive the suspension of transaction.

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning Defendant 1;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol regarding Nonindicted 6

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 11, 6, and 4

1. The written accusation of the director of the Gangnam District Tax Office;

1. Each investigation report (Evidence List Nos. 1, 10, 21, and 23), each value-added tax return, each list of tax invoices, aggregate table of trade finance loans under local letters of credit, the confirmation report by the financial institution issuing the export guarantee, the confirmation report by the financial institution issuing the export guarantee, the identification of the matters recognized by Nonindicted 10, the attachment of a name box used by the suspect, the report on the current status

[209Gohap65]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Defendant 7’s agent’s legal statement

1. Copy of each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 33 and 34 by the prosecution

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 14

1. A copy of the last sentence of Defendant 1;

1. The former part of Nonindicted 35

1. Nonindicted 6’s written confirmation

1. A copy of each written confirmation by Defendant 1, etc.;

1. A written accusation filed by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, a full certificate of registered matters, a report on investigation into data, a copy of the value-added tax return, a copy of the processed sales tax invoice, a copy of the processed purchase tax invoice, a business transaction data investigation, the Korea Export Insurance Corporation's Guarantee

1. Each investigation report (No. 18 through 25, 29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38), respectively;

[209Gohap70]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2 and 1;

1. Copy of each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 33 and 34 by the prosecution

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 14

1. A copy of Defendant 1’s name cards, output materials related to Nonindicted Company 16, and output materials related to dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the case;

1. Each investigation report (No. 1 through 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 25, 27 through 29 of the evidence list);

[209Gohap77]

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of the defendant 4 in the seventh trial procedure;

1. Report on the results of examination on suspicions of trade financing fraud loans;

1. Each investigation report (No. 1 through 5, No. 7 through 12, No. 14, 18 of the evidence list);

[209Gohap78]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 3

1. Written accusation of the director of the Gangnam District Tax Office:

1. Facts of suspicion of crime, details of confirmation of fraudulent loan for forging private documents, appending documents for respective trade finance loans, and verification of the schedule of non-disclosure;

1. Investigation report (No. 1, 3, 6 through 6, 8 through 12, 21, 22 No. 1, 22);

[209Gohap79]

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of the defendant 5 in the seventh trial procedure;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 36

1. Details of the report on the suspicion of the crime and the suspicion of trade financial fraud loans as a result of the review, and the confirmation regarding the forgery of private documents and fraudulent loans;

1. Each investigation report (number 1 through 10, 15, 16, 18, 21 of the evidence list);

[209Gohap80]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 6;

1. Report on the results of the review on the suspicion of trade financial fraud loans, and reporting on the attachment of the details of transactions by Defendant 6, and on the confirmation of Defendant 6 inspection room;

1. Each investigation report (No. 1 through 5, No. 7 through 12, and No. 14 of the evidence list);

[2010 Highest 1]

1. Defendant 3’s legal statement

1. Each accusation;

A. Defendant 1: Article 8-2(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 11-2(4)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (i.e., receipt of and receipt of false tax invoices, including, and both punishment), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 225 of the Criminal Act; Article 229, Article 225 of the Criminal Act; Article 231 of the Criminal Act; Article 234 and Article 231 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 201); Article 234, Article 231 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 239(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 7: Articles 11-2(4)1 and 3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010)

C. Defendant 2: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (each point of fraud)

(d) Defendant 3: Articles 347(1) and 30(Fraud) of the Criminal Act, Articles 3(1), 2(2) and 2(1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act (the issuance of irregular checks)

(e) Defendant 4: Articles 347(1) and 30(Fraud) of the Criminal Act

(f) Defendant 5: Articles 347(1) and 30(Fraud) of the Criminal Act

(g) Defendant 6: Articles 347(1) and 30 (Fraud Points) of the Criminal Act;

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1: Articles 40 and 50 (Aggravated Punishment on March 2, 2009) of the Criminal Act (the crime of uttering of a falsified investigative document) are imposed on the crime of uttering of a falsified investigative document by exercising a written confirmation that Defendant 7 corporation did not prepare a no-take book at a more severe criminal time)

1. Selection of punishment;

Determination of imprisonment for the crime of fraud, fabrication of private documents, uttering of a falsified document, and violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, respectively.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) where punishment is most severe);

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment on only One Bank Co., Ltd. with more serious criminality)

(c) Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes with Punishment in Aggravated Punishment in Aggravated Punishment)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 1: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Defendant 1: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2, Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 6: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( considered as follows)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 7 Company: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

(1) Aggravations: The amount received falsely a tax invoice in the process of causing trade financing reaches 10.6 billion won in total, and the amount of trade financing obtained by the bank from the bank shall be limited to 1.38 billion won in this case, but also the amount of trade financing obtained by the bank shall be limited to 1.38 billion won in this case, and the method of obtaining trade financing by soliciting many and unspecified persons, causing a trade financing, and the commission shall be de factoed, such as so doing, fabrication of public documents, and uttering of forged public document, and the commission shall be punished by a suspended sentence of 2 years in April 1, 2004; and the commission shall be punished by a suspended sentence of 3 years in imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years in August 29, 2003.

(2) Mitigation elements: A part of the crimes is divided.

2. Defendant 7 corporation

(a) Aggravation: Names received in total amount of 6.4 billion won or less; and

(2) Mitigation elements: Crimes are divided.

3. Defendant 2

(1) Aggravation: A total amount of damage, 393.2 million won, and even though being aware that the loan under the name of the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated

(2) Reduction element: The Korea Export Insurance Corporation that issued an export credit guarantee certificate and the Korea Export Insurance Corporation that agreed to pay in installments the amount of 126,601,608 won as compensation liability due to the subrogation of the Korea Export Insurance Corporation and the Korea Export Insurance Corporation to pay in installments the amount of 12,200,000 won and the amount of 137,50,000 won which has not been repaid.

4. Defendant 3

(1) Aggravated factor: A total amount of damages of KRW 199,900,00 in total and the total amount of the unpaid check is KRW 121,480,000 in total and the amount of the unpaid obligation is approximately KRW 321,380,00 in total;

(2) Mitigation elements: A person who has no previous offense except a fine, and commits a crime.

5. Defendant 4

(1) Aggravation: Name of the amount of damage in 149,500,000; and

(2) Reduction element: The Korea Export Insurance Corporation that issued the export credit guarantee certificate and the Korea Export Insurance Corporation's bank that agreed to pay in installments the amount of 122,66,372 won of the indemnity amount due to the subrogation of the Korea Export Insurance Corporation and the Korea Export Insurance Corporation's payment of the export credit guarantee certificate, and the amount of 13,000,000 won of the unpaid debt amount by paying in 29,840,100 won to the Bank of Korea and by paying in 106,659,90 won of the unpaid debt amount.

6. Defendant 5

(1) Aggravation: The amount of damage reaches KRW 248,400,000 and is not repaid in full;

(2) Mitigation elements: A minor fine is a previous offense, which means that a crime is committed.

7. Defendant 6

(1) Aggravation: A person who has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years for murder in 1996, 1 year for a violation of the Punishment of Violences in 1983, and 2 years for a suspended sentence, even though the amount of damage has not reached and has not been fully repaid;

(2) Mitigation elements: Crimes are divided.

A. The Defendant, at the request of Nonindicted 3 (one-person, non-indicted 10) who was the principal offender, got involved in the process of causing trade financing, but Non-Indicted 3 employed directly employees and issued or received a false zero tax invoice in relation to the facts constituting the offense in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice, etc.).

B. In relation to the forgery of private documents, the uttering of a private document, the forgery of a private signature, and the use of the name of Nonindicted Party 1 with the express consent of Nonindicted Party 1, it does not constitute the foregoing Article.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion that there is no collusion with Nonindicted 3

According to each evidence, ① the Korea Export Insurance Corporation received trade finance guarantee from the Korea Export Insurance Corporation on the basis of the export declaration certificate and the list of its commercial assets, and subsequently applied for the establishment of a local letter of credit in a commercial bank on the ground that the former purchaser was issued a false tax invoice, and the latter issued a false tax invoice and the latter issued a false tax invoice, and then continuously traded through a false tax invoice to receive the cost of the goods through the former seller’s transaction bank and to extend the due date of payment. As such, if the latter were to receive a false tax invoice, the tax invoice is essential in order to obtain the trade finance loan, ② the Defendant acquired the above company, 7, and operated the above company by leasing an office in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, with the former’s trade finance business operator’s consent to use the new tax invoice, and the Defendant prepared a new tax invoice with the latter’s consent to use the company’s revenue for the purpose of purchasing the new tax invoice, and the Defendant prepared a new tax invoice with the latter 3, 34,37, and 38, etc. of the above employees.

B. Determination on the assertion that permission was granted from Nonindicted 1

Each of the following facts shown in the evidence of the judgment, namely, the content that the defendant did not prepare the receipt and payment book in the case of the documents listed in the crime 2-A (3) and (4) and that the defendant 7 was the sole owner of the non-indicted 1 in the case of the confirmation document dated March 6, 2009. In the case of the confirmation document dated March 18, 2009, the contents that the transaction of goods with the ○○ company was true in the case of the confirmation document dated March 18, 2009, and the tax invoice was not false in the case of the written reply document dated March 18, 2009. All of the above documents were prepared in the process that the defendant was investigated by the National Tax Service under the suspicion of issuing the false tax invoice, etc., but it is reasonable to view that the non-indicted 1 was a representative director who lent the name of the defendant to the defendant 7 corporation, but it was difficult to do so in light of the fact that the above documents were prepared and submitted under his authority.

The facts charged are crimes falling under Articles 3(1), 2(2), and 2(1) of the Illegal Check Control Act, which cannot be prosecuted if the issuer withdraws the check pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Illegal Check Control Act. According to Article 95 of the investigation records, Defendant 3 collected the check number per unit prior to the prosecution of this case, and the indictment of this case constitutes a violation of the provisions of law, and thus, the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

[Attachment]

Judges anti-deed (Presiding Judge) To change a letter of interest