(b) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

(c) Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

(d) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

2. D. B

(For the Defendants)

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined as follows: (i) Defendant A received a cashier’s check in an amount equivalent to KRW 5.2 billion from around November 2007; (ii) Defendant A was unable to impose and collect gift tax by fraud or other unlawful act with respect to such gift; (iii) Defendant A’s evasion of transfer income tax by fraud or other unlawful act beyond the degree of simple non-report or false report under tax law, which prevents Defendant A from being exposed to borrowed-name stocks in relation to the acquisition and disposal of borrowed-name stocks; and (iii) Defendant A’s evasion of transfer income tax by fraud or other unlawful act; and (iv) the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor as to the fact that Defendant A evaded inheritance tax by fraud or other unlawful act.

Considering that it is insufficient to recognize that the charges have been proven to the extent that there is no room, all of the charges were acquitted.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on “the act of fraud or other unlawful act in the crime of tax evasion,” and the Supreme Court precedents cited by the prosecutor as the grounds of appeal are different from

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the part of the facts charged against Defendant B, as indicated in the [Attachment 5] Nos. 1 and 2 of the List of Crimes Nos. 5] 1 and 2 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, that the part that embezzled U’s audit benefits by pretending to be embezzled, such as the part that embezzled, and the part that embezzled U’s audit benefits as indicated in the table of Crimes Nos. 3 through 10, was not an inclusive crime but an inclusive crime. The lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance that found Defendant guilty, and sentenced Defendant B not guilty on the ground that the parts listed in the table Nos. 3 through 10 and 2 of the same List of Crimes did not constitute a crime or there was no proof of a criminal fact

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Il-san