특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A, the part against Defendant B (including the part not guilty in the grounds) and Defendant B.
[Judgment on the facts of the charge] The summary of the charge of the defendant guilty guilty of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the evasion of value-added tax related to A Q parking lot construction subsidies and the false tax invoice related to the excessive payment of construction expenses of A Q parking lot construction expenses (the crime of February 16, 2009) (the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act was not guilty), the guilty guilty of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the crime of February 16, 2009) due to the excessive payment of construction expenses of A Q parking lot construction expenses (the crime of February 16, 2009), the guilty of violation of the crime of breach of trust related to the A Q parking lot construction expenses of KRW 2 B B B B B, who was guilty of occupational breach of trust related to LP parking lot construction funds of KRW 5430 million (the crime of negligence in February 16, 2009), the guilty portion of the charges of breach of trust due to the A Q parking lot's excessive payment of value-added tax (the charges of KRW 363600 million).
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ respective grounds for appeal and the summary of oral argument submitted by the defense counsel after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal will be referred to the extent of supplement to the contents of the grounds for appeal submitted within the deadline for submitting the grounds
1) Defendant A) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) (A) and the recognition of consideration for business relationship on three occasions from B in around 2005, the Defendant received 57 million won from B as checks on three occasions, but it was merely delivered as president’s activity expenses, and at the time of receipt of the said check, the Defendant did not have any talk about the “private investment project for the establishment and operation of the L University Center” (hereinafter “the instant private investment project”) with B, and the said check.