A penalty of KRW 600 million from Defendant 1 shall be additionally collected.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 3, the charge of false accusation shall be acquitted.

[207Gohap711] Cases Concerning Defendant 1

Defendant 1 is an attorney-at-law. In fact, Defendant 1 was in office as the auditor of the Saemaul Movement Association from March 13, 2003, retired on July 1, 2004, and was commissioned as the leader of the Saemaul Movement Association (hereinafter omitted) on August 20 of the same year and was dismissed on September 23 of the same year, Defendant 1 was not in the position to affect the decision-making related to the important projects of the Saemaul Movement Association. Nonindicted 21, the president of the Saemaul Movement Association, was not authorized to do so. Rather, Defendant 1 did not have the authority to directly and indirectly implement the project under the direction of Nonindicted 21, as it was impossible for the Saemaul Movement Association to carry out the project under the direction of 108,00,000 from March 30, 200 to Defendant 1 as the site for new apartment 8, which was owned by the Saemaul Movement Association, and it did not have the authority to directly and indirectly carry out the project under the direction of 108,008 sites for sale.

On December 8, 2004, at the office of Defendant 1 of Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), the executive director of Nonindicted Co. 19 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 19”) of the victim Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 19”) was delegated by Nonindicted Co. 21, the president of the Saemaul Movement Center (hereinafter omitted) with the authority to dispose of the above site. The above site is to be purchased from the Federation by officially announced land price, and the facilities with the superficies are to be jointly promoted on the above site, and the execution contract was concluded with Nonindicted Co. 1, 19 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 19”) received KRW 500 million out of the performance guarantee money.

[208Gohap229] The case against Defendant 1

Defendant 1 entered into a joint project implementation agreement with Defendant 1’s attorney office located above (hereinafter omitted) on November 1, 2004, and with the victim Nonindicted 20, the representative director of Nonindicted 58 Co. 58 Co., Ltd., Defendant 1 concluded a joint project implementation agreement with the victim Nonindicted 50 Co. 20, and Defendant 1 concluded a false statement to the effect that “KBS owned by KS as a holder of superficies and sports facilities on the site owned by the Saemaul Movement Association, and was delegated by Nonindicted 21, the president of the Korea Saemaul Movement Association (hereinafter omitted) as the head of the group of Saemaul 21. The said site was purchased from the Federation as the officially announced land price, and the facilities of the holder of superficies and the KBS jointly promoted the apartment construction and sale business on the said site.”

However, in fact, Defendant 1 was in office as the auditor of the Saemaul Movement Center from March 13, 2003, retired on July 1, 2004, and was commissioned as the head of the Saemaul Movement Center (hereinafter omitted) on August 20 of the same year and was dismissed on September 23 of the same year. Accordingly, Defendant 1 was not in a position to affect the decision-making related to the important activities of the Saemaul Movement Center. Rather, Defendant 1 was urged from the Saemaul Movement Federation that he would not spread false facts in relation to the development of the 88 sports hall site directly or indirectly, and thus, Defendant 1 was not authorized to dispose of the 88 sports hall site.

In addition, in order to promote the apartment building and sales project, consultation on the use of the building site and KS holding superficies to own 88 gymnasium by December 31, 2046 should be prior to the consultation on the use of the building site and 88 gymnasium site, but there was no direct or indirect contact with the above KS, so it was objectively impossible to promote the business of newly building and selling the apartment site in the above site.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1, as such, by deceiving Nonindicted 20 of the victim, received KRW 1 billion from the victim as a down payment in the same place as the down payment.

[208Gohap942] The case against Defendant 1

1. Defendant 1: (a) around March 13, 2007, at the attorney-at-law office operated by Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted); (b) on the part of Defendant 1, the victim Nonindicted 2, who was under a tax investigation for tax evasion at around that time, was aware of his position with the National Tax Service and the Office, and (c) on the part of the victim Nonindicted 2, who was in charge of tax evasion. In return, the amount of taxes would be reduced to less than KRW 2 billion.3 billion. In return, the victim would have changed 1.3 billion. In other words, the victim would have received 20 copies of 10 million cashier’s checks from the victim; and (d) around March 15, 2007, Defendant 1 transferred KRW 100 million to the national bank account in the name of Nonindicted 43; and (e) received KRW 300 million from March 22, 2007.

However, Defendant 1 did not have any intention or ability to reduce the amount of taxes of the victim to not more than 2 billion won through the connection of high-ranking society, including the National Tax Service.

Defendant 1 received money and valuables under the pretext of deceiving the victim non-indicted 2 and receiving KRW 600 million from the victim, and soliciting the affairs handled by the public officials.

2. On December 30, 206, at the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Foundation 31 (hereinafter “Non-Party 31”) office (hereinafter “Non-Party 31”), Defendant 1 received a lawsuit from the victim Non-Party 7 against the State and Jinjin-gun Office for the registration of ownership transfer related to the reclaimed land located in Songjin-gun Office (hereinafter “the land of this case”) against the State and Jinjin-gun, the victim agreed that Defendant 1 and the victim jointly borrow the loan from the outside, and 1/3 of the loan was managed by Defendant 1 and 1/3 of the loan, the victim repaid the debt of KRW 100 million borrowed from Non-Party 59, etc. in terms of expenses for the prohibition of disposal of the previous reclaimed land, and Defendant 1 used the remainder of 2/3 as expenses for the future execution of the lawsuit, and if the victim is awarded a winning in the future, the victim shall be paid a certain amount of remuneration to the victim.

Defendant 1 and the victim Nonindicted 2, around January 8, 2007, prepared a promissory note to the effect that they jointly borrow KRW 300 million from Nonindicted 8, who is the seat of Defendant 1, at the office of Nonindicted 60 Law Firm Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted) around January 8, 2007, and around that time, Defendant 1 received KRW 300 million from Nonindicted 8 and received the delivery and transfer of KRW 100 million from Nonindicted 8, and kept the remainder KRW 200 million in order to use it as costs necessary for the performance of the lawsuit.

Defendant 1 used approximately KRW 30,000 among the above KRW 300 million as litigation costs, and the remainder KRW 270,000,000 was arbitrarily consumed for non-use at around that time and embezzled.

[2] The case against all the Defendants

Defendant 1 was an attorney-at-law who had been employed as a legal adviser in Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 31; Defendant 2 was employed as the chief director of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 31 under the Buddhist Religious Order 30; Defendant 3 was employed as a standing director of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 31 and a representative director of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 28 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 28”); Defendant 1 conspiredd as if he was delegated sale of the land (hereinafter “instant site”) in the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant site”) in dispute over ownership between the Buddhist Religious Order 30 and the Buddhist Religious Order 29.

On February 208, at the above office of the non-indicted 31 corporation located in Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), the Defendants concluded a purchase delegation contract (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase delegation contract of this case”) with the victim non-indicted 27, who is the representative director of the non-indicted 31 corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “non-indicted 9”) by explaining that “The defendants were delegated by the non-indicted 30 Religious Order and the non-indicted 29 Religious Order to sell the land at 20,000 square meters in Seoul (hereinafter omitted), they may purchase the land only through them, because they were delegated by the non-indicted 30 Religious Order and the non-indicted 29 Religious Order.”

As such, the Defendants did not have been entrusted with the sales business of the instant site from both ends, and thus, even if they received the price for the purchase delegation contract for the instant site from the victim Nonindicted 27, they did not have the intent and ability to purchase the said site, but acquired it by deceiving the victim with KRW 1 billion out of KRW 3 billion agreed for the purchase delegation contract for the said site.

[209Gohap236] Cases Concerning Defendant 1

Defendant 1 made a false statement to the effect that, even if he borrowed money from others even if he/she borrowed money from others, he/she would have to repay money without being able to do so on or after July 18, 2008, if he/she borrowed money from the office of Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted) Nonindicted 31 Corporation and Nonindicted 10 Stock Company 10,000 won (hereinafter “Nonindicted 10,000 won”) through Nonindicted 3, via Nonindicted 3, 100,000 won (hereinafter “Nonindicted 10,000 won promissory notes”) to Nonindicted 35,50,000 won.

Defendant 1, as such, by deceiving the victim non-indicted 35 as the victim, received from the victim a copy of the promissory note with face value of KRW 150 million from the issuer to the non-indicted 35, the representative director of the non-indicted 10,000, and the due date on October 10, 2008.

[209Gohap774] Cases Concerning Defendant 1

Defendant 1: (a) around April 208, at the attorney-at-law operated by Defendant 1, Nonindicted 1, 61, 63, 56, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71, 70, 30, 478, 97, 60, 97, 97, 67, 97, 97, 106, 97, 97, 106, 97, 67, 97, 106, 97, 106, 67, 97, 108, 10, 106, 67, 106, 208, 208, 106, 306, 306, 67, 97, 97, 980, 208, 106, 306, 208, 308, 186,

From April 18, 2008 to November 4, 2008, Defendant 1 embezzled money of KRW 200,667,240 (excluding deposit money of KRW 10,819,740) out of KRW 211,486,980 deposited as above on behalf of the victims, Defendant 1 embezzled money of KRW 200,67,240 (excluding deposit money of KRW 10,819,740) for personal debt repayment and office operation expenses of Defendant 1 at the place of his jurisdiction in Seoul.

[2010Gohap88] Cases against Defendant 3

Defendant 3 is a standing director of Nonindicted 31 and a person who has served as a representative director of Nonindicted 28.

1. Fraud on August 27, 2007

Defendant 3, around July 2007, at the office of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 31 in Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), made a false statement to the victim Nonindicted 12 that “Skindo business share is transferred from the office of Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 37 in Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), which is located in Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), the victim Nonindicted 12.”

However, the business has already been screened before April 2007, and the above office has been notified of the last demand and the closure of the office due to the overdue rent, and even if receiving money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to transfer the business share or to hand over the office.

Defendant 3, on August 27, 2007, by deceiving the victim non-indicted 12 and deceiving the victim from the victim, received a total of KRW 30 million from the account in the name of the non-indicted 31 corporation (Account Number 3 omitted) with the name of the above office transfer deposit money, and from the non-indicted 76 account known to Defendant 3, the sum of KRW 20 million with the account in the name of the non-indicted 31 corporation.

2. Fraud on September 14, 2007

Defendant 3, at the above office around July 2007 (hereinafter omitted), made a false statement to the victim Nonindicted 12 that “The purchase of the land of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, a site for ○○○○○ (hereinafter omitted) was delegated by the President of the Korea Coast Guard, the President of the Korea Coast Guard, Nonindicted 77, who was delegated the sale of the land from the victim Nonindicted 12. The purchase of the site for ○○○○ was intended. He would have his personnel personnel personnel to the Sgree that the money would need to be paid for the expenses.”

However, in fact, the above land cannot be sold without the mediation of both the two spons in the process of a trial on the dispute over ownership between the non-indicted 30's Buddhist Order and the non-indicted 29's Buddhist Order. Since the sale of the above land is conducted by each of the sub-committees by organizing a separate sales committee, it is not possible for an individual to be entrusted with sale, and even if the defendant 3 received money from the victim due to the lack of the fact that he was entrusted with the sale of the above land by the head of the non-indicted 29 Buddhist Order, he did not have the intent or ability to allow the victim to purchase the above land.

Defendant 3, as such, by deceiving Nonindicted 12 of the victim Nonindicted 12, and deceiving the victim, received KRW 2.5 million in return for the delegation contract for purchase of land from the victim on August 6, 2007. Defendant 3, as well as Defendant 3, through the same name from September 20 to September 20, 2009, received a total of KRW 50 million through a total of six times under the same name as shown in the attached Form.

3. Fraud on April 10, 2008

Around August 2007, Defendant 3 made a false statement to the victim Nonindicted 12 at the above (hereinafter omitted) office that “The victim Nonindicted 12 would not know Nonindicted 39 Company’s 40 Chairman, and would introduce the construction work for the new construction work of the Ulsan-gu New Housing Co., Ltd. in preparation for implementation of Nonindicted 39 Company through the said Nonindicted 39 Company.”

However, the above non-indicted 40 had no intention or ability to select the above non-indicted 39 as the contractor even if the victim received money from the victim during detention.

Defendant 3, as such, by deceiving the victim non-indicted 12 and deceiving it from the victim on April 1, 2008, transferred the sum of KRW 20 million to the account in the name of Non-indicted 41 on April 10, 2008, and KRW 30 million to the account in the name of Non-indicted 31 corporation on April 10, 2008.

[2010Gohap363] The case against all the Defendants

Defendant 3 around February 9, 2007, at Defendant 1’s attorney’s office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu, Defendant 1 made a false statement to the effect that “10,000 won, including a subcontract for the work of installing the above screen, will be paid to 10 out of the total construction cost ordered by the Seoul subway Corporation and the Korea Railroad Corporation, and the cost of installing the said work and a stamp for the said work contract, is required to be KRW 200,000,000.” Defendant 1 and 2 made a false statement to the effect that “The victim will be paid KRW 1 billion,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000 won, including a loan by October 31, 2007.” Defendant 1 and 2 made a letter of agreement to use money and a promissory note by October 31, 2007.”

However, the Defendants anticipated to use KRW 100 million out of KRW 200,000 received from the victim to compensate for the money disbursed to Nonindicted Corporation 31’s separate business, and was aware that at the time, Defendant 1 did not receive an order for the said screen fishing installation work, and it was difficult for the Defendants to meet the requirements for application such as having a record of construction of more than one domestic or foreign subway station on April 5, 2007 by the date of receipt of the application for the operation of the said screen fishing installation work. Therefore, the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to give a subcontract for the installation of the said screen fishing installed to the victim or pay KRW 1 billion by October 31, 2007.

On February 9, 2007, the Defendants conspired and received KRW 100 million from the victim non-indicted 8 to the agricultural bank account in the name of non-indicted 42 on February 9, 2007. On February 13, 2007, the Defendants received KRW 190 million in total from the defendant 1 to the national bank account in the name of non-indicted 43, who was the children of the defendant 1.

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in part of the protocol of the 31st trial;

1. The statement of the witness 1 in the third trial record, and each part of the witness Nonindicted 79 and 80 in the fourth trial record

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 as to each prosecutor's suspect (including Nonindicted 1's protocol of interrogation of the second prosecutor's suspect)

1. Statement made by the police on Nonindicted 81

1. A copy of the passbook receipt, a copy of the investigation report (a copy of the official document of the Saemaul Movement Association), an investigation report (a copy of Nonindicted 82 written statement attached), an investigation report (a copy of the written statement attached), a copy of the land register, a balance analysis statement, a copy of the commission (a copy of August 20, 2004), a copy of the plan for operation of the group (a copy of the omitted), the 154 meeting data of the board of directors, a copy of the receipt (a copy of December 8, 2004), a request for the return of the site of 88 gymnasiums, a request for consultation and proposal, a request for notification of the progress of the joint project of 88 Sports Centers, a request for re-request for notification of the progress of the joint project (a copy of the written statement attached to Nonindicted 82 written statement), a request for notification of the fact of progress of the joint project of 88 Sports Centers, a request for notification of the fact of progress of the joint project (a. 2005. 27.28)

[1] Part of Defendant 1’s statement in the 31st trial record

1. The statements made by the witness 20 in the sixth trial records, the statements made by the witness Nonindicted 83 in the nine trial records, the 14th trial records, and the 30th trial records, respectively made by the witness Nonindicted 5 in each of the nine trial records.

1. Statement made by the police on Nonindicted 81

1. Each description of a joint project execution contract, contract deposit payment check, investigation report (a copy of the official document of the Saemaul Movement Federation), investigation report (a copy of Nonindicted 82 written statement for reference) and investigation report (a copy of a written statement attached thereto);

[208Gohap942]

○ Paragraph 1 of the Judgment

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in part of the protocol of the 31st trial;

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 2 in the protocol of the 29th trial

1. The statement concerning the defendant 1 in each protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 84 and each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 25’s statement on Nonindicted 25

1. Entry in a complaint;

○ Paragraph 2 of the Decision

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in part of the protocol of the 31st trial;

1. Statement made by Nonindicted 7 of the 14th trial record

1. Defendant 1’s statement of the suspect interrogation protocol on the prosecution (including Nonindicted 7’s substitute part)

1. Each entry in a lawyer's fee agreement, money borrowed agreement, bill notarial deed, disposition prohibiting entry and exit, and investigation report (record and attachment of related cases);

[209Gohap166, 601, 911]

1. The entry of Defendant 1 in part of the trial records of the 31st trial, and the entry of Defendant 2 and 3 in part of the 26th trial records; and

1. The statement made by the witness in the 20th trial record, the statement made by the witness Nonindicted 85 in the 21st trial record, the statement made by the witness Nonindicted 33 in the 24th trial record, the statement made by the witness Nonindicted 6 in the 24th trial record, each written statement made by the witness Nonindicted 6 in the 24th trial record, and the statement made by the witness Nonindicted 86 in the 25th trial record.

1. Statement made by the police on Nonindicted 34

1. Written contracts for the purchase and delegation of real estate, the basic agreement for the execution of joint projects, written agreements, written agreements, and investigation reports (attached to judgments of the first instance court in relation to the ○○ land); and

[209Gohap236]

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in part of the protocol of the 31st trial;

1. Each statement made by the witness Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 3 in the 27th trial record

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor about the defendant 1 in the suspect interrogation protocol;

1. Entry in a complaint;

[209Gohap774]

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in part of the protocol of the 31st trial;

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 65 and 11 of the 30th trial records;

1. Some statements made by Defendant 1 in each police interrogation protocol;

1. Each complaint filed in Nonindicted 11 and 65 statements, each of the investigation reports (report on accompanying the details of transactions in the post office account in Defendant 1’s name, reporting on verifying the details of deposits, and reporting on arranging the details of deposits by victim)

[2010Gohap88]

1. The defendant 3's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 12 and 86

1. Statement of Defendant 3’s suspect interrogation protocol (including Nonindicted 12’s interrogation protocol) on the prosecutor’s office

1. A copy of the passbook, a business registration certificate, a transfer certificate, a list of shareholders, a demand for payment of rent, a lease contract, and an investigation report (to hear Nonindicted 87’s statements) respectively;

[2010 Gohap363]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 8, 88, 42, and 44

1. Copies of data from subway screening media, projects for the installation of nationwide subway scrapers, copies of projects for the installation of nationwide subway scrapers, copies of deposits without passbook payments, copies of deposit transaction records, copies of money borrowed agreements, copies of authentic deeds, copies of notarial deeds, notices given by screen operators, and written guidelines for public invitation of business operators, respectively;

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

Criminal records, written judgments (Written assistance No. 2007 Goun680, 680)

A. Defendant 1

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (each fraud committed against Nonindicted Company 19, Nonindicted 20, and 2)

Article 111 (Violation of Attorney-at-Law Act)

Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act ( point of Embezzlement)

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud against Nonindicted Company 10)

Articles 356 and 355(1) of each Criminal Code (the point of occupational embezzlement)

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fraud of Nonindicted 27)

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud against Nonindicted 8)

B. Defendant 2

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fraud of Nonindicted 27)

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud against Nonindicted 8)

C. Defendant 3

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fraud of Nonindicted 27)

Article 347 (1) of each Criminal Code (a point of fraud against Non-Indicted 12)

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud against Nonindicted 8)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Non-Indicted 2, and the punishment is more severe]

1. Selection of punishment;

Election of imprisonment for embezzlement, fraud, occupational embezzlement

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 3: The latter part of Article 37 and the first part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crimes committed at the time of sale and fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment provided for in the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Non-Indicted 27 who has the largest punishment and punishment for the crime];

B. Defendant 2

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes provided for in the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Leave (Fraud) with the largest penalty]

C. Defendant 3

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes provided for in the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Leave (Fraud) with the largest penalty]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The consideration in favor of Defendant 2 and 3)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 1: Article 116 and Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Summary of Defendant 1’s assertion

A. The execution contract of each of the joint projects of this case is that Defendant 1 purchased the site from the Saemaul Movement Federation to the victims, purchased the site of 88 gymnasiums site with the funds of the victims, executed the new apartment construction project, and settled the profits thereof in share ratio. As such, Defendant 1 did not sell the site of 88 gymnasiums site on behalf of the Saemaul Movement Federation to the victims, so whether Defendant 1 was entrusted with the authority to dispose of the site of 88 gymnasiums site from the president of the Saemaul Movement Federation or the president of the Saemaul Movement Federation or the head of the group of 21, or whether he was actually in office is irrelevant to the execution contract of each of the joint projects of this case.

B. In fact, the Saemaul Movement Center has agreed to recover the site for 88 gymnasiums from the KBS with the intention of KBS, and thus, it was possible for Defendant 1 to have the victims purchase the site for 88 gymnasiums, but it was merely a failure of the project due to the lack of funds of the victims to completely pay the performance bond.

C. Therefore, it cannot be recognized that Defendant 1’s criminal intent is obtained through deception.

2. Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. On December 31, 1984, the Saemaul Movement Center entered into an agreement on the establishment and operation of a multi-purpose sports hall on the site of 88 Sports Hall on the site of the Saemaul Movement Center. On the site of 88 Sports Hall owned by the Saemaul Movement Center, KBS established a multi-purpose sports hall of 88 sports hall on the site of the 88 Sports Hall owned by the Saemaul Movement Center, and established superficies on the site without compensation for 60 years (Evidence No. 5-5).

B. On December 31, 1990, KBS entered into a superficies contract with the Saemaul Undong Association for the duration of 56 years on the site of 88 gymnasium. On March 19, 191, KBS registered the creation of superficies based on the above superficies contract (Evidence No. 7, No. 7, No. 711 evidence submitted by counsel).

C. Defendant 1 was commissioned as the auditor of the Saemaul Movement Association on March 13, 2003, and was dismissed on July 1, 2004. The person who made the Saemaul Movement Association (hereinafter omitted) was commissioned as the head of the Saemaul Movement Association (hereinafter omitted) on August 20, 2004. Defendant 1 was dismissed on September 23, 2004 due to a civil petition related to the 88 sports hall site (Evidence 128, 134, 413, 415 evidence records).

D. On October 30, 2004, the Saemaul Movement Association sent to Defendant 1 a letter of urge the Saemaul Movement Federation to resolve the false facts related to Defendant 1’s site by November 6, 2004, and requested the Korea Construction Association to post a notice on its website that the development plan for the 88 gymnasiums site is true (Evidence 134, 516, 519 pages).

E. On October 2004, Defendant 1 entered into a joint agreement with the company “Non-Indicted Party 22” and 88 gymnasiums site and received KRW 1 billion. However, after examining whether the above Non-Indicted Party 22 was planned to develop a site for 88 gymnasiums site to the Saemaul Movement Association, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 to return the above amount and Defendant 1 returned it (Evidence 396 of the Evidence No. 2007Da7111).

F. On November 1, 2004, Defendant 1 entered into a joint project implementation contract with Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 20 who participated in the solicitation of Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 5 at his attorney's office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted) on the part of the victim's non-indicted 20. In other words, Defendant 1 received from the victim non-indicted 20 billion won a cashier's check equivalent to KRW 1 billion on the part of the victim's 3 billion performance guarantee from the victim's non-indicted 20, and the remaining KRW 2 billion was to be paid by Nonindicted 5 after having been invested by a third party (Evidence 208 Gohap 229, the evidence record of evidence No. 7 through 14).

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose is to secure all the conditions and rights for multi-family housing development projects in approximately 8,803 square meters in total of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ulsandong (hereinafter referred to as the "Seongdong").

Article 2 (Scope of Business)

The scope of the project jointly implemented by Gap (Defendant 1, hereinafter referred to as "A"), and Eul (hereinafter referred to as "Nonindicted 5, 20, hereinafter referred to as "B") shall be the scope of the project, including authorization, permission, establishment of corporation, design, selection of construction works, P/F financing, sale in lots, and follow-up management, etc., necessary for the implementation of the project, in order to promote the project on the land provided by Gap (hereinafter referred to as "the project scope").

Article 3 (Liability of A)

(1) A shall purchase and provide land within two months for the joint implementation of the project under Article 1 above and complete all necessary measures for the apartment project on the land.

(2) Within two months after the conclusion of this contract, A shall complete the authorization of the supervisory authority necessary for the disposal of land provided by A, the completion of the relocation consultation with the KBS, which is the person with superficies, and shall complete all necessary measures for the conclusion of this contract with the Saemaul Movement Federation that has designated the purchaser as Eul, such as the consent to use the land necessary for the authorization and permission of the project, and the joint development: Provided, That upon understanding B, the necessary period may be extended.

(3) Within six months after the completion of the measures set forth in the above paragraph (2) above, the name map and obstacles of this case shall be removed, and the present site for sports facilities and playgrounds facilities shall complete the alteration of urban planning facilities and the alteration of specific-use area (the alteration of Class 2 general-use areas to Class 3 general-use areas) by which multi-family housing can be available: Provided, That where A and

Article 4 (Liability of B)

(1) Eul shall pay land prices and all funds necessary for the implementation of this project.

2. Eul shall pay A a performance guarantee for a joint project (hereinafter referred to as "security deposit") to facilitate the performance of this contract.

(3) When purchasing land from the Saemaul Movement Federation under Article 3 (2) B, Eul shall pay 3 billion won as part of the down payment, and the payment of the remainder shall be made within one month when the measure under Article 3 (3) is completed.

Article 5 (Guarantees)

(1) The performance guarantee for a joint project prescribed in Article 4 (2) shall be three billion won: Provided, That the payment thereof may be made in installments at the time of this contract and within 30 days after the contract is made.

(2) Eul shall pay Gap the deposit under the above paragraph (1) at the same time as this contract is concluded, and Gap shall complete the intended business under Articles 1 and 3 on the basis thereof.

(3) The above deposit shall be used as the reserve fund for the implementation of this project by A, and may be recognized as the input fund by B at the time of distribution of profits under Article 6 (3), or may be designated as part of the profits of A.

Article 6 (Common Matters)

(1) All the management necessary for implementing a project shall be consulted among the parties, and shall be in charge of supervision under the name of B, and expenses shall be borne by B. Details of duties shall be as follows

A) Application for authorization (a) (a sole corporation of B)

(b) design (including supervision), the selection of the contractor, the procurement of P/F, the sale in lots, the authorization and permission, etc.;

(C) other services incidental to the execution of the above services.

(2) The total amount of land trade determined under Article 3 (2) shall be the officially announced land price, and if necessary, the price shall be paid as the top priority in P/F funds or sale.

3. The appropriation of expenses for the project shall be made by Eul prior to approval for parcelling-out, and the remaining amount shall revert to the construction cost and all expenses necessary for the project, and the remaining amount shall revert to Gap and Eul, but the distribution method for the remaining amount (the ordinary profits after corporate tax deduction) may be made either by settling accounts at the rate of 30% and 70%, or by setting a specified amount of the expected profits under the agreement between Gap and Eul, at the time of settlement of the business, or by setting the amount of the expected profits."

G. At the time of concluding the above paragraph (f) above, Defendant 1 stated that Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 20 can purchase the site for 88 gymnasiums from the Saemaul Movement Federation’s officially announced land price, and that consultation with the person holding superficies on the relocation of facilities with KBS will be completed within two months, and that the written contract (hereinafter omitted) will be accompanied by a copy of the commission of the head of the group (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). (In the sixth protocol of the trial, Nonindicted 20 Examination Protocol, two pages of Nonindicted 5 Examination Protocol in the 14th protocol of the 6th protocol of trial, two pages of Nonindicted 5 Examination Protocol in the 13th protocol of evidence examination).

H. However, as a result of Nonindicted 5’s confirmation with the KBS and the Saemaul Movement Federation, the above development plan was not true, the response of many victims was received, and the matters publicly announced by the Housing Construction Association were also fraudulent, and thus, the notice was posted to demand caution. Nonindicted 5 made it difficult for a third party to receive an investment of KRW 2 billion, which eventually did not pay the remainder of KRW 2 billion to Defendant 1 (the 14th trial record of Nonindicted 5’s examination of witness).

I. On November 10, 2004, Defendant 1 entered into a joint implementation contract with Nonindicted 89 with the content similar to the above paragraph (f) (Evidence No. 2007Dahap711, Evidence No. 35 to 42).

(j) In addition, on December 8, 2004, Defendant 1 entered into a joint project implementation agreement with Nonindicted Company 1’s regular director of Nonindicted Company 19 at the said attorney’s office with the following major contents, and received KRW 500 million from Nonindicted Company 19 as part of the performance guarantee amount of KRW 3 billion (Evidence 43 through 49, 122 pages).

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose is to secure all the conditions and rights for multi-family housing development projects in approximately 8,803 square meters in total of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ulsandong (hereinafter referred to as the "Seongdong").

Article 2 (Scope of Business)

The scope of the project jointly implemented by Gap (Defendant 1, hereinafter referred to as "A"), and Eul (hereinafter referred to as "Nonindicted Company 19, hereinafter referred to as "B") shall include the scope of the project, including authorization, permission, establishment, design, selection of construction works, P/F financing, sale in lots, post-management, etc., necessary for the implementation of the project, in order to promote the project on the land provided by Gap (hereinafter referred to as "the project").

Article 3 (Liability of A)

(1) A shall purchase and provide land within two months for the joint implementation of the project under Article 1 above and complete all necessary measures for the apartment project on the land.

(2) Within two months after the conclusion of this contract, A shall complete the authorization of the supervisory authority necessary for the disposal of land provided by A, the completion of the relocation consultation with the KBS, which is the person with superficies, and shall complete all necessary measures for the conclusion of this contract with the Saemaul Movement Federation that has designated the purchaser as Eul, such as the consent to use the land necessary for the authorization and permission of the project, and the joint development: Provided, That upon understanding B, the necessary period may be extended.

Article 4 (Liability of B)

(1) Eul shall pay land prices and all funds necessary for the implementation of this project.

2. Eul shall pay A a performance guarantee for a joint project (hereinafter referred to as "security deposit") to facilitate the performance of this contract.

(3) When purchasing land from the Saemaul Movement Federation under Article 3 (2) (B), Eul shall pay 3 billion won as part of the down payment, and the remainder payment shall be the priority payment out of the PF funds or the sale price after the measure under Article 3 (2) is completed.

Article 5 (Guarantees)

(1) The performance guarantee for a joint project prescribed in Article 4 (2) shall be three billion won.

(2) Eul shall pay the security deposit under the above paragraph (1) to Gap at the same time as this contract is entered into, and Gap shall complete the objective business under Articles 1 and 3 on the basis thereof. They shall receive receipts: Provided, That KRW 50 million on the date of the contract, KRW 1.5 billion on the date of December 30, and KRW 1 billion on the date of January 15, 2005 shall be paid.

(3) The above deposit shall be used as the reserve funds for the implementation of this project by Gap, and shall be recognized as part of the land price by Eul at the time of distribution of profits under Article 6 (3).

Article 6 (Common Matters)

(1) All the management necessary for implementing a project shall be consulted among the parties, and shall be in charge of supervision under the name of B, and expenses shall be borne by B. Details of duties shall be as follows

A) Application for authorization (a) (a sole corporation of B)

(b) design (including supervision), the selection of the contractor, the procurement of P/F, the sale in lots, the authorization and permission, etc.;

(C) other services incidental to the execution of the above services.

(2) The total purchase and sale amount of land prescribed in Article 3 (2) shall be based on the standards of the Saemaul Movement Association and endeavored to be officially announced (based on the base year of conclusion of the contract) and shall be paid out of

3. The appropriation of expenses for the project shall be made by Eul prior to approval for parcelling-out, and the remaining amount shall revert to the construction cost and all expenses necessary for the project, and the remaining amount shall revert to Gap and Eul, but the distribution method for the remaining amount (the ordinary profits after corporate tax deduction) may be made by adjusting the amount of the expected profits by either Gap 40% and Eul 60%, or under the agreement with Gap and Eul, a specified amount of the expected profits may be pre-paid to Eul and early settlement may be made.

Article 9 (Disposition at Time of Termination and Rescission of Contract)

1. Where Party B terminates or cancels this Agreement due to a serious fault of Party B, Party A shall compensate Party B for the amount received to Party B and the amount of compensation calculated by 12% per annum within 30 days.

(k) At the time of concluding the above sub-paragraph (j) above, Defendant 1 presented a letter of appointment to Nonindicted Party 1 as the head of the group (hereinafter omitted), and the 88 gymnasium site was ordered to be purchased by officially announced land price from the Saemaul Movement Federation, as provided by Article 6(3) of the above Joint Project Implementation Contract, Defendant 1 decided to receive 40% of the acquisition of the project, as well as that the facilities of the KBS, who is the person with superficies, will be completed within two months (the third trial record of Nonindicted Party 1’s examination of witness, 3 pages, 207Da711 evidence, 407, 408, 709 pages).

Other. After the conclusion of the above joint project execution contract, Nonindicted Company 19 was examined as to whether or not the KBS development plan for the KBS site was in fact, and the answer that is not true was presented. On January 21, 2005, February 2, 2005, February 17, 2005, Defendant 1 sent a proof of contents to the effect that Defendant 1 notified Defendant 1 of the performance of his obligations under Article 3(2) of the above contract to the effect that the request was made. However, around February of 2005, Defendant 1 presented a statement to the effect that “the KBS violated the agreement, thus removing the facility and delivering the site.” The above official document was different from the form used by the Saemaul Movement Federation, as well as the official seal attached thereto (the witness examination protocol of Nonindicted Party 3, 14, 2014 through 717 through 77, 775, 775, 775).

D. Meanwhile, on June 15, 2005, on the website of the Korea Construction Association, there is a possibility that a bona fide victim will be a bona fide victim as a result of the spread of a rumor that the development project is implemented in the name of the head of the Saemaul Movement Center or any other person, such as the head of the group, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the group”) on the 88 gymnasium site owned by the Korea Construction Association.

n. The sales revenue of Nonindicted Company 19 as of the end of 2003 was KRW 130,808,213,088, and ordinary profit was KRW 20,604,873,197 (Evidence 479 through 483).

(o) Defendant 1 did not deposit the money received from the victims as performance guarantee with the Saemaul Movement Federation, and used it as the Development Fund for Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 126 operated by Defendant 1 (Evidence No. 2007Dahap711, No. 83, 84).

(p) On August 16, 2005, Defendant 1 prepared a written statement of performance to the non-indicted 19 to promise to pay the compensation under Article 9(1) of the Joint Implementation Contract with the non-indicted 19 to the non-indicted 19 by August 31, 2005. On December 27, 2005, Defendant 1 prepared a written statement of performance to request the extension of the payment date of the above compensation (Evidence 85, 86 pages).

3. Determination

In light of the above facts, as seen in the consistent statement of the victims: (1) Defendant 1 was released from the position of the head of the 88 gymnasium site; (2) the above victims presented a letter of appointment to the head of the 88 gymnasium site or purchased the site for 88 gymnasium site due to the influence on the Saemaul gymnasium site; (3) there was no specific plan to dispose of the site for 88 gymnasium site; (4) there was no possibility that the Saemaul gymnasium would be sold to the victims at the time of entering into each joint project with the 80 gymnasium site; and (4) there was no possibility that the gymnasium would be sold to the victims for gymnasium site; (5) there was no possibility that the gymnasium company would have purchased the site for 88 gymnasium site to the victims.

[208Gohap942]

1. The part concerning embezzlement against Nonindicted 7

A. Summary of Defendant 1’s assertion

1) Of KRW 300 million borrowed from Nonindicted 8, etc., KRW 200 million is the starting money, and KRW 100 million is the money borrowed from Nonindicted 7 under the pretext of repayment to the creditors who lent the pre-existing temporary injunction for non-indicted 7.

2) In order for Nonindicted 7 to set up a provisional registration based on the reservation to sell and purchase real estate owned by Nonindicted 7 to Nonindicted 8 as a security for the above borrowed money, Nonindicted 7 decided not to lend the above KRW 100 million to Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 8, etc. decided not to lend the above KRW 100 million to Nonindicted 7, and lent the above KRW 100 million to Defendant 1.

3) Accordingly, Defendant 1 did not have the status of keeping the above KRW 300 million for Nonindicted 7.

B. Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) On August 14, 2006, Nonindicted 7 borrowed the costs of lawsuit from Nonindicted 59, 90, and 91 in order to file an application for provisional injunction against disposal of the land of the Jinjin-gun (Evidence Records 31 through 35, 101 through 104).

2) Nonindicted 7, who was introduced through Defendant 59 and Defendant 1, who was one of the above creditors, concluded a lawyer’s fee agreement with Defendant 1 on December 30, 2006, on the premise that the lender will accept all the litigation costs incurred by Defendant 1, one of the above creditors, and that the attorney’s fee agreement was entered into with Defendant 1 on December 30, 206. The main contents are as follows. Although the above attorney’s fee agreement stated on the contingent fee, it does not stipulate at all regarding the retainer fee.

“1. The mandator (A) Non-Indicted 7 shall delegate to Defendant 1 the legal act and litigation concerning the exercise of rights on the target land based on the final judgment of the case for the registration of ownership transfer to the Supreme Court Decision 94Da46343 Decided June 14, 1996.

3.(2) The purchase and sale value (or expropriation) price Party A wishes shall be two hundred thousand won per credit.

(3) The contingent remuneration due to the delegation is 10% of the received amount.

(4) If the final received amount exceeds 200,000 won per square year, the shares in rights shall be 40 per cent and 60 per cent in respect of that excess amount.

4. The disposal of expenses under the execution agreement dated August 14, 2006;

(1) 2006. 8. 14.자 공소외 7과 공소외 92, 59, 91 간의 약정의 기초가 된 소송비용 등을 부담한 사람에 대한 보상금(종전 차입금)을 준비하기 위하여 피고인 1이 제3자( ▷사장)으로부터 금 3억의 범위 내의 돈을 차입하는 경우(신규차입금), 위 신규차입금은 위 종전 차입금에 대한 보상금조로 1/3, 피고인 1의 장래 소송비용금으로 2/3를 투여한다.

(3) If a new investor fails to succeed within three months after the said new investment share, the new investor may demand the return of the investment share, and if so, the defendant 1 and the parties to the performance agreement dated August 14, 2006 shall jointly be liable for such return.

(4) If the non-performance of the above paragraph (3) above, Nonindicted 7’s agreement to secure rights (pre-contract or provisional registration) to part of the land owned by Nonindicted 7 (5,000) inside and outside, and the implementation date may be extended.” (Evidence Record 11 through 13, 232, 233, and 14, Nonindicted 7’s protocol of examination of witness in the 14th trial)

3) Note 2 written by Nonindicted 7 is also indicated in the meta, “10% of defense expenses, additional compensation A 40%, B 60%, loan loan loan funds 200 million won, and loan funds 4-50 million won,” and the commencement is not specified (Evidence Records 96, 228 pages).

4) On January 8, 2007, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 7 agreed to borrow KRW 300 million from the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Non-Indicted 60 Law Firm (hereinafter omitted) to the effect that “Non-Indicted 8 and 26 shall borrow KRW 1.5 billion, return KRW 1.5 billion after 3 months, and at the time of delay in repayment, would make a promise to sell and purchase the land at 5,000 square meters at the time of delay in payment.” Defendant 1 and Non-Indicted 7 paid KRW 300 million to Defendant 1 on January 10, 2007 (Evidence No. 14 through 20, page 31).

5) Since Non-Indicted 7 had to prepare a notarial deed after having reached an attorney fee agreement under the above paragraph (2) above, it appears that Defendant 1 should do so. Defendant 1 should borrow KRW 300 million in the absence of actual KRW 300 million and affix a seal on the notarial deed stating that Defendant 1 should pay KRW 1.5 billion in the first time after three months after the loan of KRW 300 million in the absence of actual KRW 300 million, and Defendant 1 should be asked at the call of Defendant 1, and eventually Defendant 1 was trusted and responded to this order from the investigative agency to this court (Article 14 of the 14th trial record, page 233, 234 of the evidence evidence record).

6) Defendant 1 asked that he did not receive KRW 300 million from Nonindicted 8, etc. for several subsequent months. Defendant 1 asked that he did not receive KRW 300 million from Nonindicted 7’s accusation. As to the reasons why Defendant 1 made a false statement that he did not receive KRW 300 million from Nonindicted 7, Defendant 1 asked that Nonindicted 7 would demand KRW 100 million if he responded to the fact that he received KRW 300 million. At that time, Defendant 1 stated that he made a false statement that he could not execute KRW 100,000,000 due to Nonindicted 59’s finding and claiming money within the nomenclature (Evidence record 238, 239 pages).

7) On July 20, 2007, Nonindicted 7, who was aware that Defendant 1 was not receiving KRW 300 million from Nonindicted 8, etc., was subject to the seizure and collection based on the notarial deed of a promissory note amounting to KRW 1.5 billion on the land of the Jinjin-gun from Nonindicted 8, etc., and filed a complaint against Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 26 on the charge of litigation fraud. Defendant 1 recognized that Defendant 1 received KRW 300 million from Nonindicted 8, etc. during the investigation into the said fraudulent case. Ultimately, the said case was concluded as non-indicted 8, etc. (Evidence record 33,34 pages).

8) Meanwhile, Defendant 1 used the remainder of KRW 10 million, excluding KRW 10,00,000,000,000,000 for personal purposes, such as office operating expenses, among the loan amount of KRW 300,000,000, but in the process, Defendant 1 did not request Nonindicted 7 to arbitrarily use KRW 100,000 (Evidence Record 145, 238, 240).

C. Determination

In light of the above facts, (i) the attorney’s fee agreement states only “the future litigation cost” regarding the use of 2/3 out of the money to be borrowed from Nonindicted 8, etc., and (ii) the word “non-indicted 4-500 million” is not used even in the statement that the non-indicted 8 and 26 did not use the word “non-indicted 1’s temporary admission” as security; and (iii) the statement that the non-indicted 70 million won was agreed to allow the non-indicted 7 to use the land as security; and (iv) the non-indicted 2’s statement that the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 70 million won did not appear to have been used as a clean land owned by the non-indicted 7,000,000 won for the purpose of using the borrowed money from the non-indicted 78,000,000 won, and thus, it is difficult for the non-indicted 1 to accept the lawsuit cost of this case on the basis of the agreement.

2. The part on fraud against Nonindicted 2 and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

A. Summary of Defendant 1’s assertion

1) As to Nonindicted 2, Defendant 1: (a) obtained the real income amount of KRW 8 billion, excluding the real income amount of KRW 10 billion, the amount of which was not reported as income; and (b) obtained the reduction of taxable income by taking account of the real income amount of KRW 2 billion; and (c) accepted the tax litigation case against Nonindicted 2 and completed the legal delegation form and legal advice contract; and (d) received the fee of KRW 600 million as a fee

2) Defendant 1 did not have discussed Nonindicted 2’s high-ranking position in the process of accepting the tax accountant’s case against Nonindicted 2.

3) If Nonindicted 2’s assertion was true, it was possible to reduce the tax amount by reducing the taxable income under tax law to impose the tax amount below KRW 2 billion, but as a result of the investigation after acceptance, it was found that Nonindicted 2’s failure to return the income amount was KRW 39 billion, and Nonindicted 2 failed to submit the materials properly, and thus, it was merely a failure to reduce the tax amount differently as originally agreed.

4) Therefore, Defendant 1 did not defraud the money by deceiving Nonindicted 2, even though he did not have the intent and ability to reduce the amount of tax by mobilization of senior citizens.

B. Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) Around March 2007, Nonindicted Co. 23 and Nonindicted Co. 93, operated by Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., were subject to a tax investigation by the National Tax Service due to a suspicion of tax evasion and was anticipated to impose a tax amount of KRW 8 billion (in the 29th trial record, Nonindicted Co. 2’s protocol of examination of Nonindicted Co. 2).

2) On or around March 11, 2007, Nonindicted Party 2 met Defendant 1. Defendant 1 stated that “ Nonindicted Party 2, as an advisor of Nonindicted Party 30 Flux group, had the Minister of Construction and Transportation listed in Nonindicted Party 94 as an advisor of Nonindicted Party 30 Flux group, sent him to the Buddhist Foundation,” or “it would be taken in a clean manner to deal with tax issues within a week” (Evidence record 63, 117 pages, and Nonindicted Party 2’s protocol of examination of witness in the 29th trial record).

3) On March 13, 2007, Nonindicted 2 issued 20 copies of the cashier’s checks to Defendant 1,000 won to Defendant 1, and on that spot Defendant 1 prepared to Nonindicted 2 a cash custody certificate stating, “In the event that the imposition of taxes to He in return exceeds 2 billion won, he shall suspend his business and return the said money to He (36 March 16)” (the 29th trial record, Nonindicted 2’s witness examination records, evidence records 23, 24, 115 pages).

4) On March 15, 2007, prior to the date of determination on the said cash custody certificate, Nonindicted 2 received a demand from Defendant 1 to request the National Tax Service to add KRW 100 million to the National Tax Service’s answer, and transferred KRW 100 million to Defendant 1’s account in the name of Nonindicted 43 (in the 29th trial record, Nonindicted 2’s examination record, page 141).

5) A person who has no obvious progress in the tax investigation even after the date of determination specified in the said cash custody certificate, and Nonindicted 2, around March 17, 2007, prepared a legal advice contract with Defendant 1 as follows:

The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for all matters pertaining to the commission of a legal office (hereinafter referred to as “B”) by Nonindicted 93 and Nonindicted 23 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) as legal counsel.

Article 1 (Duties in Charge)

B shall consult on the law and tax matters related to the case requested by A, attend meetings of all meetings, and provide other advice. Eul shall provide notice of imposition of total national taxes, including corporate tax, income tax, value-added tax, inheritance, gift tax, additional dues and penalties, in connection with the tax investigation of A of the Central and Medium Regional Tax Office A.

Article 3 (Remuneration)

The total amount of remuneration to be paid by A pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be 300 million won for all kinds of agenda expenses required for consultation and one billion advisory fee to be paid at the time of success of delegated affairs (amount of the agreement on good faith fees). The above case shall be compensated for 300 million won for the amount already paid at the time of non-existence of the case (Evidence Records 27,28 pages).

6) Nonindicted 2 written his name on March 17, 2007 (or around 19.) and affixed his seal on the power of attorney that he brought about by Defendant 1 to the public domain, and subsequently written his name as “detailed revocation of disposition” in the name column of the lawsuit (Article 14 of the 14th trial record, Nonindicted 2’s examination record, and evidence record 131 of the 14 trial record).

7) On March 21, 2007, Defendant 1 drafted an agreement on the timing of payment of remuneration as set forth below in response to the above legal advice agreement and received the signature and seal from Nonindicted 2 (Evidence Records 29 pages).

1. The time of the payment of remuneration under Article 3 of the Legal Advice Contract ( dated March 17, 2007);

(1) Fee-day installment of KRW 500 million: A notice of termination of the tax investigation [the notice to Non-Indicted 95 (Tax Accountants Non-Indicted 1 omitted) and (Handphone No. 2 omitted)] immediately (the notice within three hours of the day) shall be given.

(2) Balance of 500 million won: immediately after notice of the result of the determination of the amount of tax;

2. Where a reduction is made to not more than two billion won (an additional agreement);

(1) up to one billion won: 50 percent of the reduction.

(2) Until 00 billion won or less: 50 percent of the reduction.

(3) The sum of paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall be deposited with the payment of the balance of paragraphs (2) above.

8) On March 21, 2007, Defendant 1 demanded Nonindicted 2 to make another money to the effect that he did not have any virtual outcome in the tax investigation, Defendant 1 again requested that he would give notice of KRW 300 million less than KRW 2 billion if he talks with the chief of the executive office of the liaison office, and Nonindicted 2 sent KRW 300 million to the account in the above Nonindicted 43 around March 22, 2007 (the 29th trial record).

9) Meanwhile, Defendant 3 received a request from Defendant 1 to identify the recent tax accountant having been engaged in the investigation experience department, and Defendant 3 received a request from Nonindicted 84 to request the National Tax Service for the fee from Nonindicted 84, and received Nonindicted 25 (Evidence Record 388, 533 pages) who opened business to the Seoul Regional Tax Office as a tax accountant at the time of Nonindicted 84 (Evidence Record 388, 533 pages).

10) Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 introduced Nonindicted 2 to Nonindicted 84, while dealing with Nonindicted 84’s tax affairs, Nonindicted 84 dealt with Nonindicted 96’s tax affairs, and had been aware of it to the National Tax Service. However, unlike the above explanation, Nonindicted 84 did not engage in the tax affairs of Nonindicted 96’s corporation, and there was no connection known to the National Tax Service (Evidence No. 387 pages).

11) Defendant 1 tried to hand over KRW 200 million to Nonindicted 25, who introduced Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 84, via Nonindicted 98, 99, and 84 (Evidence Records 510, 511). However, around November 1, 207, Nonindicted 97, at the Daegu Middle-gu District Police Station, “ Nonindicted 98, Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 25, who will work together with Defendant 3, lent KRW 200 million to the National Tax Service on March 22, 2007, Nonindicted 200, Nonindicted 99, who was asked to hand over KRW 200 million to Nonindicted 25 through Nonindicted 9, 99, who was allowed to pay taxes to Nonindicted 25, who was allowed to pay taxes to Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 84, who was allowed to pay taxes to Nonindicted 25, and Nonindicted 298, who was allowed to do so by deceiving Nonindicted 25 to the same effect.”

12) On March 22, 2007, Nonindicted 84 used 200 million won, which was received through Nonindicted 99, as a business expense by the National Tax Service, as its own business fund (Evidence No. 397 pages).

13) Nonindicted 2 entered into a tax delegation agreement with Nonindicted 25 who introduced Defendant 1 through Nonindicted 84 at Nonindicted 25 tax accountant office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (or around March 27, 2007) (Provided, That it appears that the date of delivery by facsimile was stamped on March 22, 2007 in the tax delegation agreement, and that the contract was sent by facsimile prior to that date, it appears that the document was sent by facsimile; evidence records 395, 396 pages).

14) Defendant 1, on April 5, 2007, prepared a letter of performance stating that he would compensate Nonindicted 2 for the amount of KRW 600 million already received, and had extended the compensation date on nine occasions from August 25, 2007 (Evidence Records 32 to 41 pages).

15) On April 23, 2007, Nonindicted 2 notified Nonindicted 25 of the cancellation of the tax delegation contract (Evidence Record 108 pages).

C. Determination

In light of the above facts, Defendant 1’s assertion that Nonindicted 2 had no capacity to impose income tax on Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3, and that Nonindicted 2 had no capacity to impose income tax on Nonindicted 1 and 60 million won, and that Nonindicted 2 had no capacity to impose income tax on Nonindicted 1 and 60 million won, and that Nonindicted 2 had no capacity to impose income tax on Nonindicted 3, 200 million won, and Defendant 1 had no capacity to impose income tax on Nonindicted 1 and 60 million won, and Defendant 2 had no capacity to impose income tax on Nonindicted 3, 200,000,000 won, and Defendant 1 had no capacity to impose income tax on Nonindicted 2, 300,000 won, to the extent that it would have been argued that it would have been necessary to impose income tax on Nonindicted 1 and 400,000 won, based on the fact that Nonindicted 2 had no capacity to impose income tax on Nonindicted 3, 200,000 won.

[209Gohap166, 601, 911]

1. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

A. Defendant 1

(i)the denial of fraudulent and deceptive crimes;

A) Existence of the sales plan for the instant ○○ site

(1) While the non-indicted 29 non-indicted 30 in Korea had a dispute over the ownership of the instant ○○○ site with the non-indicted 30 in terms of the ownership of the instant ○○ site, the two end groups planned the sale of the instant ○○ site from June 2007 to June 2007, under the mutual agreement of both end groups, and the two end groups agreed to pay a half of the total value of the land and to settle and conclude the same. However, there was a difference in opinions on the value of the land.

(2) The President of the Non-Indicted 29 Dr., Non-Indicted 77, the President of the Korea Coast Guard (hereinafter “Non-Indicted 33”) delegated his authority to manage the instant ○○○○○ site to the Nr. Non-Indicted 101 (hereinafter “Non-Indicted 34”), and the above Non-Indicted 34, upon recommending Defendant 2 to purchase the instant ○○○○ site, ordered Defendant 2 to guide the purchase applicant to the Non-Indicted 29 Non-Indicted 29. Defendant 1 sold the instant ○○○○ site to Korea or the third ○○○○○ site to the Non-Indicted 3’s hotel around the beginning of 2008, asked Defendant 1 to first make a decision on the company recommended by Defendant 1 and give a positive answer thereto.

(3) Around November 2008, Nonindicted 33 sent a letter of recommendation to Nonindicted 31 to submit to Nonindicted 29 Nonindicted 31 a letter of intent to participate in Nonindicted 29 Nonindicted 3’s ○○○○ Traditional Cultural Heritage Preservation Foundation.

(4) In full view of the foregoing circumstances, Nonindicted Party 29 had a plan to sell the instant site to Nonindicted Party 29 at the time of entering into the instant delegation agreement.

B) The existence of Nonindicted 31’s possibility of purchasing the instant site

(1) The agreement of October 2, 2007, which was prepared by Nonindicted 33 to Nonindicted 34, which was executed on October 2, 2007 by Nonindicted 33, was not forged in light of the following: (a) when the representative of Nonindicted 31 corporation received the right to recommend the purchaser of the instant ○○ site to Nonindicted 34, the request was made by Nonindicted 33 to supplement the power of attorney against Nonindicted 34; and (b) thus, Nonindicted 34 was consistent with the statement by Defendant 2 that Nonindicted 34 was sent to Defendant 2 on October 30, 207 and the documents provided by Defendant 1 around October 30, 2008.

(2) The agreement between Nonindicted 34 and Defendant 2 on August 1, 2007 is that the third party, who decided to sell the instant ○○ site, did not pay KRW 300 million in advance, Nonindicted 34 reversed the said agreement, and Nonindicted 34 would give a letter of agreement or power of attorney if the new applicant appears. Nonindicted 34, the standing director of Nonindicted 31, who recommended a new applicant for purchase at the end of October 2008, may be restored at any time in light of the fact that Nonindicted 34 actually prepared a power of attorney when he recommended the new applicant for purchase at the end of October 2008.

(3) Therefore, around February 20, 2008, Nonindicted 31 could purchase the instant site from Nonindicted 29 Nonindicted 29 Nonindicted 31.

C) Omission of delegation of disposition authority

Defendant 1 did not mean that he was delegated the authority to sell the instant ○○ site to both end on the side of Nonindicted Company 9. In addition, it is sufficient that Nonindicted Company 28, the mandatory agent, could allow Nonindicted Company 9, the delegated agent, to purchase the instant ○○ site, and the right to dispose of the land is merely the authority arising from the review, agreement, mediation, the final contribution to the sale of the inspection property, and the procedure under the Final Law, and it does not require Nonindicted Company 28, as it does not require the power to dispose of the instant land.

D) Non-Party 9’s nonperformance

Of the expenses for delegated affairs, Nonindicted Company 9 provided checks to KRW 500 million and did not actually pay KRW 500 million, and as a result, it is not easy to purchase the instant ○○ site from Nonindicted Party 30, a result of Nonindicted Party 30 after concluding the contract, which was not easy to purchase the instant ○○ site. As a result, Nonindicted Company 9 unilaterally withdraws the contract performance intention after hearing the answer and unilaterally withdraws the contract performance intention, there is no agreement between both ends

E) In full view of the foregoing circumstances, Defendant 1’s deception and fraud with respect to Nonindicted Company 9 cannot be recognized.

(ii)the extent of participation is minor;

A) An interview with the person in charge of Nonindicted Company 9 at the early stage of the instant delegation agreement, the agreement on the terms of the agreement was led by Defendant 3, the standing director of Nonindicted Company 31, and the contracting party is Defendant 3, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 28, who was the representative director of Nonindicted Company 34 after the conclusion of the contract, and it was also the Defendant 2, the representative of Nonindicted Company 31, and Defendant 3, the representative of Nonindicted Company 28, the representative of Nonindicted Company 31.

B) Defendant 1 is not a contracting party, and if the legal adviser of the contracting party is an attorney-at-law of the legal adviser, he/she is merely an agent for the extent not exceeding the scope of the duties of the adviser-at-law who has delivered his/her intent on behalf of the defendant-at-law on behalf of the defendant-at-law. Thus, he/she does not assume the responsibility of accomplice in fraud.

B. Defendant 2

1) Defendant 2 heard the statement from Defendant 3 on July 2007 that Nonindicted 3 was the applicant for the purchase of the instant ○○○ site. Nonindicted 86 met with Nonindicted 86 or upon Nonindicted 86’s introduction, and Nonindicted 34 met with Nonindicted 34, but Nonindicted 33 did not hear positive answers regarding the purchase of the instant ○○ site from Nonindicted 33. However, in order to sell the instant ○○ site, Nonindicted 34 took the power of delegation from Nonindicted 33, and based on this, Nonindicted 34 took the power of delegation from Nonindicted 34, and made the said agreement between Nonindicted 34 and Nonindicted 34 on August 1, 2007. However, due to the lack of funds from the said applicant for the purchase, Nonindicted 34 sold the instant site without charge and abolished the said agreement.

2) After the conclusion of the instant contract for purchase delegation, Defendant 1 gave KRW 300 million to Defendant 2, and gave KRW 100 million to Nonindicted 86, and delivered KRW 100 million to Nonindicted 86, and Defendant 1 used KRW 200 million to take charge of the side of Nonindicted 29 Non-Indicted 29.

3) The victim did not have been delegated by the two ends on the sale of the instant site to the victim.

4) Accordingly, Defendant 2 did not deception Nonindicted Company 9.

C. Defendant 3

1) Upon the completion of the written agreement between Nonindicted 34 and Defendant 2 on August 1, 2007, it sent it to Defendant 1 by facsimile.

2) Nonindicted 86 or Nonindicted 34 was in charge of Nonindicted 29’s side, and Defendant 2 was able to sell the instant site to Nonindicted 30’s side.

3) In order to resolve Defendant 1’s debt, only Defendant 1 actively cooperatedd in promoting the sale of the instant ○○○ Site.

4) The victim did not conclude that he was delegated to sell ○○○ Land from both ends, and did not deliver a copy of the agreement dated August 1, 2007 or a copy of the agreement dated October 2, 2007 to the side of Nonindicted Company 9.

5) Accordingly, Defendant 3 did not deception Nonindicted Company 9.

2. Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. As to the instant ○○○ site, registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of ○○○○○○. Nonindicted Party 29’s name was widely known to ○○○○○○, and was in practical management and operation of the said site and inspection. Nonindicted Party 30, the closing group duly registered, was also appointed several times to ○○○○○○, but Nonindicted Party 29 was not on the part of Nonindicted Party 29 Nonindicted Party 10, on November 5, 2001, and Nonindicted Party 103, on the instant site of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, had arbitrarily completed registration of change in the name of Nonindicted Party 30 Nonindicted Party 30, the name of Nonindicted Party 30, Nonindicted Party 29, Nonindicted Party 30, and Nonindicted Party 30, Nonindicted Party 30, on the part of Nonindicted Party 24, Nonindicted Party 29, Nonindicted Party 31, and Nonindicted Party 361 through evidence.

B. From the first instance court (Seoul Central District Court 2003Gahap40656 case) to February 1, 2005, the judgment in favor of Non-Indicted 29 was rendered. After the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2005Na25368 case), Non-Indicted 29 Non-Indicted 30 and Non-Indicted 30 were consulted several times from June 2007 to August 2007 in order to smoothly resolve disputes regarding the instant ○○○○ site, and the two parts of the trial were to jointly develop. Although the above ○○○ site was agreed on a large principle, it was not agreed in concrete methodology such as raising funds and whether the above site should be sold, and the above 3rd 4th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1st 1st 207 3th 207 4th 1st 201 3th 201 3th 4th 201 3th 207.

C. Around December 2007, Nonindicted Company 9’s 104 agent listened to the speech that the instant ○○○○ site was being sold in lots through Nonindicted 85, the office chief of Defendant 1’s office, and Nonindicted 105, Nonindicted 105, the building design design office of △△△△△△, which was in charge of Defendant 1’s office, and then consulted with the vice president of Nonindicted Company 9 on whether Defendant 1 could either purchase the instant ○○ site or purchase the instant ○○ site with the vice president of Nonindicted Company 106 (in the 24th trial record, Nonindicted 6 witness examination protocol).

D. On February 18, 2008, at the chairperson office of Nonindicted Company 9 located in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), Defendant 1 was delegated by Nonindicted Company 107, the chairperson of Nonindicted Company 9, and the head of Nonindicted Company 9’s business division, who was attending his position, to Nonindicted Corporation 31, and only Defendant 1 was entitled to enter into a contract, and Defendant 1 was able to allow only her to purchase the instant ○○ site for several occasions thereafter, and Defendant 1 was able to buy the instant ○○ site for several times. Moreover, in the lawsuit between the two ends, the date of mediation was set on March 17, 2008, and it was no problem in the contract at all (Article 24 of the trial record, Nonindicted Party 3 through 6, 15, 18, 2009, page 647 of the evidence record).

E. Around February 20, 2008, Nonindicted 6 received the draft of a real estate sales contract from Defendant 1, and revised the provisions on joint business with Nonindicted 29 Buddhist Forces and sent them to Defendant 1’s attorney-at-law office (Article 24, 25 of the 24th trial record).

F. On February 20, 2008, Nonindicted 6 was instructed by Nonindicted 107, the president of Nonindicted Company 9, the president of Nonindicted Company 9, to find out whether KRW 500 million can be seen as a check bill from the down payment (the face value of Nonindicted 6’s witness examination protocol in the 24th trial record, and Nonindicted 6’s witness examination protocol in the 25th trial record). Nonindicted 6’s witness examination protocol in the 24th trial record is approved by Defendant 1.

G. On February 20, 2008, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 9, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 6, etc. entered into the instant purchase delegation agreement with Nonindicted Company 28 and Nonindicted Company 9 with the following contents, among Defendant 3, the president of Nonindicted Company 2, and Nonindicted Company 28, who were the representative director of Nonindicted Company 31, who was first viewed as Defendant 1 and its day at the office of Nonindicted Company 31 located in Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), around ten hours from February 208, 2008. Defendant 1 jointly and severally guaranteed Nonindicted Company 28.

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of Nonindicted Company 28 is to complete the purchase contract for the instant site in accordance with the Framework Agreement on the Implementation of Separate Joint Projects on behalf of Nonindicted Company 9 (hereinafter referred to as “Basic Agreement”).

Article 2 (Liability of Non-Indicted 9 and Non-Indicted 28)

① Nonindicted Company 9 shall provide funds necessary for purchasing objective real estate in accordance with the basic agreement.

② Nonindicted Co. 28 shall allow to purchase the target real estate as provided for in the basic agreement: Provided, That it shall coordinate opinions in a reasonable direction about whether to pay the price for the retained portion of Article 3(3) of the basic agreement.

Article 3 (Expenses Incurred in Managing Entrusted Affairs)

1. Nonindicted Co. 9 shall ensure that Nonindicted Co. 31:

1. Payment of KRW 500 million in cash and KRW 500 million in securities at the time of this Agreement (the due date of KRW 500 million in securities shall be at the time of conclusion of this Agreement)

2. Payment of KRW 2 billion upon the conclusion of this Agreement (this Agreement shall be until April 30, 2008)

③ Payment expenses under the foregoing paragraph (1) are used as expenses for concluding a contract by Nonindicted Company 28, and the nominal use suitable for Nonindicted Company 9’s tax treatment (the dividend amount, etc. of Nonindicted Company 9); hereinafter omitted.

In addition, the basic agreement for the execution of joint projects attached to the above real estate purchase delegation agreement is the non-indicted 29 sub-party and the non-indicted 9 corporation as the party, and the main contents are as follows.

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Agreement is to jointly carry out the projects and set the roles and responsibilities of Nonindicted 29 and Nonindicted Company 9 and to set the scope of their respective roles and responsibilities.

Article 2 (Opening of Business)

(1) Project name: (hereinafter referred to as ¡°project name¡±: Other canals and wells development projects.

(2) Project site: Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted) and 108 parcels outside of 108.

(3) Site area: approximately 20,000 square meters (detaileds of land and cadastral map shall be attached separately)

* This outline may be changed by boundary surveying, authorization and permission, design change, purchase of land in third (state, public land, etc.) etc.

Article 3 (Responsibility)

1. Non-Indicted 29's responsibility

① After securing the ownership of a project site, the ownership transfer shall be made to Nonindicted Company 9 by cancelling various restrictions on rights on the site.

(2) Lighting and removal of obstacles to the project site (all houses, warehouses, sports facilities, bathing rooms, etc.)

(3) The current land price (4 million won/pon) shall be deducted from the total land price in consideration of the fact that the retention site becomes unusable due to the impossibility of authorization or permission under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the amount of the retention site shall be deducted from the total land price.

2. Responsibility of Nonindicted Company 9

(1) Various kinds of authorization and permission due to the implementation of a project and all other duties incidental thereto.

(2) Design, supervision, selection of construction works, financing, sale in lots, etc.

(3) All other activities necessary for the execution of the Project.

* Special Terms and Conditions

3. For the initial project costs, Nonindicted Company 9 shall pay KRW 3 billion (including KRW 500 million in cash and KRW 500 million in bills when entering into an agreement, and payment when Nonindicted Company 9 secured the ownership of land) to Nonindicted Company 29 and deduct this amount (including financial expenses) from the development profit to be paid to Nonindicted Company 29 to Nonindicted Company 29 (including KRW 500 million in bills in cash when Nonindicted Company 9 secured the ownership of land) for the initial project costs (Article 209Da166 evidence records 12 through 19 pages).

H. Even before the conclusion of the instant contract for the purchase delegation, Nonindicted Company 9 was aware of the fact that the said contract was directly entered into with Nonindicted Company 29 to the said agreement for the execution of the joint project. However, only at the place where the contract was entered into, Defendant 1 knew that he would have entered into the instant contract for the purchase of real estate with Nonindicted Company 28. Nevertheless, it appears that Nonindicted Company 28 and others were also related to the Defendants, and it was concluded the instant contract for the purchase delegation without any significant objection thereto (Article 25, 26, 34 pages in the 24th trial record).

I. When entering into the instant delegation agreement, Nonindicted 6 first met Defendant 2 and 3. At the time, Defendant 2 presented the agreement on October 2, 2007 between Nonindicted 34 and Defendant 2 on August 1, 2007 and presented the said agreement to the persons related to Nonindicted Company 9, the dispute between Nonindicted 30 and Nonindicted 29, and, due to the mutual agreement between them, Defendant 3 could have the purchaser engage in the conclusion of the contract upon the occurrence of the agreement. Defendant 3 was delegated by the end, and thus, he could have the purchase of the contract in accordance with the procedure. In addition, at the time, Defendant 2 and 3 provided a written agreement between Nonindicted 33 and Nonindicted 34 on August 1, 2007 and the written agreement between Nonindicted 34 and Defendant 2 on August 1, 2007, Nonindicted 27 provided a written agreement on the examination of witness with the said delegation document’s face value of KRW 2500 million in cash and a promissory note of KRW 300 million (27 billion).

(j) The contents of the agreement dated 2, 2007 and the agreement dated 1, 2007 are as follows:

“Agreement on October 2, 2007”

In principle, Nonindicted 33 and Nonindicted 34 agree that: “In principle, Nonindicted 33 and Nonindicted 34 agree to conclude this Agreement and the said Agreement shall be performed in good faith, by selecting two places of the appraiser designated by the State on the instant site, and appraising and concluding it as average value.”

“Agreement on August 1, 2007”

Non-Indicted 34 promised to deal with all affairs together with the above foundation in developing and trading the instant ○○○○ site by mutual agreement between Non-Indicted 30 and Non-Indicted 29, which was received from Non-Indicted 33 on July 31, 2007 from the President of the Office of General Affairs of the Non-Indicted 29 and Non-Indicted 29 (Evidence 43, 44 of evidence No. 20096).

(k) At the time of the conclusion of the instant purchase delegation agreement, Nonindicted 6 demanded that Defendant 3 substitute the original agreement on August 1, 2007 and October 2, 2007, respectively. Accordingly, Defendant 3 had the original so that it would bring about the original form into licking and making it available to Nonindicted 34. However, Defendant 3 found Defendant 3 as Nonindicted Company 9’s office on February 21, 2008, and submitted only a copy of the said documents (see, e.g., Nonindicted 22 of the 20th trial record, and Nonindicted 6’s trial record in the 25th trial record).

T. Since then, Defendant 1 used KRW 200 million out of cash 500 million as office operating expenses, etc., Defendant 2 received KRW 300 million from Defendant 2 as the activity expenses for Nonindicted 108, and the remaining KRW 200 million was donated to Defendant 2 at the expense of the inspection (as for Defendant 1’s newspaper protocol 4, Defendant 2’s newspaper protocol 7,8, 2009Gohap166 evidence record 655 of the 26th trial record).

(m) On March 13, 2008, Defendant 1 demanded Nonindicted Company 107 to sign this contract by March 26, 2008, which was possible to enter into this contract, but the side of Nonindicted Company 9 refused it, and Defendant 1 and 3 again requested Nonindicted Company 9 to advance payment of KRW 3 billion to Nonindicted Company 9 in the name of the non-indicted 30 Scandro group funds. However, on April 23, 2008, Defendant 1 and 3 again requested Nonindicted Company 9 to advance payment of KRW 3 billion in the name of the non-indicted 30 Scandro group funds, but the side of Nonindicted Company 9 again rejected this (the evidence records 2009Gohap166 page 38).

(n) Meanwhile, Nonindicted 33, at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract for purchase delegation, has no agreement between Nonindicted 29 and Nonindicted 34 on October 2, 2007, and there was no difference between Nonindicted 33 and Nonindicted 34 on delegation of the right to dispose of the site of this case. Rather, Nonindicted 33 was only 34, and Nonindicted 34 was able to talk on Nonindicted 6’s side of the 30th parallel, so Nonindicted 34 was able to make a statement on Nonindicted 30 to Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 30, and Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 30, and Nonindicted 34, who prepared the instant protocol of examination on his own property.

3. Judgment on Defendant 1’s assertion

(a)the existence of deception and defraudation;

1) Whether the sale plan for the instant ○○ site exists

In light of the above facts, (i) Non-Indicted 30 and Non-Indicted 29 were in the process of consultation on the disposition of the instant site between the working groups of both end groups on the legal dispute with ownership of the instant site; (ii) although the conciliation date was set on March 17, 2008 during the said lawsuit, it was not clear whether both end groups reached an agreement during the conciliation process; (iii) Non-Indicted 29 and Non-Indicted 33 did not approve the disposition of the instant site; and (iii) Non-Indicted 33 did not delegate the authority to sell the instant site to Non-Indicted 34 in full view of the fact that there was no agreement between the head of the General Affairs Office to dispose of the relevant property.

2) Possibility of purchasing the instant ○○○ site by Nonindicted Corporation 31

In light of the above facts, the following facts can be recognized, namely, ① Nonindicted 33 and Nonindicted 34 stated as the person preparing the agreement on August 1, 2007 are based on the confirmation letter received from Nonindicted 33 on July 31, 2007, and it is not related to the agreement on October 2, 2007, and Nonindicted 34 was not delegated with any authority on the disposal of the site of this case from the side of the non-indicted 29 Non-Indicted 29 Non-Indicted 34 on October 2, 2007, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 was delegated the authority on the site of this case pursuant to the above agreement, ② Nonindicted 33 and 34 stated as the person preparing the agreement on October 2, 2007 are denying the preparation of the above agreement itself, and it is difficult to view the above agreement as having delegated the authority on the appraisal of the site of this case to the market value of the site of this case as the average value of ○○○.

3) Summary of the disposal authority

In light of the above facts, the following circumstances can be acknowledged, namely, ① Nonindicted Company 9 was believed to have the authority to dispose of the instant site by presenting the agreement from the Defendants on October 2, 2007 and the agreement from August 1, 2007, and accordingly, entered into the instant contract for purchase delegation. ② Defendant 1 was entrusted to Nonindicted Company 31 upon the conclusion of the instant contract for purchase delegation, and only himself could have Nonindicted Company 9 purchase the instant ○○ site. ③ Defendant 1 believed that Nonindicted Company 9 was to directly enter into the instant contract for purchase with Nonindicted Company 29, the first stage of the instant contract for purchase of real estate from the standpoint of Nonindicted Company 31 to Nonindicted Company 9, the first stage of the instant contract for purchase of real estate from the standpoint of Nonindicted Company 2, the date of signing the instant contract for purchase delegation, which was the date of Nonindicted Company 2’s consent, and the second stage of the instant contract for purchase of real estate from the standpoint of Defendant 1, the first stage of the instant contract for purchase of real estate from the Defendant 2.

4) Whether Nonindicted Company 9 did not perform the contract

According to the above facts, Nonindicted Company 9 not only obtained Defendant 1’s understanding on the fact that it makes 500 million won out of the down payment as a check bill, but also sought a negative response to the purchase of the instant ○○ site on the side of the end, unlike Defendant 3’s promise, but also failed to present the original agreement dated October 2, 2007 and the agreement dated August 1, 2007, the possibility of executing the purchase delegation contract of this case is doubtful, and it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted Company 9 failed to perform the contract due to the lack of funds, etc.

5) In full view of the above circumstances, Defendant 1’s deception and fraud can be recognized. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.

B. Degree of Defendant 1’s participation

As seen above, as seen in the above facts, in full view of the following: (a) Defendant 1 was jointly and severally guaranteed by Nonindicted Company 28 in the instant consignment agreement; (b) Nonindicted Company 9 was not Defendant 2, who was the contracting party, but was the party to whom the right of sale was delegated; (c) Defendant 1 was first contacted with Defendant 1; and (d) Defendant 1 was preparing the draft of the real estate consignment agreement; and (d) Defendant 1 was able to only purchase the instant ○○ site even on the date of conclusion of the agreement; and (c) Defendant 1 cannot be deemed as having been merely a legal advisory role; (d) Defendant 1 was led to the crime of this case; and therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.

4. Judgment on Defendant 2’s assertion

As seen above, as seen in the above facts, ① was aware that the agreement on August 1, 2007 was reversed between Nonindicted Co. 34, 2007, and was presented and explained with Defendant 3 on October 2, 2007 and the agreement on August 1, 2007 on August 1, 2007, and was carried out as if the person related to Nonindicted Co. 9 was delegated with the authority to dispose of the instant site from Nonindicted Co. 29 Non-Indicted Co. 29 to dispose of the instant land; ② the person related to the instant ○○○○○○○○○○ was aware of the dispute between Nonindicted Co. 9 and Nonindicted Co. 29, and the purchaser could have engaged in deception of Nonindicted Co. 9 on the ground that he was able to have a sexual intercourse, ③ The allegation that partially received KRW 300 million out of the down payment of the purchase delegation contract of this case and used it for the said personal act for the purpose of purchasing the instant land for the purpose of use.

5. Judgment on Defendant 3’s assertion

As seen above, as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 28, Defendant 3 stated as the party to the purchase delegation contract of this case, ② referred to the purport that the persons related to Nonindicted Company 9 may receive delegation from the end group in the form of concluding the purchase delegation contract of this case, ③ Nonindicted 34 and Defendant 2 was present in the process of preparing and discarding the agreement of August 1, 2007 and was aware that the said agreement was repealed, but submitted a copy of the agreement of October 2, 2007 and the agreement of August 1, 2007, which was the basis for paying the down payment, and explained it to Defendant 2, and thereafter, even if the original was brought about, it could not be recognized that Defendant 3 participated in the act of deception against Nonindicted Company 9, in collusion with Defendant 1 and 2. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

[209Gohap236]

1. Summary of Defendant 1’s assertion

A. Defendant 3 had the obligation to pay KRW 80 million to Nonindicted Company 10. However, Defendant 3 and Nonindicted Company 10’s president Nonindicted 3 agreed that Defendant 1 pay the payment of the bill in consultation with Nonindicted 3 at the due date for the payment of the bill after having Defendant 1 use the bill at the discount of the bill at the face value of KRW 150 million issued by Nonindicted Company 10, and having Defendant 1 pay the remainder.

B. Accordingly, Defendant 1 is merely a discount on the bill upon Defendant 3’s request, and thus, Defendant 3 is liable to pay the bill.

C. At the time of the instant case, there was no intention or ability to repay, and thus, there was no intention to commit fraud.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, ① Nonindicted Co. 10 had a claim amounting to KRW 87 million against Defendant 3 (section 3 of the 27th trial record), ② Defendant 1 had a discount of the bill issued by Nonindicted Co. 10 with Nonindicted Co. 3 on behalf of Defendant 3; Defendant 1 had a payment of KRW 75 million out of Defendant 3; Defendant 3 had a payment of the bill at the time of its payment; Defendant 1 had a demand for payment of KRW 10,50,000 issued by Nonindicted Co. 3; Defendant 1 had a bill discount of KRW 70,000 (section 40,000,000,000 won and KRW 50,000,000,000 won and KRW 105,000,000,000 won and KRW 50,000,000 won and KRW 108,000,000.

B. In full view of the above facts, Defendant 1 can be recognized as having received a promissory note from Nonindicted Company 10 on the condition that he will or will not be able to pay the amount of the promissory note on behalf of Defendant 3 even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay it at the due date, and thus, Defendant 1 can be recognized as having received the promissory note from Nonindicted Company 10 on the condition that he will repay his obligations to Defendant 3 (if he received the promissory note from Nonindicted

[209Gohap774]

1. Summary of Defendant 1’s assertion

By December 17, 2008, the time limit for filing the instant lawsuit, which was delegated by the victims, the duplicate of the complaint was served at the time of the strike, and was understood by the victims as to the use of the money prior to that time, and was merely a state of return of money by cancelling the delegation contract on November 3, 2008, which was prior to the time limit for filing the lawsuit, and by having other attorneys conduct the lawsuit, it does not constitute embezzlement.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, ① Nonindicted 11 and 65 entered into a delegation agreement with Defendant 1 as the representative of the victims on or around April 2008 regarding the instant land repurchase right lawsuit, and paid fees and money in the name of deposit. ② Nonindicted 11 and 65 urged Defendant 1 to submit a written complaint on or around October 2008, which was six months later, but Defendant 1 did not have any reason to recognize any other place (in the 30th trial record, Nonindicted 65 witness examination protocol, Nonindicted 11 witness examination protocol, Nonindicted 2nd witness examination protocol), ③ Nonindicted 36 did not make a statement on or around April 36, 208, on the condition that Defendant 1 brought a lawsuit until December 17, 2008 (Article 36 of the trial record).

B. In light of the above facts, the victims appear to have immediately filed a lawsuit against the defendant 1 and requested to deposit the lawsuit, and it is difficult to view that the victims paid money to the defendant 1's arbitrary use of the money before the deadline for filing the lawsuit. The above argument by the defendant 1 is without merit.

[2010Gohap88]

1. Summary of defendant 3's assertion

A. 30 million won received from Nonindicted 12 on August 27, 2007 is not money received under the name of the transfer of screened fish business and the transfer of the office of Nonindicted 37 Stock Companies.

B. Non-Indicted 12 was delegated with the authority to dispose of the instant site. Non-Indicted 30 and Non-Indicted 29 were informed of the progress of the lawsuit related to the said site between the non-Indicted 30 and the non-Indicted 29, and Nonindicted 12 voluntarily invested money in order to purchase the instant site.

C. First of all, Nonindicted 12 asked Nonindicted Company 39 to entrust the Si construction, and as a result, Nonindicted Company 39’s judgment that the said project site was not feasible, and thus, Nonindicted Company 39 was merely the fact that the said project site was not feasible.

D. Accordingly, Defendant 3 did not deceiving Nonindicted 12.

2. Determination

A. Fraud on August 27, 2007

1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) The victim Nonindicted 12 stated that the investigative agency consistent with the victim Nonindicted 12, and that Defendant 3’s share in the business was transferred from Nonindicted 37 Co., Ltd. in Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), first of all, to the effect that the Defendant 3’s share in the business was reduced.

B) On October 5, 2007, the above office received demand for overdue rent of KRW 20,928,431 from the owner of the building on October 5, 2007 (Evidence Records 19,20 pages).

C) As seen thereafter, screened business was already in the state of non-industrialized around April 2007.

D) Defendant 3 stated that it was not prepared by the police with respect to the process of preparing a certificate of transfer between Nonindicted 12 and Nonindicted 12, but, in order to purchase ○○ land from the prosecution, there is a corporation invested in order to purchase the ○○○ land from the prosecution, and thus, there is no consistent statement, such as stating that he/she transferred it for the purpose of using the name of the corporation (Evidence No. 46, 169, and 53 protocol of examination of Defendant 3 in the protocol of trial).

E) As to the purpose of Defendant 30 million won received from Nonindicted 12, Defendant 3 stated that the police was used to adjust the 10 million won among them, but the prosecution was used as part of KRW 2.5 billion that Nonindicted 12 decided to make an investment in the instant ○○ site. Defendant 3 was not consistent with the statement that Defendant 3 transferred 20 million to Nonindicted 76 accounts among them to Defendant 3 for the purpose of purchasing the instant ○○ site (Evidence evidence record 44, 170, 53, Defendant 3’s examination report of Defendant 3 among the trial records).

2) In full view of the above facts, the fact that Defendant 3 did not have the intention or ability to hand over Nonindicted Company 37’s office to Nonindicted 12 while taking over the screen screen business to Nonindicted 12 and did not take over Nonindicted Company 37’s office to Nonindicted 12, and acquired the money in the name of the office transfer deposit.

B. Fraud on September 14, 2007

1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) The instant site for ○○○ was in progress between Nonindicted 30 Nonindicted 30 and Nonindicted 29 Nonindicted 29, and could not be sold without adjustment of the two orders.

B) Defendant 3 or Nonindicted 31 corporation for which Defendant 3 or Defendant 3 was a director was delegated with the right to sell the instant site by Nonindicted 33 to the head of the Non-Indicted 29 Buddhist Religious Order.

C) In addition, Defendant 3 was trying to build up the ○○○ site in accordance with the agreement between Nonindicted 34 and Defendant 2 on August 1, 2007, and to promote the sale of the instant ○○ site. However, as seen above, the said agreement was reversed, and Nonindicted 34 was not delegated with the power to sell the instant site by Nonindicted 29 Non-Indicted 29.

D) Defendant 3 did not notify Nonindicted 12 of the fact that the trial was in progress at the time regarding the instant ○○ site (Defendant 3 asserted that it was notified by Defendant 3, but it is difficult to accept that Nonindicted 12 paid money to purchase the land in the process of trial.)

E) On August 2, 2007, Nonindicted 12 agreed with Defendant 2 to make an investment in development to invest KRW 2.5 billion in the development of the instant ○○○○ site. However, Nonindicted 12 stated that it was immediately discarded due to the lack of himself/herself to raise funds (Evidence Records 198 pages, Nonindicted 10 pages of the 40th trial record).

2) In full view of the above fact-finding, Defendant 3 may recognize the fact of deceiving Nonindicted 12 as if he did not have an intention or ability to cause Nonindicted 12 to purchase the instant ○○ site.

C. Fraud on April 10, 2008

1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) Nonindicted 12 requested Defendant 3 to recommend the commencement of a new construction project of a multi-family housing that is in force in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (Seoul-gu) (the 40th protocol of examination of Nonindicted 12 witness in the 19th protocol of examination).

B) Accordingly, Defendant 3 may select Nonindicted Company 39 as the contractor through Nonindicted 41, which can link Nonindicted Company 39, and Nonindicted 12 had Nonindicted 41 deposit KRW 20 million with Nonindicted 41, and KRW 30 million with Nonindicted 31, the victim Nonindicted 12 stated that Nonindicted 41 returned the said money to Defendant 3 because it was impossible for Nonindicted 39 to introduce the said money after Nonindicted 41 received the said KRW 20 million (the 40th trial record of Nonindicted 12 witness examination).

C) At the time of the instant case, Defendant 3 made a statement at an investigative agency two times that Nonindicted 40, the president of Nonindicted Company 39, had been detained (Evidence Records 59, 183 pages).

D) Defendant 3 testified that Nonindicted 12 paid KRW 50 million to Nonindicted 12 was deposited to Nonindicted 86 in the police with the consent of Nonindicted 12 in order to purchase the instant ○○○ site. However, the prosecutor changed his statement that it appears to be a cost for purchasing the ○○ site (Evidence Record 59, 187 pages).

2) In full view of the above facts found, Defendant 3 may be recognized as deceiving Nonindicted 12 without any intention or ability to select Nonindicted Company 39 as a contractor.

D. Accordingly, Defendant 3’s above assertion is without merit.

[2010 Gohap363]

1. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

A. Defendant 1

1) The subway screen business was led by Nonindicted 42, and Defendant 1 was not well aware of the screen fish business, so there was no contest for Nonindicted 8’s deception.

2) Since Defendant 2, 3, and Nonindicted 8 received remittance of KRW 100 million in the name of Nonindicted 43 with the consent of Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 8, the crime of fraud is not established.

B. Defendant 2, 3

1) The subway screen business was led by Nonindicted 42, and the said Defendants were not well aware of the screen fish business, and this case is only a crime committed by Defendant 1, and the said Defendants did not conspired to commit a deceitful act against Nonindicted 8.

2) In particular, Defendant 3 did not appear at the time when an agreement on the borrowing of money was made with Nonindicted 8.

2. Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. Nonindicted 42, who had been employed as the head of the ▽▽▽▽△△△ branch in Seoul Mcro, recruited investors to establish Nonindicted Co. 37 of the executive officer’s nature (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 37”) in order to establish Nonindicted Co. 37 of the executive officer’s nature while opening up and operating a screen and investment business, and promoting the development of domestic screen fish (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 37”) by recruiting technical experts in Daejeon (Article 45 Nonindicted Co. 42’s protocol of witness examination, evidence record 1-194, and evidence record 300 pages).

B. Accordingly, Nonindicted 42 decided to invite investors through Nonindicted 88 for the purpose of raising funds. Nonindicted 88 proposed that Defendant 3 be responsible for the defect in the business by screening, around October 2006. Around November 2006, Defendant 2, who was Nim, introduced Defendant 2 to Nonindicted 42, a lawyer, around January 2007. Defendant 2 introduced Defendant 1, an attorney-at-law from around January 2007 (section 3 of Nonindicted 88’s witness examination protocol, Nonindicted 42, and Nonindicted 45’s witness examination protocol in the fourth 41’s trial record).

C. The technical experts in the Defendants, Nonindicted 42, 88, and Daejeon have been limited to 4,5 times in relation to the screen business from the end of December 2006 to the volume of 2 months (the three pages in the 41st trial record of Nonindicted 88 Examination of Witnesses).

D. On January 207, 2007, Defendant 3 sent to Nonindicted 8, who was introduced by Defendant 1 at the office of Jongno-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted), Nonindicted 31, the office of Jongno-gu, Seoul (hereinafter omitted), a copy of the business of installing the nationwide subway screen (Evidence 3-11 page). The content of the above documents is as follows.

"National subway Screen-dor" in the business of installing the national subway scraper;

1. Supervisory works;

(a) Seoul subway Corporation;

(b) The Korea National Railroad;

2. Budget.

A. Total construction: 3.5 trillion won (1,400 x 2.5 billion);

B. Order on February 20, 2007: 12 (10 of them)

5. Plans for the establishment of companies.

A. Capital: 500 million won;

B. Establishment: Geumju (deposit of funds for the establishment of a company before January 10, 2007).

- Not later than January 15, 2007 200,000 won as a revenue stamp for the attachment of the contract;

The remainder shall remain in the corporate accounts - the preparation of office fixtures, etc.

C. Stockholders;

(ⅰ) 70%

-Developmentr's side

-the client's side

(ii) 30%

- Non-Indicted 31 Corporation (Non-Indicted 31)

- Non-Indicted 110

- An investor

d. Business after establishment;

-the preparation of offices

- Securing corporate human resources;

- Contract with the ordering company, February 207, 207

- Advertising companies and advertising contracts, immediately after the incorporation of a company

- Construction start works, dated August 2007

(e) Preparation for additional funds;

* Preparation for additional funds, once an investment of KRW 500,000,000, the subsequent funds shall be supplemented by an advertising contract, etc. (in the case of Nonindicted Corporation 31).

(2) Of the 53th trial records, Nonindicted 8’s examination of witness in Nonindicted 8’s examination records, Nonindicted 2, 3, and 42’s examination records of witness in the 41th trial records)

E. However, Nonindicted 42, who started the original screen fish business, stated that he did not prepare the above materials, and Nonindicted 88 also stated that the above documents were false and 4). (No. 10, 11, and Nonindicted 88’s witness examination protocol of Nonindicted 42 in the 45th trial record, 4th trial record of Nonindicted 48 witness examination in the 45th trial record).

F. Around January 2007, any company was still unable to receive business licenses due to screened fish (Article 45 of the 45th trial record).

G. On February 9, 2007, Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 told Defendant 1’s office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu, and Defendant 3 went late. At that time, Defendant 3 promised 10 out of 12 kinds of works ordered by the Seoul subway Corporation and the Korea Railroad Corporation to set up an order for the total construction cost of KRW 3.5 billion, and it is necessary to pay KRW 200 million with the cost of establishing the corporation and the contract amount of KRW 5 billion. On the loan of this, Defendant 1 told Defendant 2 to pay KRW 1.7 billion until October 31, 2007, Nonindicted 2000, Defendant 3 believed that Defendant 2 would not offer an advertisement, and Defendant 3’s business would also receive a certain amount of shares in the instant subway.

H. Accordingly, on February 9, 2009, Non-Indicted 8 entered into an agreement with Defendant 2 and 1 to receive KRW 250,000,000 from October 31, 2007 (including principal) for the purpose of the establishment of Non-Indicted 37 company for the purpose of the establishment of Non-Indicted 8 company. In addition, Non-Indicted 8 received from the above Defendants a notarized promissory note having the face value of KRW 1 billion on the same day (Evidence Record 3-16 through 23).

I. Defendant 2 consented to the use of part of the money to be invested from Nonindicted 8 by Defendant 1. Accordingly, on February 9, 2009, Nonindicted 8 made a deposit of KRW 100 million with the account in the name of Nonindicted 42 (after this, Nonindicted 42 was sentenced to imprisonment for six months by embezzlement of KRW 50 million among the above KRW 100 million), and on February 13, 2009, Defendant 1’s children deposited KRW 9 million with the account in the name of Nonindicted 43. As to this, Nonindicted 8 stated that he was unable to believe Defendant 1 at the time, and that Nonindicted 8 was remitted money to Defendant 2 with the belief that he was a prone personnel of Nonindicted 30 U.S. forces (the witness examination protocol of Nonindicted 8, 10 pages, evidence records, 31-4, 31-14, 301 through 305 pages).

(j) Defendant 1 used the above KRW 99 million as office operating expenses, but Non-Indicted 8 did not consent, and the remaining amount at the time of remitting money is asked for the transfer to Non-Indicted 43’s account. As such, since KRW 100 million is urgent, Defendant 1 sent it first to Non-Indicted 42, and the remainder is not urgent, he heard the answer that he sent it to Non-Indicted 43’s passbook and followed it (the 52th trial record and the 4th trial record of Non-Indicted 8 witness examination among Non-Indicted 42 trial records).

(k) Although the Defendants attempted to jointly carry out the instant screen management business with Nonindicted Co. 111 Company 5, the Defendants attempted to jointly carry out the instant screen management business, the aforementioned plans were nonexistent on the wind requiring Nonindicted Co. 111 to transfer only the technology developed by Nonindicted Co. 37 Company 37 (the 41th protocol of the 41st protocol of the examination of witnesses 6, 7 pages).

(l) On the other hand, on February 23, 2007, the Korea Railroad Corporation publicly announced on February 28, 2007 that the business presentation was conducted on the public invitation of the business operators manufacturing, installing, and operating the screen screen of the metropolitan railroad platform, and the qualifications of the business applicants are as follows.

"A company that has participated in a project explanation meeting and is qualified or qualified as follows for the production, establishment, and operation of platform PSD (Plat Scre) or as an enterprise that has participated in the project explanation meeting shall be presented at the time of the project proposal:

(a) Regular Supplier: An enterprise which satisfies at least one of the following conditions:

(a)an enterprise with at least one domestic or overseas subway construction performance (based on the date of publication and completion of construction)

B) A company which has obtained SSD quality certification from the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Article 22(4) of the Urban Railroad Act

(C) companies with at least 10 PSD construction records in Korea or overseas subway stations and companies with technical leave of absence." (Evidence Records 221, 230 pages)

(m) On February 23, 2007, Nonindicted 44, who served as the representative of Nonindicted Company 37 at the time, presented the above public notice via the Internet. At the time, Nonindicted Company 37 did not attend the above public presentation and did not meet the above qualification for application (Article 48’s protocol of witness examination of Nonindicted Company 44 in the 48’s protocol).

n. On March 19, 2007, Nonindicted 42, at Defendant 1’s office, entrusted 20% of the shares of Nonindicted 37 Company to Nonindicted 31 Company as shares in public interest. As to its management, Nonindicted 42, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 1 prepared a written confirmation of entrustment of shares (Evidence No. 3-61 of the evidence record, Nonindicted 42 of the trial record No. 46, Nonindicted 42 of the trial record No. 19 of the witness examination record).

C. On April 11, 2007, Non-Indicted 37 was established. The representative director, Non-Indicted 44, Non-Indicted 3, Non-Indicted 43, Non-Indicted 113, 114, Non-Indicted 2, and Non-Indicted 115 were registered. The register of shareholders around April 2007, Non-Indicted 44 among Non-Indicted 37's total shares of 20,00 shares, Non-Indicted 43 among Non-Indicted 37's shares, Non-Indicted 43, Non-Indicted 2,000 shares, Non-Indicted 113, Non-Indicted 5,00 shares, Non-Indicted 114, Non-Indicted 4,80 shares, Non-Indicted 116, and 117 shared each of 600 shares, Non-Indicted 31 corporation, Non-Indicted 42 was registered as a director or auditor, or distributed shares (Evidence 31,629-19).

(p) Nonindicted 44 was unable to comply with the screen screen business by Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 111 was believed to have no prospect for the project in the future due to various factors such as lowering the price of Nonindicted 50%, and retired from the office of the representative director of Nonindicted 37 on July 25, 2009 (the 48th trial record of Nonindicted 44 witness examination).

3. Determination

In light of the above facts, the Defendants were able to recognize the following facts, i.e., Nonindicted Party 8’s statement for the purpose of borrowing money from Nonindicted Party 8 on February 9, 2009, and Nonindicted Party 8’s statement from Nonindicted Party 1 to this court, and Nonindicted Party 8 stated that the Defendants would give a subcontract for the screen business. As such, Nonindicted Party 8’s statement was also included in advertisement using a medium of screen 4, and Nonindicted Party 7’s statement was acceptable (as of the 42th trial record, if Nonindicted Party 8’s statement was 8’s screen 1 and Nonindicted Party 3’s statement, Nonindicted Party 4 did not appear to have been distributed to Nonindicted Party 8’s screen 37, and Nonindicted Party 8’s statement for the reason that Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 3 did not appear to have been aware of the fact that Nonindicted Party 7’s business had been carried out by Nonindicted Party 8’s screen 1, which appears to have been part of the business.

There are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant had no criminal record, the fact that the victim Nonindicted Party 20 and 27 reached an agreement with the victim, the aged as 1942, and the fact that there is no good health due to urology, etc.

However, the above defendant was appointed as prosecutor around 1970 and as judge around 1972, and it should be set an example to others as legal professionals who started to work as lawyer around 1990 and worked for several hundred and seventy years in legal profession. However, the victims who did not think that the defendant was in the above legal status and did not think that he was prevented from committing these crimes have paid money to the defendant's belief that he had committed the above crimes, which led to multiple crimes as in this case, and up to 22 victims suffered considerable damages in total, including 4 billion won against the victims, and since the defendant was not in the ability of the victims even though he led to the crime in this case, there were no losses due to the failure of the victims, or since he was merely in the activities of legal adviser as his accomplices, the victims or the victims who did not seem to have been responsible for the remaining crimes, and the records of this case have not been sufficiently reflected until the end.

2. Defendant 2

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was physically fluent by his body, and the victims did not think that they were reliance on the status of the Defendant and committed such crimes; (b) the victims did not think that they were able to easily believe the Defendant’s speech and behavior; and (c) the Defendant took part in the instant crime, even though she took part in the instant crime, the Defendant’s responsibility was transferred to Defendant 1; and (d) the total sum of the damages incurred by the Defendant’s crime was KRW 1.2 billion, the Defendant should be sentenced to heavy punishment.

However, in consideration of the fact that the defendant had no criminal record, partial damages to the victim non-indicted 27, the degree of participation in each of the crimes of this case is relatively minor, the depth of the crimes is against the defendant, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the order.

3. Defendant 3

The defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence in 1 year and June of 1990 for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), 2 million won for the crime of fraud in 1996, 200 million won for the crime of fraud in 2003, 2 years for the suspended sentence in 2005, 3 years for the suspended sentence in October 9, 2009, and 3 years for the above judgment was sentenced to a suspended sentence in 10.5. 27, 2010, which became final and conclusive on May 27, 201, and has many records of punishment for the same crime. Each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant during the suspended sentence in 205 for the same crime, each of which was committed by the defendant, even though he participated in the crime of this case, the defendant was held responsible only against the defendant 1,30,000 won for the total amount of damage caused by the defendant's crime of this case, and other records shall be determined by taking into account the records.

Defendant 3, while establishing and operating Nonindicted Company 28 from around August 2002 to April 2008, filed a complaint against Nonindicted 12 for a crime of fraud on July 2, 2009, in relation to the ○○○ Development Project located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted) from Nonindicted 12, including the rent, the promotion fund, the cost of selecting the construction project, etc., but it was difficult to pay Nonindicted 12 the business share to Nonindicted 12.

Accordingly, on August 2009, Defendant 3 prepared a false statement on Nonindicted 12 by using a computer for the purpose of having Nonindicted 12 take criminal punishment at the office of the above company located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Transport Dong (number 3 omitted). The statement stating that “Nonindicted 12, who is the defendant, belongs to Nonindicted 45 in charge of accounting at the office of the complainant, and affixed his seal to the documents prepared in advance with the representative director’s personal guide and the certificate of personal seal impression, and forged and exercised the document.”

However, on February 4, 2009, Defendant 3 allowed Nonindicted 12, who was found in the above office in order to receive a cash payment statement by telephone from Nonindicted 45, an employee of the above company, to prepare a cash payment statement for KRW 130 million and to issue a certificate of personal seal impression.

Nevertheless, around August 20, 2009, Defendant 3 submitted a written complaint to the police officer who cannot know his name in the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin Police Station civil petition office, and submitted the written complaint to Nonindicted 12.

2. Defendant 3’s assertion

A. Defendant 3 did not agree by telephone to Nonindicted 45, who was to prepare a cash paper of this case.

B. On August 2, 2007, a development investment agreement was made between Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 12 to develop the instant ○○ site. Nonindicted 12 paid KRW 80 billion out of the total amount of investment KRW 2.5 billion to KRW 1 billion, and the remainder of KRW 50 million was used as Nonindicted 39 Company’s rain funds, and the amount returned was replaced with the returned amount.

C. Therefore, Defendant 3 did not dismiss Nonindicted 12.

3. Facts of recognition.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. Nonindicted 12 paid to Defendant 3 a total of KRW 1.3 million from August 27, 2007 to April 10, 2008 under the name of Nonindicted 37’s office transfer deposit, the name of the purchase of the instant ○○○ site, and the name of the introduction of construction works.

B. Around February 4, 2009, Non-Indicted 12 found at the office of Non-Indicted 31 corporation, and prepared a statement of cash in favor of Non-Indicted 31 corporation's accounting (hereinafter referred to as "written statement of cash payment in this case") stating, "No. 130,000,000" in the name of Defendant 3 between Non-Indicted 31 and Non-Indicted 45, that the above amount shall be repaid until April 30, 2009, and the above amount shall be charged with all civil and criminal responsibilities when he fails to pay the above amount (including interest) within the above period (48% per annum on August 207, 207)."

C. However, Defendant 3’s seal is affixed to Defendant 3 in the debtor’s column of cash paperbook submitted by Defendant 3 to an investigative agency; Defendant 3’s seal is affixed to the middle part of the right side; Nonindicted 12 submitted to an investigative agency; Defendant 3’s seal is affixed to the debtor’s column of cash paperbook; Defendant 3’s seal is affixed to only one middle part of the left part; and Defendant 3’s seal is affixed to the middle part of the above two cash paperbook (Evidence Nos. 30, 63, and 49’s protocol of examination of Nonindicted 12 of the evidence record).

D. At around 13:52 on February 4, 2009, Nonindicted 45: (a) called Nonindicted 31’s office phone (phone number 2 omitted) with a cell phone (Handphone number 1 omitted) opened in Nonindicted 45’s name and sent the phone between 67.2 seconds. The aforementioned cell phone (Handphone number 1 omitted) received by Defendant 3 and allowed Nonindicted 46, who is the seat of Defendant 3, to use the cell phone (Evidence number 1 omitted) (Evidence No. 134, Nonindicted 45’s witness examination report in the 43th trial record).

E. Nonindicted 12, in the currency with Defendant 3 through Nonindicted 45, obtained the consent on the preparation of the instant letter of cash payment, had Nonindicted 45 prepare the letter of cash payment, had Nonindicted 45 prepare the letter of cash payment, had Nonindicted 47 make Nonindicted 47 revise the part of interest at the end from 10% per annum to 48% per annum with Nonindicted 45, and stated that Nonindicted 3’s seal was affixed from Nonindicted 45 (the protocol of Nonindicted 12 witness examination in the protocol of the 49th trial).

F. Nonindicted 45 stated that Nonindicted 12 prepared a cash paper with a computer, affixed the seal of Defendant 3 on the debtor column of the cash paper, and copied it; Defendant 3’s name seal on the copy was checked; Defendant 3’s seal was affixed; Defendant 3’s seal was affixed thereon; Defendant 3 did not have a telephone call with Defendant 3 in the process of preparing the said cash paper paper; and Nonindicted 45 stated that it was only a fact that Nonindicted 46 and locked out due to telephone charges (the 43th trial record, Nonindicted 45 witness examination protocol 2, 5 pages).

G. On February 2009, Non-Indicted 47 prepared a written statement of non-Indicted 12 stating that "the rent 1.3 million won, interest rate 10 million won, 10%," which is attached to Defendant 3 and Non-Indicted 12's seal impression and Defendant 3's seal impression attached to the loan certificate affixed by Defendant 3 and Non-Indicted 12. Accordingly, Non-Indicted 47 prepared a written statement of cash payment which is "the amount of 1.3 million won, interest rate 48%," and the written statement of confirmation that the date was stated as "the 100 million won, interest rate 10%," which is the date before the correction as above, was presented (Evidence No. 217 page).

아. 공소외 12는 2009. 6. 26.경 피고인 3 명의로 된 답변서를 수령하였는데, 거기에는 ‘2. 부처님 교법 중에 인연의 소중함을 많이 배워온 입장에서 서로 만나 좋은 사업을 하자고 약속하고 함께 일한 지가 어언 3년째 접어드네요. 그런데 우리가 서로 내용증명을 주고받는 처지가 되어 한없는 비애를 느낍니다. 3. 2009. 4. 30.까지 130,000,000원을 변제하지 못해 대단히 미안합니다. 제 개인적으로 추진하고 있는 일과 자금 사정이 2009. 9. ~ 10. 경이 되면 호전될 것 같습니다. 넓은 아량으로 이해해 주시고 그 때까지 기다려 주시면 대단히 고맙겠습니다.“라고 기재되어 있다. 이에 대하여 피고인 2는 당시 피고인 3의 주소지인 서울 광진구 (이하 생략)에 살고 있었는데, 기소중지되어 소재가 불명인 피고인 3 대신 자신이 이를 보냈다고 진술하고 있다(증거기록 68면, 제52회 공판조서 중 피고인 2 신문조서 10면).

I. On July 2, 2009, Nonindicted 12 accused Defendant 3 on charges of fraud. Defendant 3 refused to comply with the demand of an investigative agency for appearance, and was present on July 30, 2009 and investigated.

(j) On July 21, 2009, Defendant 3 sent to Nonindicted 12 a certificate of contents stating, “Around July 21, 2009, Nonindicted 12 knew that Nonindicted 45 in charge of accounting was aware that he planned the reorganization of the company and managed the representative director’s seal and personal documents, and he knew that Nonindicted 45 in charge of accounting was in consultation with the representative director, and the representative director was in charge of accounting, affixed his seal on the documents prepared for cash custody with the certificate of personal seal impression from Nonindicted 45 in charge of accounting and concealed them. While the representative director was in a reasonable time, he was found to have been suspended from prosecution by the prosecutor’s office at the time of the suspension of indictment, and that there was a fact that the representative director was often used on several occasions to receive the return of investment funds from the representative director (Evidence record 65)

(k) On August 21, 2009, Defendant 3 filed a complaint with Nonindicted 12 on the charge of forging the cash paper of this case (Evidence No. 2 pages).

4. Determination

A. According to the above facts, during the time when Nonindicted 12 prepared a written statement of cash payment in this case with Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 12 had a detailed statement made by Defendant 3 using Nonindicted 31’s office phone, which Nonindicted 46 Nonindicted 46’s handphone. In light of the ordinary transaction experience, Nonindicted 45, preparing a disposal document in the name of a third party, it is difficult to obtain the statement that Nonindicted 12 affixed his seal without verifying the consent of the holder of the title; Defendant 3 was sent with content evidence that Nonindicted 130 million won was not repaid until April 30, 2009; Defendant 3, after Nonindicted 12 filed a complaint with Defendant 3, did not comply with the request for attendance of the investigative agency, and Defendant 3 did not comply with the request for attendance of the investigative agency on June 26, 2009, and prepared a written reply with Nonindicted 45, who attended the investigative agency on July 30, 2009.

B. However, in a criminal trial, the conviction of Nonindicted Party 1 is difficult to acknowledge that the facts charged were true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such conviction, it is inevitable to determine the profits of the Defendant even if there is suspicion that the Defendant was guilty (Supreme Court Decision 92Do327 delivered on March 23, 193). The following circumstances, which may be recognized in light of the above facts, are, namely, (i) there is no evidence that Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 12 sent a telephone call used by Nonindicted Party 46, and there is no further evidence to prove that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 4 were exchanged with Nonindicted Party 3, and that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 4 did not have any doubt as to the fact that Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 4 were not 1 and that Nonindicted Party 4 were 1 and 5% of the revised documents, and there is no further statement that Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 12 were 4% of the revised documents, and there is no reason to see that the Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were 3.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim-Du (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Although the indictment is written as Nonindicted 36, it is clear that it is a clerical error in Nonindicted 63 according to the evidence records 13,192.

(2) Defendant 1 alleged that the above medal was drawn up by Nonindicted 7, but Nonindicted 7 denied the fact that it was set up.

Defendant 3) Defendant 3 asserted that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service asked Nonindicted 94, who was the Minister of Construction and Transportation, to introduce Nonindicted 25 to Defendant 1. However, it is difficult to believe in light of the above facts of recognition.

(4) Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 asserted that Defendant 1 prepared the above documents in falsity. However, Nonindicted 8 stated that “The above documents were made from Defendant 1 at the place where the Defendants made a request for loan together, but Defendant 1 did not correspond to Defendant 1, but Defendant 1 was made.” At the time of the instant case, Nonindicted 42 left the office of Nonindicted Company 37 with business-related data, and Defendant 1 could not be readily concluded that Defendant 1 made the above documents by considering that: (a) she could have reported the above documents to the above office; and (b) she could not be said that Defendant 1 prepared the above documents by false means (Article 42 of the 45th trial record).

(5) Defendant 3’s friendship with Nonindicted Co. 111 Nonindicted Co. 112’s Chairman and her talked about Nonindicted Co. 111’s contact with Nonindicted Co. 11 (6 pages of Nonindicted Co. 88’s examination protocol in the 41st trial record).