A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

3,210,600,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the part of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes”) that the Defendant received KRW 100 million for monthly salary from February 2008 to November 2009, as the consideration for solicitation and good offices related to the promotion, etc. of credit loans from banks (in the case of a corporation for convenience, it does not separately state “stock company” in its name) but on the ground that there is insufficient proof of the facts charged, there is insufficient evidence of the crime.

However, while filing an appeal against the judgment of the court below, there is no dispute as to the part of innocence for the reasons of appeal. Ultimately, in the case of the part of innocence for the reasons of appeal, even though it is related to the crime of blanket offense, it was exempted from the object of public defense between the parties, while the part of the offense of violation of special concurrence under paragraph (2) of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below which was found guilty in the judgment of the court below was reversed together with the part of the

2. Ex officio determination

(a) Amendments to Bill of Indictment;

The prosecutor applied for the amendment of the part of the facts charged that was subject to the judgment of the court below from October 30, 2007 to September 5, 2008, and the part of the indictment that was subject to the judgment of the court below which was "(2)" as " around October 30, 2007," "(3) around April 16, 2008," and "No later than September 5, 2008," and (5) as "No later than September 5, 2008," and "No later than October 30, 2007 to September 208, 2008," and the part of the judgment of the court below which was found guilty as a whole, should be reversed as a whole, since the court below's amendment of the amendment to the indictment from October 30, 2007 to September 5, 2008, and the part of the indictment which was reversed as a whole.

B. The occurrence of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act after the judgment of the court below was pronounced

According to the investigation report (the defendant's criminal records, the defendant's judgment, etc.) submitted by the prosecutor, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10968 (the Supreme Court Decision, Jun. 30, 201), the defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter "Special Crimes"), due to the evasion of gift tax from September 6, 201, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter "Special Crimes"), (2) from October 9, 206 to October 26, 206, (3) from July 3, 2008 to November 28, 2008, and (3) from July 6, 2006 to June 8, 2008, the Seoul High Court sentenced the above provision of the Securities and Exchange Act to be subject to suspended execution, and (4) from July 6, 2006 to August 28, 2008.

Therefore, since each of the above crimes and each of the crimes that the court below found guilty against the defendant, the punishment should be determined after considering equity and the mitigation or exemption of the punishment in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, since the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.

Therefore, as long as the conviction part among the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more, and as long as the conviction part among the indictment No. 2, which is a single comprehensive crime, is reversed, the remaining acquittal part should be reversed. In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot escape all of its reversal.

C. Sub-decision

The judgment of the court below is a ground for reversal as seen above, but the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the portion whose charges were not modified is still subject to the

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(a) Acceptance of money and other valuables under the pretext of arrangement related to the workout program of Korea Development Bank;

1) As to the assertion that this part of the facts charged is not specified

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the prosecutor specified the facts charged to the extent that it could be distinguished from other facts charged by pointing out the date, time, place, method, and purpose of this part of the facts charged. Such determination by the lower court is acceptable, and there is no error as alleged by the Defendant.

2) As to the assertion that the Defendant only introduced Nonindicted 4 to Nonindicted 2, but did not have any act of arranging.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not merely provide the introduction to Nonindicted 4, a third party to arrange the Korea Development Bank (hereinafter “Industrial Bank”)’s officers and employees, but directly arrange it through Nonindicted 4. The lower court’s determination is acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, such as the Defendant’s assertion.

At least 204, the defense counsel asserts to the effect that the defendant's act of mediating the above non-indicted 2 was not established since the non-indicted 1's request for the above 4th anniversary of the commencement of the work. The defendant's act of mediating the non-indicted 2's above 1'the defendant's act of mediating the non-indicted 2's above 1'the act of mediating the non-indicted 4's company's above 1'the act of mediating the non-indicted 2's act of mediating the non-indicted 2's act of mediating the non-indicted 1'the act of mediating the non-indicted 4's above 'the act of mediating the non-indicted 2' was constituted the above 'the act of mediating the non-indicted 1' and the defendant's act of mediating the non-indicted 2' after the above 10's offering of the non-indicted 1'the act of mediating the non-indicted 2's above 'the act of mediating the non-indicted 2'.

3) On September 5, 2008, as to the assertion of absence in the field related to KRW 10.6 million on September 5, 2008

A) Summary of the assertion

On September 5, 2008, the Defendant did not have to ○○ hotel in the small and medium-gu Seoul Central District, and in particular, there was a △△ hotel located in the Jung-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul, from 14:00 to 18:00 on the same day, and thus, the Defendant cannot receive cash from Nonindicted 2 during that time.

B) Relevant legal principles

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be decided by the judge's free evaluation of truth. Thus, the judge of a fact-finding court who has full power over the determination of evidence shall take into account the perception obtained in the trial proceedings in fact-finding and the evidence examined. In addition, the judge's judgment on the probative value of evidence shall conform to logical and empirical rules, and the degree of formation of a conviction for conviction in a criminal trial should not be reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection by causing doubts without reasonable grounds recognized as probative value is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The term "reasonable doubt" refers to a reasonable doubt about the probability of facts inconsistent with the facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and it shall not be included in a reasonable doubt based on conceptual or abstract doubt (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do12748, May 27, 2012).

C) the facts of recognition

According to each of the following facts, according to the defendant and non-indicted 2's telephone communications details, the hybrids list, the response to a request for speed verification by road section of the Seoul Metropolitan Transport Information Center, the response to a request for speed data cooperation on the Seoul Urban Highway, the Korea Highway Corporation's request for speed data on the expressway, the response to the request for confirmation on the details of the use of the card by the defense counsel, and the statements of the certificate Nos. 1 through 7

(1) The details of telephone communications between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2 on September 4, 2008 and September 5, 2008, the Defendant’s credit card use and personal telephone details, and the details of Nonindicted Party 2’s passage to the expressway on the expressway are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 시화일 시화시각 통화시간(초) 발신전화번호 상대전화번호 기지국 비고 2008-09-04 10:35:40 00:37 (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) (전화번호 2 생략)(피고인 사무실) 마산시진동면 ？ 2008-09-04 10:57:03 177.1 (전화번호 3 생략)(피고인 사무실) (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) 서울 ？ 2008-09-04 11:02:20 191.5 (전화번호 3 생략)(피고인 사무실) (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) 서울 ？ 2008-09-04 12:19:38 00:48 (전화번호 3 생략)(피고인 사무실) (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) 서울 ？ 2008-09-05 13:56 공소외 2 상행선 이천톨게이트 통과 2008-09-05 13:57:59 00:22 (전화번호 4 생략)(피고인) (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) GC11 FFFF 퀵보이스 2008-09-05 13:58:06 00:17 (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) (전화번호 4 생략)(피고인) GC11 FFFF ？ 2008-09-05 13:59:26 01:45 (전화번호 4 생략)(피고인) (전화번호 5 생략)(공소외 1) 성동구옥수동 ？ 2008-09-05 15:49:47 01:37 (전화번호 4 생략)(피고인) (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) 중구장충동1가 ？ 2008-09-05 15:56 공소외 2 상행선 서울톨게이트 통과 2008-09-05 16:27:04 00:07 (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) (전화번호 4 생략)(피고인) 중구장충동1가 ？ 2008-09-05 16:54 서울 중구 장충동에 있는 △△호텔 1층 커피숍에서 피고인이 회사 법인카드로 결제를 한 내역이 있고, 그 카드명세표에는 피고인의 서명이 있다. 2008-09-05 17:40:45 00:25 (전화번호 6 생략)(피고인) (전화번호 2 생략)(피고인 사무실) 중구장충동1가 ？ 2008-09-05 17:54 공소외 2 하행선 판교톨게이트 통과

(2) The route through which a passenger car moves from △△ hotel to ○○ by using the car generally has such route as shown in the separate sheet No. 1) and the route through which a tunnel No. 2 and 3 is used as shown in the separate sheet No. 2 and the separate sheet No. 2. The distance of the route through which a car passes through △△ hotel is short of the route through 5.4km. However, the route through which a passage through △△ hotel No. 2 and 3 is short of the route through △△ Hospital, while the traffic situation is not affected by the traffic situation, it is significant in the case of the route through △△△ hotel. In particular, in order to go through △○○ by passing through Myeon, it is necessary to pass through Myeon, as shown in the separate sheet No. 3). The passage of the route in the separate sheet is very important in the passage of the road at △○○ seat.

(3) According to the data of the Seoul Transport Information Center, the average transport hours on September 5, 2008, considering the transport conditions by time zone, are as follows.

① From around 16:00 to 17:00 to 00, in the event that a gymnasium that is located near the △△ hotel moves from the gymnasium to the route through which the tunnels No. 2 and 3 are passed, 11 to 12 minutes are required, and 9 to 10 minutes are required from the ○○ hotel to the ○○ hotel entry within the radio wave range of the base station.

② From around 16:00 to 17:00 to around 17:00, 2 Eul-ro takes about 10 minutes from the charging gymnasiums to the private distance.

③ At around 16:00 to 17:00, approximately 31 minutes are required from Seoul Tol to the long distance in front of △△ hotel.

④ From 17:00 to 18:00 to 18:00 to 34 minutes from ○ hotel to ○○-Tol.

D) Determination

(1) As to whether the Defendant was proved to have been in a △△ hotel located in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul from September 5, 2008 to 18:00, the following facts were examined. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant was in the Jung-gu, Seoul, and around September 15:49, around 16:54, and the Defendant paid the card at the △△△△ hotel's first floor; around 17:40, the Defendant was in the Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and therefore there is room to view that it continued to existed in the △△△△ hotel from around 15:49 to 17:40.

(2) However, if the defendant moves from △△ hotel to ○○ hotel on the route through which the defendant passed the tunnels Nos. 2 and 3 in Namsan 2 and 12 minutes, it seems that if the defendant makes a credit payment at the △△ hotel's first floor coffee around 16:54, if the defendant makes a credit payment at the △△ hotel, it is deemed that the primary work at △△ hotel will be completed, and it cannot be deemed that it is impossible to move to ○○ hotel between 16:54 and 17:40.

(3) Meanwhile, if the Defendant 16:54 to 17:40 reached the ○○ hotel with the route through which he passes the tunnel No. 2 and 3 in Namsan, the Defendant appears to have arrived at the ○○ hotel at approximately 17:10 if he takes account of the time from which he she was on the first resort from △△ hotel to pay off with a credit card at around 16:54, and then he was on the way from △△ hotel to 17:4, and he was on the ○○ hotel at the latest about 17:25. Thus, even if it is not impossible for the Defendant to bring up the ○○ hotel between 16:54 and 17:40, it is necessary to collect money from Nonindicted 2 and 17:17:25 between 17:10 and 17:25.

(A) First, we examine whether it is possible for the Defendant to collect money from Nonindicted 2 in ○○ hotel between 17:10 and 17:25.

Since Nonindicted Party 2 passed a boardtol set at 17:54 hours, and the time required for Nonindicted Party 2 to move from 000 to 34 minutes from 000 to 2000, it is an expected time at an average speed calculated based on the remaining data, excluding the data of excessive vehicles, if the traffic situation from 000 to 200, such as Nonindicted Party 1’s statement, is likely to arrive within 30 minutes, and Nonindicted Party 2 should be deemed to have started from 000 hotel around 17:20-17:25.

In addition, at around 15:56, Non-Indicted 2 passed through the Seoul Tolock, and around 16:27, it appears to be between ○○ hotel through the Jung-gu Seoul Jungdong. According to the witness Non-Indicted 1’s trial statement, it is also possible to regard Non-Indicted 2’s hotel arrival time as around 17:10, considering that Non-Indicted 2’s hotel arrival time is not the way that Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 came to the ○○ hotel by using the route through which Non-Indicted 2 and 3 passes the tunnels, not the way that Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 2 passes the tunnels in Seoul.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to view that Nonindicted 2 met the Defendant at the ○ hotel between 17:10 and 17:25.

(B) Next, we examine whether the Defendant is consistent with other statements or objective data, with the fact that the Defendant received money with Nonindicted 2 from 17:10 to 17:25.

① On September 5, 2008, Nonindicted Party 2: “I am on the 2008-day-day-day-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-child-based-based-based-child-based-based-based-based-child-based-based-based-based-based-child-based-based-based-child-based-child-based-child-based-based-child-based-child-based-child-based-child-based-child-based-based-child-based-child-based-based-child-based-child-based-based-based-based--based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based---------based-based------------------------------------------------------------------------.

② Nonindicted Party 1 found Nonindicted Party 2’s hotel to be called “○○○ hotel.” After taking a bath, Nonindicted Party 1 went to the hotel, Nonindicted Party 2’s walked with Nonindicted Party 2 at the time Nonindicted Party 2’s hotel, Nonindicted Party 3 did not take a way to see that Nonindicted Party 3 was a short time until Nonindicted Party 3 talked with Nonindicted Party 3’s string of tobacco at the seat of Seoul Island. Since time was boomed, Nonindicted Party 2 passed through Seoul Tool, Nonindicted Party 2 was at the maximum speed of 30 minutes. Nonindicted Party 2 was coming to the hotel, and Nonindicted Party 3 did not take a way to see that Nonindicted Party 3 was a short time until Nonindicted Party 3 was exposed to a stringle or a short time until Nonindicted Party 3 was exposed to an underground parking lot.”

③ Nonindicted 3 made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 3, at the ○○ hotel, Nonindicted 1 metdlelights or conversations on Seoul Scandlelights were memorys. Nonindicted 3, who talked with Nonindicted 1 at the ○○ hotel, stated to the effect that “Is the last unit of the dlelights at once,” “Is his memory.” Although Nonindicted 3 was not well aware of his memory, Nonindicted 1 was loaded on the vehicle on the day when ○○ hotel returned to her delivery, and the Defendant asked Nonindicted 1 as “Is the goods on the vehicle.”

Although there are some differences in the statements made by Nonindicted 2, 1, and 3 in detail, the main part is ① Nonindicted 2, who was called Seoul, received the phone from the Defendant during his entrance into Seoul. ② The fact that Nonindicted 2 took a bath by going to Ethical Ethical Eththy, ③ the Defendant arrived at the ○○ hotel and sent the money to a driver, ④ the fact that the hours of money was short at the ○○ hotel, ④ the fact that the statement made by the relevant persons are short of the time of money at the ○○ hotel, ⑤ the fact that the statement made by the relevant persons is related to the fact that the statement was made to the original cry through a commercial Ethythy.

In addition, among the main parts of the above statement, ① The facts correspond to the aforementioned objective data, such as the following: (i) the details of this currency (the defendant and the non-indicted 2 attempted to make a telephone call or made a telephone call around September 5, 2008, around 13:57, 13:58, 13:59; and (ii) the facts correspond to the following objective data: (iii) the fact that the defendant and the non-indicted 2 took place between the defendant and the non-indicted 2, around 17:10:59, around 13:56, around 15:56, around 17:56, around 17:54).

However, the part of the statement made by Nonindicted 2 does not fit the fact that the Defendant was sent to the near Tol, which is close to the Defendant’s phone, and that the time passed to Echeon Tol is about 13:59, and that the time passed to Echeon Tol is about 13:56, and that “the Defendant called “the Defendant, anywhere possible,” and “the Defendant, at the latest ○○ hotel, called ○○ hotel, at the present ○○ hotel, called ○○○ hotel shop, with the Defendant’s telephone (13:59) does not fit the Defendant’s location at the time (13:59), and the part of the statement made by Nonindicted 1, “The degree of 30 minutes is the same as the part that was 30 minutes because Nonindicted 2 passed to the Seoul Tol, and it was not consistent with the objective fact that Nonindicted 2 passed to the Seoul Metropolitan City, and that the part that was 10 minutes of the statement made by Nonindicted 2, 201.”

그러나 위 진술들이 2008. 9. 5. 이후 2년 이상 지난 시점에서 이루어진 진술이라는 점을 고려하면, 세부적인 부분에서 실제 있었던 사실 또는 실제 이루어졌던 대화와 차이가 있을 수 있고, 특히 전화를 받은 시점과 톨게이트를 빠져나간 시점의 선후 관계( 공소외 2는 애초부터 서울에 진입하기 전 목욕탕에 들러 샤워하고 양복으로 갈아입을 생각을 가지고 있었다), 전화 통화의 내용, ○○호텔 도착까지 걸린 시간(서울톨게이트 통과 후 30분 내에 ○○호텔에 도착한 것 같다는 공소외 1의 진술 부분은 잘못된 것이 분명하다) 등까지 정확하게 기억하여 진술하기는 어려울 것으로 보이는바, 위와 같은 세부적인 부분이 객관적인 자료와 맞지 않는다고 해서 진술의 신빙성이 없다고 단정하기는 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 당심 및 원심이 적법하게 채택한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 공소외 2는 검찰 조사과정에서 “2008. 9. 피고인을 만났을 때 피고인으로부터 ‘오늘 공소외 11이 중국에서 귀국해서 □□대학교 큰 행사가 있는데 참석하지 못했다. 공소외 11 때문에 저녁을 함께 하지 못한다’는 말을 들었다.”면서 그 때문에 그 날이 피고인에게 돈을 전달한 날임을 확실하게 기억하고 있다는 취지로 진술하였고, 검찰은 공소외 2의 진술을 청취한 후 공소외 11의 출입국내역을 확인한 결과 2008. 9. 5. 당시 국세청 세무조사를 받던 공소외 11이 귀국하였고, 그 날은 □□대학교와 ◇◇대학교 체육교류전인 □·◇전이 있던 날임을 확인하였는바, 공소외 11 귀국일자에 □·◇전이 있었다는 정보는 공소외 2가 그날 피고인으로부터 듣지 않았다면 알 수 없었을 정보로 보여 그 진술의 신빙성이 높은 점, ② 공소외 2는 경남 지역에 기반을 둔 기업인으로서 서울에 올라오는 일이 흔한 일이 아니고, 공소외 1이 운전하는 차를 타고 서울에 올라오는 일은 더욱 드문 일인데, 2008년 하반기에는 공소외 1과 함께 서울에 올라온 날은 2008. 9. 5. 하루밖에 없는 점에 비추어 공소외 2가 돈을 전달한 날짜가 2008. 9. 5.이 아닌 다른 날일 가능성은 희박한 점, ③ 공소외 2, 1은 변호인이 2008. 9. 5. 피고인과 만난 장소가 △△호텔이 아니냐는 취지로 유도신문을 할 때에도 ○○호텔에서 만났다고 일관되게 진술하였고, 공소외 3도 공소외 1과 만난 장소를 ○○호텔로 기억하고 있으며, 공소외 1은 ○○호텔 지하주차장에서 돈 가방을 옮겼다고 진술하고 있고( △△호텔에는 지하주차장이 없다), 공소외 1과 공소외 3은 ○○호텔 앞에서 서울시청광장을 바라보며 촛불집회 등에 관한 이야기를 하였다고 일치하여 진술하고 있는바( △△호텔에서는 서울시청광장을 바라볼 수 없다), 공소외 2가 2008. 9. 5. 피고인에게 돈을 전달한 장소를 착각하였을 가능성도 희박한 점, ④ 공소외 2와 피고인의 관계, 진술로 얻게 될 이해관계 등에 비추어 볼 때, 공소외 2가 금품 공여 사실 자체를 허위로 진술하여 피고인을 무고할 가능성 또한 희박해 보이는 점( 공소외 2가 피고인과의 관계에도 불구하고 진실을 밝히기로 하고 진술을 하는 마당에 공여한 금액을 허위로 부풀려서 진술할 이유도 없다 주14) ), ⑤ 특히 공소외 3은 피고인의 운전기사로서 오랫동안 피고인을 위해 일해 왔고 현재도 피고인의 집 사택에 거주하고 있어 피고인을 무고할 이유가 없음에도 오히려 공소외 2, 1의 진술에 부합하는 진술을 하고 있어 그 신빙성이 높은 점, ⑥ 공소외 2는 일상적인 용무로 서울에 올라올 경우 주로 비행기를 타고 이동하는 것으로 보이는바, 공소외 1과 함께 차를 타고 서울에 올라오는 경우는 짐을 운반하는 등의 어떠한 목적이 있는 경우일 가능성이 큰데, 객관적인 자료에 의하면 공소외 2는 2008. 9. 5. 공소외 1이 운전하는 차를 타고 창원에서 서울까지 올라와서 15:56경부터 17:54경까지 잠시 서울에 머물렀다가 바로 창원으로 내려가고 있고, 2008. 9. 4. 피고인과 4차례 전화 통화를 하고, 2008. 9. 5. 13:57경, 13:58경, 13:59경, 15:49경, 16:27경 피고인과 5차례 전화 통화를 시도하거나 전화 통화를 하는 등(그 중 2008. 9. 5. 13:57경과 13:58경 등 2번은 통화가 이루어지지 않은 것으로 보인다)의 사정을 인정할 수 있어, 공소외 2가 공소외 1이 운전하는 차를 타고 서울에 올라온 목적이 피고인을 만나기 위해서라는 점을 인정할 만한 객관적인 정황이 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 공소외 2, 1, 3의 진술은 신빙성이 높다고 할 것이다.

(다) 피고인이 △△호텔에 머무르던 중간에 굳이 ○○호텔로 자리를 옮겨 공소외 2를 만날 이유가 있었는지를 정확히 알기는 어려우나, 당심 및 원심이 적법하게 채택한 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 2008. 9. 5.은 □·◇전이 있었던 날임에도 불구하고 □□대학교 교우회장인 피고인이 당일 오후에 △△호텔에 장시간 머물렀던 점에 비추어 △△호텔에는 피고인이 빠지기 어려운 모임이 있어 주변에 지인들이 있었고 유명인사인 피고인의 일거수일투족이 그대로 노출될 우려가 있었을 것으로 보이는 점, ② △△호텔 주차장은 실외주차장으로 시야가 가려지지 않으므로 돈을 건네받기가 다소 부담스러운 반면, ○○호텔 지하주차장은 상대적으로 타인의 주목을 덜 받을 수 있는 측면이 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 △△호텔에 머무르던 사이에 잠시 자리를 옮겨 거리가 가까운 ○○호텔에서 공소외 2를 만날 동기가 없다고 할 수 없다.

E) Sub-decision

In full view of the above facts, it is difficult to say that, among the statements made by Nonindicted 2 and 1, there are some parts that are not inconsistent with objective facts, the prosecutor's proof of this part of the facts charged has reached the extent of excluding all possible doubts, but it is sufficient to form a conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is proper to determine the court below that the Defendant and Nonindicted 2 exchanged money with ○○ hotel on September 5, 2008, and that there is no error as alleged by the Defendant.

4) On April 16, 2008, the Defendant alleged that there was no fact that he received KRW 1.1 billion in cash from Nonindicted 2.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below rejected the defendant's appeal and found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the statement made by the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 1 as to this part of the facts charged is reasonable objectively and consistent with objective materials. Such judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding

5) As to the assertion that there was a lack of fixed formation of crime, and that the Defendant was not a reward for good offices, and that there was no intention of good offices.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that there was a lack of fixed formation of crime, and judged that there was a comprehensive and comprehensive quid pro quo relationship between the defendant's act of mediating an industrial bank and the defendant's act of mediating an industrial bank 2.61 billion won, and that even if the nature of the consideration for other assistance is included in part in addition to the consideration for an industrial bank 2.61 billion won, it is reasonable to see that the whole amount has the nature of the consideration for an act of mediating an industry bank as long as the nature of the consideration is indivisible, and that the defendant has the nature of the consideration for an act of arranging an industry bank. The judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

B. Of mediating disputes over reclamation of public waters, conducting tax investigations and arranging loans from financial institutions, guilty part of receiving money and valuables

1) As to the assertion that this part of the facts charged is not specified

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant specified the facts charged as distinct from other facts charged by pointing out the date, time, place, method, and purpose of this part of the facts charged, and that the lower court’s determination is acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was any error as alleged by the Defendant, in so doing.

2) As to the assertion that the Defendant was not a good intermediary, and that there was no criminal intent to commit a good intermediary receipt

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court deemed that there exists a comprehensive and comprehensive payment relationship between the money and goods received from each good offices and the money and goods received from each good offices, and recognized the criminal intent of the good offices and the criminal intent of the good offices. Such judgment by the lower court is acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

3) As to the assertion that only the part of the money that the Defendant received as monthly salary after deducting the withheld amount from various taxes, etc. should be regarded as the arranged amount.

Even if part of the amount of good offices received by the defendant was withheld from income tax, resident tax, health insurance premiums, etc., the person liable for payment such as the above income tax is merely the person liable for payment due to the defendant himself or herself for the convenience of collection, and as such, the amount of withholding tax such as the above income tax is nothing more than the incidental expenses paid to the defendant in receiving the money under the pretext of the defendant's good offices, so the amount of withholding tax such as the above income tax shall be the total amount determined at the monthly salary for the defendant, and therefore the above incidental expenses shall not be excluded from the additional collection charge against the defendant. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that the defendant received a total of 40 million won from Non-indicted 2 from July 15, 2008 to August 16, 2010 as a total of 26 billion won under the pretext of mediation of public waters reclamation dispute, tax investigation termination, and financial institution loans is just and acceptable.

4) As to the assertion that there was no mediation request, consent, or mediation in connection with the reclamation dispute of public waters

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below can be sufficiently recognized that the non-indicted 2 did not request the defendant directly to mediate the public officials concerned, such as the Board of Audit and Inspection, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant requested the mediation of the public officials related to the reclamation dispute of public waters through the non-indicted 5. The defendant not only consented to the mediation request made by the non-indicted 2 on July 2008 but also has taken place through the mediation activities through the non-indicted 6 and the non-indicted 6's personnel at the request of the non-indicted 2. The judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

5) As to the assertion that there was no request or consent for a special tax audit

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Seoul Regional Tax Office requested and consented to a special tax investigation with the fourth investigation bureau, and that such determination by the lower court is acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

6) As to the assertion that there was no request, approval, or arrangement in connection with bank loans

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below determined that there was an act of arranging, accepting, or arranging the defendant's business of arranging the loan of the non-indicted 8, and it is sufficiently recognized that not only the elements of the crime of arranging and taking over the loan but also the act of arranging and taking over the loan of the Han Bank is not a constituent element of the crime of arranging and taking over the loan of the Han Bank. This decision of the court below is sufficiently acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or misunderstanding the legal principles as argued by the defendant.

4. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. As to the assertion that there was a request and consent for the referral of amnesty

1) Article 7 of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Acceptance of Money and Valuables concerning the referral of matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of a financial institution shall be the case where the person who requested the referral of matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of the financial institution and the person who requested the referral of matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of the financial institution receive money and valuables or other benefits under the pretext of the brokerage between the officers and employees of the financial institution (the other party to the referral) who may become the other party to the referral. It is not premised on this, but merely provides the client with the convenience in relation to matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of the financial institution and receives money and valuables in consideration thereof, it shall not be deemed to receive money and valuables concerning the referral of matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of the financial institution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005; 2007Do8117, Jan. 31, 2008).

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① On February 3, 2006, Nonindicted Party 2 was sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for special law violation (forest) in the Changwon District Court’s branch branch on February 3, 2006, and 3 years of suspended execution, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 11, 2006. On February 20, 2007, Nonindicted Party 2 was again indicted with the Changwon District Court as a special law violation (Embezzlement).

② While Nonindicted Party 2 was apprehended to be sentenced to a sentence in the above case under a trial in the Changwon District Court by a judgment of the above suspended execution, Nonindicted Party 2 heard that there was a large amnesty on the economic person, political person, etc. around November 2007, and made a phone call to the Defendant that “I have a large amnesty at once. I have known that I had a large amnesty,” and the Defendant called “I have known.”

③ Around November 2007, Nonindicted Party 5 asked the Defendant to find out whether Nonindicted Party 2 was subject to amnesty by phone calls, and sent the above contents to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request that Nonindicted Party 2’s personal information, the contents of the final judgment of the suspension of execution, and the case number of the case in the trial at the Changwon District Court sent by facsimile.

④ After finding out whether Nonindicted Party 2 was subject to amnesty, the Defendant called Nonindicted Party 2 by phone to Nonindicted Party 2, saying, “In the event of a case under trial, he must have no amnesty.” Accordingly, Nonindicted Party 2 asked Nonindicted Party 2 to help the friend, upon completion of the trial, and asked Nonindicted Party 2 to help the frith, and the Defendant respondeded to Nonindicted Party 2.”

⑤ Around March 27, 2009, the instant case of Nonindicted Party 2’s violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act (Embezzlement), etc. became final and conclusive as one year of imprisonment with prison labor, and two years of suspension of execution. Nonindicted Party 2 asked for the help of the Defendant when the trial was completed on April 5, 2009, following the conclusion of the said trial. In response, Nonindicted Party 2 asked for the help of the Defendant, and the Defendant responded to “Ahhhhhhhhhh”.

⑥ In 2009, Nonindicted Party 2 heard that there was an economic amnesty at the end of 2009, and asked the Defendant to “Isleto and do so so so so so that Is that I would have a amnesty at the end of 2009.” The Defendant responded to “Is know.”

7. At the end of 2009, only one economic person is a special amnesty, and the remaining economic persons, including Nonindicted 2, were not amnesty.

3) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s request for the above facts and evidence, ① Nonindicted Party 2 was unable to find out that there was a large amnesty on the economy at the time of 11, 207, and Nonindicted Party 5’s request, and Nonindicted Party 2 did not know that there was a need for Nonindicted Party 2’s request for the examination, and Nonindicted Party 5’s request for the testimony that it was difficult for the Defendant to find that there was a little need for Nonindicted Party 2’s request for the examination, ② Nonindicted Party 5’s request by Nonindicted Party 2 to find out whether it was subject to amnesty, and Nonindicted Party 2’s request for the submission of a written request for the examination by the Changwon District Court, and Nonindicted Party 2 was not subject to amnesty, and Nonindicted Party 5 responded to Nonindicted Party 2’s request for the submission of a written request for the examination by the Minister of Justice during the period of 20 years ago, and Nonindicted Party 2 was not subject to amnesty prior to 3’s request.

4) Therefore, the decision of the court below that the money and valuables received by the defendant cannot be deemed as a matter of private amnesty, is justified, and there is no error as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

B. As to the assertion that the monthly salary from February 2008 to June 2008 KRW 180 million, gift certificates KRW 100 million around January 2008, and KRW 1220 million from June 2009 to July 2010 received amounting to KRW 1220 million from an industrial bank workout program, reclamation of public waters, and tax investigation by the National Tax Service, etc. was paid for solicitation and good offices related to the job placement program of the industrial bank, reclamation of public waters, and tax investigation by the National Tax Service, etc.

1) The portion received from February 2008 to June 2008 as KRW 180 million on the monthly salary, and the portion received as KRW 100 million on January 2008 from January 2008.

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the money and valuables received by Nonindicted 2 prior to July 2008, which specifically requested the Defendant to mediate matters belonging to the public official’s duties, are money and valuables paid in relation to such good, the crime of violation of special circumstances may not be established. Such determination by the lower court is acceptable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor (in particular, it is recognized by the first instance court and the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, i.e., (i) it appears that Nonindicted 2 asked the Defendant to almost all issues related to his business, etc. after January 2008; (ii) when there was a phenomenon of returning steel raw materials to the Defendant around January 2008, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant would be 12,000 tons from around 20 billion won to around 200,000 won to around 10,500 tons of the gift certificates, etc.

2) The portion received in an amount equivalent to KRW 1.22 billion for steel bars and steel bars around June 2009 to July 2010

The court below determined that the crime of receiving good offices is not established on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, such as the absence of evidence to the effect that if Nonindicted 2 did not donate the steel and steel scrap to Nonindicted Incorporated 15 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Incorporated 15”), it is a situation in which the Defendant should supply the steel and steel scrap with his own property, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was paid an amount equivalent to KRW 1.22 billion. This decision of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor (in particular, according to the written statement dated September 20, 201 of the president of Nonindicted Incorporated 16, Nonindicted Incorporated 16 was referred to as the board of directors’ agenda to deliberate on the degree of KRW 1 billion for the purchase price of the steel and steel scrap to Nonindicted Incorporated 15, and notified the Defendant of such progress, and eventually, it is recognized that the Defendant did not make a donation and the purchase price of the steel scrap at a place other than the Defendant’s contribution and the purchase of the steel scrap.

C. As to the assertion that the amount equivalent to KRW 1.22 billion for steel bars and steel bars around June 2009 to July 2010 was the price for solicitation and good offices related to bank loans

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the time when Nonindicted 2 decided to donate steel and steel framed was around June 2009 and that the time when she requested the Defendant to arrange in connection with the loan of Korea and but around December 2009, the time when Nonindicted 2 requested the Defendant in connection with the loan of Korea and the Bank was deemed as the subject of audit and inspection at the time when Nonindicted 2 decided to make a donation of steel and steel framed, the part of the bank loan solicitation can not be included. Such determination by the lower court is acceptable, and there is no error of law

5. Conclusion

The judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the grounds for ex officio reversal due to changes in the indictment, etc. as seen in the above 2.11.

A. 22) Paragraph (1) of the crime of the lower judgment: Article 7 of the Special Economic Crimes Act (General Provisions)

B. Paragraph 2 of the facts constituting the crime indicated in the judgment below: Article 3 (General Provisions) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 7 of the Aggravated Punishment Act (General Provisions), and Article 7 of the Aggravated Punishment Act (limited to the benefits received from December 15, 2009 to August 16, 2010)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime under paragraph (2) of the crime in the original judgment and the crime of violation of the Special Economic Punishment Act, and the punishment [Provided, That additional collection shall be the amount due to the crime of violation of the Special Economic Punishment Act (refer to Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8704 Delivered on January 27, 2006)]

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided for in paragraph (1) of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below with a heavier penalty]

1. Additional collection:

Article 10(3), (2), and Article 13 of the Aggravated Punishment Act

【Pecuniary Sentencing】

All the issues in this case, such as the workout program, dispute over reclamation of public waters, tax investigation, and bank loans of Nonindicted Company 10, appear to have been processed according to normal procedures despite the direct and indirect involvement of the Defendant, and in fact, there was no particular outcome except for the workout program for Nonindicted Company 10.

The Defendant intervened in the issue of the workout program of Nonindicted Company 10 by introducing Nonindicted Company 2, etc. on the premise that the Defendant assisted Nonindicted Party 2, who was living together, as he did, was not considered to have engaged in the work from the beginning. In the event that Nonindicted Party 2 wishes to pay the price for this, the Defendant first refused the payment and received it at the request of Nonindicted Party 2’s continued request. Moreover, the monthly salary was the first proposal from Nonindicted Party 2, and the gift certificates received at the time of life saving was directly offered by Nonindicted Party 2, and the Defendant did not demand it.

The defendant recognized substantial facts about the part receiving money and valuables, and reflects them.

The defendant has contributed to the education project by donating 62,368 square meters in half of the site of the Korean Air Complex without compensation, contributing the death to the Korean Air Complex from time to time, and has contributed to the development of Korean sports as the president of the Korean Eslling Association and the president of the Korean Sports Council.

As the aged of 68 years old, the Defendant is receiving medical treatment due to the death, serious heart disease, chronic cerebrovascular, etc. of the atomicly Easter, etc., and is not good.

Defendant was punished for a fine of KRW 500,000 in violation of the Building Act in 1989 and 2001, and had no previous conviction except for this clause.

【Unfavorable Sentencing】

The Defendant’s social influence refers to companies, public offices, financial institutions, etc., and most of the former and incumbent high-ranking officials and former and present high-ranking employees and employees of financial institutions are included in the connection of the Defendant. The Defendant received money and valuables in relation to various duties of public officials, or officers and employees of financial institutions by using their status. The Defendant’s receipt of money and valuables was large of KRW 3.21 billion in total, and the amount of money and valuables given and received was a large amount of KRW 3.21 billion in total; the former Industrial Bank Vice-Governor, Nonindicted 96 Chairman, and National Intelligence Service staff, etc. were mobilized to exercise influence over the duties of public officials, officers and employees of financial institutions. It is not easy to commit a crime.

In particular, the defendant is a person of a social guidance group with a significant influence on the static, economic, and sports circles, and should have more morality to fit his status and should have been able to do so, but he is leading to the crime of this case and has a high possibility of criticism.

As for the instant crime, Defendant shall be punished with severe punishment in terms of creating a sound social climate and ensuring fairness and reliability in performing his duties by eradicating solicitations to public officials, or executive officers and employees of financial institutions by using a tobacco, delay, academic research, etc., such as the instant crime.

▣ 사면 관련 부분

○ Summary of facts charged

In return for solicitation and good offices related to the special amnesty from Nonindicted Party 2 from January 1, 2008, the special amnesty from August 15, 2009, and the special amnesty from February 31, 2009 to August 201, 2010, the Defendant accepted KRW 580 million under the monthly salary, ② around January 2008, ② KRW 300 million in total, around November 2008, around January 2008, ③ from June 2009 to July 2010, KRW 30 million in total, and ③ from June 2009 to July 2010.

○ Judgment

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in the preceding 4.A.3, and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, which is a single comprehensive crime, in the judgment of the court below, the decision of not guilty is

▣ 사면 이외의 알선과 관련한 월급 명목 1억 8,000만 원, 상품권 1억 원, 철근·철골 12억 2,000만 원 수수 부분

○ Summary of facts charged

The Defendant received money and valuables from Nonindicted 2 in return for a civil petition related to the reclamation of public waters, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection (hereinafter “Corruption and Civil Rights Commission”) related to the public waters conducted from April 2008 to March 2009, and ② solicitation and good offices related to the tax investigation conducted from October 2009 to January 201, as follows.

(1) From February 2008 to June 2008, KRW 180 million under the pretext of monthly salary.

around January 208, Nonindicted Party 2 offered money and valuables to the Defendant at the office of the Defendant located in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu (hereinafter omitted) along with the Defendant’s solicitation to the effect that “Industrial Bank issues are well resolved.” In addition, Nonindicted Party 2 offered money and valuables to Nonindicted Company 19 and Nonindicted Company 19, currently underway, as well as the public waters dispute with Nonindicted Company 19, as well as the tax investigation, financial institutions loans, etc. that may arise in the future,

From February 15, 2008 to June 16, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 180 million in total on six occasions in return for solicitation and good offices in disputes over reclamation of public waters, tax investigations, etc., along with cases on which an industrial bank problem was resolved smoothly from Nonindicted 2.

(2) 100 million won for merchandise coupons around January 2008

On January 208, the Defendant received KRW 100,000,00 from Nonindicted 2 in the Defendant’s office, to the effect that the above industrial bank problem was resolved smoothly by Nonindicted 2, and that various pending issues, such as future tax investigation, etc., are well aided.

(3) Amounting to KRW 1220 million for steel bars and steel bars around June 2009 to July 2010.

From June 2009 to July 2010, the Defendant borrowed the form of Nonindicted Co. 2’s operation to donate Nonindicted Co. 2 to Nonindicted Co. 15 in return for solicitation and mediation of public waters reclamation disputes from Nonindicted Co. 2, 2009, and received KRW 1.22 billion from Nonindicted Co. 2.

○ Judgment

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime as seen in the preceding 4.B., and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment (Mediation) as stated in the judgment of the court below which is related to such a single crime,

[Judgment of the court below]

▣ 은행 대출 알선과 관련한 월급 명목 4억 9,000만 원, 상품권 3억 원 수수 부분

○ Summary of facts charged

The Defendant received 300 million won in total, including KRW 100 million, from Nonindicted 2, to November 16, 2008, respectively, to the effect that the issue of an industrial bank was resolved smoothly from February 15, 2008 to November 16, 2008, in return for soliciting and arranging loans from financial institutions, etc. < Amended by Act No. 8835, Jan. 23, 2008; Act No. 8851, Nov. 2, 2008; Act No. 8852, Jan. 2, 2009; Act No. 8856, Feb. 15, 2009; Act No. 8857, Feb. 30, 2005>

○ Judgment

As stated in the above 1. As to this part of the facts charged, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged in the reasoning of the judgment, and the prosecutor did not dispute this and followed the conclusion of the court below's acquittal as it is, and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that the court below found the defendant guilty on the violation of the Act on the Special Economic Punishment (Mediation) as stated in the judgment

▣ 은행 대출 알선과 관련한 철근·철골 12억 2,000만 원 수수 부분

○ Summary of facts charged

From June 2009 to July 2010, the Defendant borrowed the form that Nonindicted Co. 20 operated Nonindicted Co. 2 donated to Nonindicted Co. 15 in return for the solicitation and good offices related to bank loans from Korea and but, from June 2009 to July 201, received KRW 1220 million from Nonindicted Co. 2 in return for the solicitation and good offices related to bank loans.

○ Judgment

This part of the facts charged is the same 4.C. As such, since there is no proof of crime as seen in the above paragraph, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as it is found guilty as to the violation of the Act on the Special Economic Crimes (reconciliation) in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court below which is related to such a comprehensive crime,

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

[Attachment]

Judges Maximum Pung (Presiding Judge)

(1) On October 2007, Nonindicted 2 established Nonindicted Company 9 and changed its trade name to Nonindicted Company 8 on or around April 2008 (Evidence record 5054 pages).

Note 2) 4. 9 pages of the indictment.

Note 3) Four 13 written indictments.

Note 4) Four 15 in the indictment.

Note 5) Four 18 pages of the indictment.

Note 6) Evidence records 2204 pages

Note 7) Evidence records 3048 pages

Note 8) Evidence records 3044 pages

Note 9) Part of the 11th trial record of the defendant's examination (the trial record 1900 pages).

주10) 공소외 1은 2010. 9. 11. 검찰 수사시 “아마도 서울톨게이트를 빠져 나와 서초IC를 지나 한남대교를 건너 남산터널을 넘어가서 ‘겨우 겨우’ ○○호텔을 찾아갔던 것 같습니다. 한편 …… 서울로 가는 도중에 고속도로에서 몇 차례 길을 잘못 들어서 엄청나게 헤맸고, 회장님에게도 꾸중을 들은 기억도 있습니다.”라고 진술하였고(증거기록 3704쪽), 2011. 3. 3. 원심 법정에서는 “서울톨게이트를 빠져나와서 계속 직진을 하니까 한남대교가 나와서 그것을 넘어서 남산터널을 넘어갔습니다. …… 서울톨게이트를 통과하여 소공동에 있는 ○○호텔로 이동하면서 다른 곳을 들렀다 가지는 않았습니다.”라는 취지로 진술하였다(제2회 공판조서 중 공소외 1에 대한 증인신문조서, 공판기록 309쪽, 313쪽). 그러나 공소외 1은 2011. 5. 6. 자신의 이동경로에 대한 검찰의 실황조사 후 제출한 진술서에서 “서울톨게이트를 통과하여 한남대교 방향으로 직진하여 가다가 고가다리를 지나 남산터널을 통과하려고 했는데, 차량이 많이 밀려 있어 진입을 못하고 있었습니다. 그 때 옆에 있는 택시기사한테 물어보니 장충체육관 방향으로 가도 ○○호텔 쪽으로 간다고 하였고, 앞 상황을 보니 차들이 우측으로 빠져나와 가는 것이 보여 저도 우측으로 차를 움직여 장충체육관 방향으로 달렸습니다.”라고 기재하여 종전 진술을 번복하였다(공판기록 1963쪽). 공소외 1은 당심 법정에서도 “처음에 증인이 조사할 때 이야기한 내용은, 남산1호 터널인지 모르고 그냥 남산터널로 기억했는데 증인이 수사관에게 일단은 남산터널 쪽으로 가보자고 해서 수사관이 롯데백화점 쪽으로 운전해서 가보니까, 아무래도 증인이 지나갈 때 몇 개를 봤던 기억이 있었는데, 그것이 전혀 없고 생소한 길이었습니다. 그래서 증인이 수사관에게 ‘이 길 말고 롯데백화점으로 올 수 있는 길이 없느냐’라고 물었더니 ‘장충체육관 쪽으로 해서 내려오는 길이 있다. 약간 산을 돌아서 오는 길이 있다’라고 해서 다시 톨게이트 쪽으로 가서 롯데백화점 쪽으로 이동해보고 하였습니다. 그래서 한남대교를 지나서 터널 입구 쯤에 가니까 차가 밀려서 저희들이 우측으로 돌아서 산을 넘어서 간 기억이 났습니다. …… 그래서 그 방향으로 조금 가다보니까 모기업인 볼보 건물이 보여서 그 건물을 본 기억이 났습니다.”라고 진술하였다. 공소외 1은 창원시에 사는 사람으로서 서울 지리에 어두워서 목적지인 ○○호텔까지 이동하는 동안에 많은 시행착오를 거쳤던 점, 공소외 1은 2010. 9. 11. 검찰 수사시 및 원심 법정 진술시에는 현장에 가보지 아니한 채 약 2년이 지난 과거의 상황을 진술하였던 것이므로 다소 착오가 있을 수도 있는 점, 당심 법정에서 공소외 1은 장충체육관 방향을 이용하여 ○○호텔로 진행하면서 본 지형지물을 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점 등을 비추어 보면, 위와 같은 일부 진술 번복에도 불구하고 공소외 1의 진술에는 여전히 신빙성이 인정된다.

Note 11) Part II of the second trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 1 (the trial record 314 pages).

Note 12) The protocol of examination of Nonindicted Party 1 among the second protocol of trial (the trial record 316 pages).

Note 13) Nonindicted Party 1’s statement at the trial court.

Note 14) Since the amount recognized by the Defendant is sufficient solely for cash KRW 50 million, salary KRW 580 million, gift certificates KRW 300 million, steel bars KRW 1220 million, and steel bars KRW 1220 million, which is the amount recognized by the Defendant, Nonindicted 2 has no reason to pay a false amount.

Note 15) Part VII of the trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 5 (the trial record 971 pages).

Note 16) Part VII of the trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 5 (the trial record 969 pages).

Note 17) Second 3-5 of the lower judgment.

Note 18) The judgment of the court below 5th 3 pages.

Note 19) The fifth day of the lower judgment is 7.

Note 20) The 5th day of the lower judgment.

Note 21) The 5th day of the lower judgment is 12.

Note 22) The criminal facts that reflect changes in indictment as seen earlier.

(23) ① The decision to commence the workout program on Nonindicted Company 10 was made on the commencement of the workout program on the part of Nonindicted Company 10. However, in light of the fact that Nonindicted Company 4 was a person for more than three years since he retired from the Industrial Bank, and that there was no material that the Defendant directly made a solicitation or intermediary to the incumbent executives and employees of the Industrial Bank, the decision to commence the workout program would have been possible because it changed the position that Nonindicted Company 2 would accept the merger proposal between the affiliates of the Industrial Bank presented by the Industrial Bank in the part of Nonindicted Company 10. ② In the case of the tax investigation on the affiliated companies of the same group, the decision to commence the workout program was completed normally by collecting taxes of about KRW 7.3 billion on the issue at issue after in-depth examination for the period of 60 days, and rather, Nonindicted Company 2 was dissatisfied with the result of raising an objection, and Nonindicted Party 4 did not directly withdraw the loan and the result of an administrative litigation.