1. As to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), this part of the ground of appeal is asserted by the defendant as the ground of appeal or by the court below that it was not subject to a judgment ex officio, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. In addition, even if examining ex officio, the judgment of the court below did not err

2. As to the violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

A. As long as the Defendant submitted a tax invoice under F and H to the victim bank in order to obtain corporate purchase funds, and received a deposit of corporate purchase funds in the name of the head of Tong in the name of the F and H representative and delivered to the head of Tong in the name of the Defendant or the Defendant, the lower court determined that such act constitutes an act of pretending the acquisition of assets and the cause of occurrence arising from a criminal act that constitutes a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and thus constitutes an element of Article 3(1)1 and 2 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The phrase “the act of pretending the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc.” under Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment refers to the act of pretending the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc. as if they were properly acquired, or the act of pretending the fact of attribution as if they were not attributed to criminal proceeds, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7881, Feb. 15, 2008). In addition, “the act of pretending the fact about the cause of criminal proceeds” under Article 3(1)2 of the Act exists that there is no fact about the cause of criminal proceeds.