208No158 - A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

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

(Partially Recognized Crime: Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes

Violation of the Act (Misappropriation)

(c) Occupational embezzlement;

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Events of a falsified investigation document;

(f) Offering of bribe;

(g) Violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment;

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

○○○ (*****************), construction business

Busan

Reference domicile Jinju City

Defendant

Kim Sung-il, Kim Jong-si

Law Firm Macknum

Attorney Lee In-bok

Busan District Court Decision 2007Gohap446,502,208Gohap17 Decided February 15, 2008

(each Consolidation) Judgment

August 28, 2008

1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months; and

3. The number of days under detention before the sentence of the original judgment is made shall be included in the above sentence.

4. 10 million won shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

(1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(A) The part regarding the victim ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△△△△△△△

The Defendant, under the name of △△ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as △△△ Construction), and of △△△△△△△△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as △△△△△△△), did not intend to obtain a credit guarantee from a third party on three occasions. The Defendant would normally repay the principal and interest of a financial institution from a financial institution under the said credit guarantee. On July 26, 2007, the Defendant fully repaid the payment of the amount of a credit guarantee by subrogation of △△△△△△△△△△△○ and △△△△△△△△△△△.

( 나 ) 피해자 대한민국 ☆☆☆☆☆(이하 '☆☆☆☆☆'라고 한다) 에 대한 부분

The defendant did not intend to obtain the loan because it is necessary to carry out the redevelopment project, and he repaid the full amount of the loan around June 21, 2006.

(다 ) 피해자 주식회사 ♤♤은행(이하 '♤♤은행'이라고 한다) 에 대한 부분

The defendant used 2.75 billion won from among the loans of ‘beverage loan' agreed with the recipient bank due to temporary pressure of funds.

(2) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and occupational embezzlement

(A) The part on the victim △ case

2007. 1.경 □□토건이 사실상 폐업상태에 이른후,신구건설 주식회사(이 하 '신구건설'이라고 한다), 선경토건 주식회사(이하 '선경토건'이라고 한다), 한진중공업 주식회사가 □□토건에게 각 지급하는 공사대금을 □□토건의 관계회사인 주식회사 이 ○○○(변경 후 상호 주식회사 ▷▷▷▷▷▷▷▷, 이하 '○○○○'이라고 한다 ) 이 수령 하게 하거나 피고인이 직접 수령한 것은 경영주의 판단에 따른 적법한 권한행사에 해 당하고, 그 사용처 또한 □□토건 및 건설의 대출금 변제에 충당하였다.

In addition, it is legitimate that the defendant received 600 million won as retirement allowance was made by a resolution of the board of directors according to terms and conditions, and it was possible to write the retirement income and pay the income tax.

( 나 ) 피해자 주식회사 ★★(변경 후 상호 주식회사 ♠♠♠, 이하 '★★'이라고 한

C) Parts on the others

★★이 주식회사 국민은행(이하'국민은행'이라고 한다) 및 주식회사 우리 은행( 이하 '우리은행' 이라고 한다)으로부터 '프로젝트 파이낸싱(Project Financing)'으로 대출받은 자금의 소유권 및 사용권한은 ★★에 있고, 주식회사 포스코건설(이하 '포스 코건설'이라고 한다 )과 대한토지신탁 주식회사( 이하 '대한토지신탁' 이라고 한다 )는 대출 금의 적정한 사용을 기하기 위하여 그 관리만을 맡고 있었을 뿐이므로, 피고인이 위 대출금 중 일부를 용도를 달리하여 사용하였다고 하더라도 이를 두고 타인의 재물을 횡령하였다고 할 수는 없다.

(3) The point of offering of bribe

(A) The portion of 25 million won granted to 5 million won

The Defendant used △△ Construction and △△△ Group Company’s Company’s funds to invest in shares, which was a stock of 5 △△△△△△○ Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “△△△△”). However, △△△△△ would have been threatened to expand the tax investigation of the said Company with regard to the source of the said funds if not having given money from △△△△△△△, and would have been forced to deliver KRW 25 million.

(나 ) ◆◆◆에 대한 부분

피고인은 □□토건 및 ◇◇건설에 대한 세무조사와 관련하여◆◆◆ 에게 ★★으로는 세무조사를 확대하지 말고 세금 추징액을 줄여달라고 청탁을 한 바 없고, 단지 앞으로 친분관계를 유지할 의도로 1억 원을 준 것에 불과하므로, 이를 뇌물이라 고 할 수는 없다.

( 다) ■■■에 대한 부분

피고인은 아파트 신축사업과 관련하여 복잡한 행정절차에 따른 불이익을 방지하려는 취지에서 ■■■에게 1억 원을 주었다가 그의 거절로 곧바로 돌려받았을 뿐이다.

(4) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

When a large amount of money is deposited and withdrawn in his/her own deposit account, the defendant opened a deposit account in the name of the person who will be mistaken for a voice evasion income, and does not intend to conceal criminal proceeds.

(5) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

★★ 명의의 각 세금계산서는, □□토건 및 건설로부터 연산8동 재개발사 업을 양도받으면서 지급한 양도대금을 회계처리의 편의상 토질조사 또는 토지매입의 용역비로 하여 발행한 것이고, ①000 명의의 각 세금계산서는, □□토건이 폐업상태 에 이르자 신구건설 및 선경토건이 □□토건에 각 지급하는 공사대금을 관계회사인 ○ ○○○이 대신 수령하면서 발행하게 된 것이며, □□토건 및 ◇◇건설 명의의 각 세금 계산서는, 위 회사들이 신용등급을 유지하기 위한 방편으로 매출액을 늘리기 위하여 주고받은 것이다.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The six-year imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to which part of the facts charged was changed in the trial before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

B. Judgment on mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Even if the judgment of the court below is reversed for the above reasons, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles still remains subject to the judgment of the court.

(1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(A) The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to be widely used in the transactional relationship with each other in breach of good faith and good faith. It is sufficient if it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is related to the facts that have been the beginning of the judgment for allowing a perpetrator to dispose of his/her property that he/she wishes to dispose of by omitting the other party. In addition, fraud is a crime established by deceiving another person to acquire property or pecuniary benefits from the defective intent, and its essence does not require the other party to acquire property or pecuniary benefits from deception, and it does not require that real property losses have been incurred to the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 19, 2004).

(B) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts may be determined.

1) The part regarding the victim ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△△△△△△△.

A) The Defendant was unable to obtain a credit guarantee as to the amount of money that was desired from △△△△△△△△△△△△△ and not much or less than the actual performance of the construction work of △△△△△△△△△△, and created a false construction contract document or a false construction contract document in which the actual amount of the construction contract was unsatisfyed even though there was no fact that the construction contract was entered into, thereby making a false construction contract document or making a false construction contract document in which the actual amount of the construction contract was unsatisfyed as the performance of the construction work, and received a credit guarantee from

B) Accordingly, the Defendant filed an application for credit guarantee with the △△△△△△△△△ in the name of the △△△△△△△ on March 2002 by submitting forged construction contracts with the contractor as materials, including false construction contracts, and the financial statements, etc. prepared accordingly, and filed an application for credit guarantee. On March 27, 2002, △△△△△△△△△, which misleads the △△△△△△△△△△ to believe that the factual facts of the △△△△△△△ were the same, and received two copies of credit guarantee certificates, including the amount of security deposit KRW 935 million and KRW 765 billion, which are the sum of KRW 1.1 billion, and the amount of KRW 90 million, by submitting them to the National Bank.

C) Furthermore, around April 2003, the Defendant submitted two copies of a credit guarantee statement with a total amount of KRW 2.85 billion, including KRW 1.35 billion and KRW 85 billion, to a national bank and the Industrial Bank of Korea, and received a loan of KRW 2.3 billion from the National Bank, including KRW 2.3 billion and KRW 1 billion from the Industrial Bank of Korea, which had been mistaken for the performance of construction work as such, by applying for a credit guarantee.

D) In addition, the Defendant, under the name of around May 26, 2003, filed an application for a credit guarantee with the Defendant by submitting a false construction contract that is forged by using a person who is a party to a contract and a false financial statement prepared in accordance with the false construction contract that is deemed to be a stock company, etc., and applying for a credit guarantee. As such, on May 26, 2003, the Defendant was issued one copy of a credit guarantee statement with the amount of KRW 1,530,000,000 as security deposit of KRW 1,80,000,000,000 to a national bank, and received a loan of KRW 1,80,000,000.

2) 피해자 ☆☆☆☆☆에 대한 부분

가) 피고인이 경영하는 ★★이 부산 연제구 연산8동(이하 '연산 8동'이라고 한다 ) 일대의 재개발사업을 시행하기 위하여 ☆☆☆☆☆와 사이에 재개발사업 대상 토 지들을 소유자들로부터 매수하는 데 소요되는 자금을 '브리지 론' 의 형태로 대출받기로 하는 내용의 대출약정을 체결한 상태에서, 피고인은 토지매매계약을 체결한 사실이 없 는데도 허위의 매매계약서를 만들거나 실제 토지매매계약보다 금액을 부풀린 허위의 매매계약서를 만들어 제출함으로써 그와 같이 토지매수자금이 소요되는 것처럼 꾸며 ☆☆☆☆☆로부터 대출을 받아내기로 마음먹었다.

나) 그리하여피고인은 ★★의 명의로 ☆☆☆☆☆에, ① 2006. 1.경 ◈ 합자회사와 그 경영주인 BBB 및 가족들로부터 연산8동 349-6 등 5필지를 매수 한 사실이 없음에도 이들을 매도인으로 하여 위조한 허위의 매매계약서들을 제출하고, ② 2006. 3.경 연산8동 384-1 등 2필지를 매수한 사실이 없음에도 매도인을 실제 소유 자가 아닌 ♥♥♥으로 하여 허위로 작성한 매매계약서들을 제출하고, ③ 2005. 6.경부 터 2006. 6.경까지 사이에 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(1) 기재와 같이 실제 매매계약보 다 금액을 부풀려 위조한 허위의 매매계약서들을 제출하여, 각 매매계약서에 따른 매 수자금의 대출을 신청함으로써, 그와 같이 토지매수자금이 소요되는 것으로 오인한 ☆ ☆☆☆☆로부터 합계 19,020,573,700원(= ①항에 의한 대출금 5,490,612,500원 + ②항 에 의한 대출금 3,160,630,000원 + ③항에 의한 대출금 중 실제 매매대금과의 차액 10,369,331,200원) 의 대출을 받았다 .

3) 피해자 ♤♤은행에 대한 부분

피고인이 경영하는 주식회사수수수수(변경 후 상호 주식회사 수4수파 크 , 이하 ' & & & & &'라고 한다)가 부산 수영구 민락동에 있는 '미월드' 의 부지를 매수 하여 콘도미니엄 건물을 신축하는 사업을 추진하면서 ♤♤은행과 사이에 위 사업에 소 요되는 자금을 '브리지 론' 의 형태로 대출받기로 하는 내용의 대출약정을 체결한 상태 에서, 피고인은 2007. 7.경 '▶▶▶ ▶▶'(대표자 □□□)와 위 사업부지의 토지매수용 역계약을 체결한 사실이 없는데도 수급인을 '▶▶▶ ▶▶'로 하고 용역대금을 30억 원 으로 하여 허위로 작성한 토지매수용역계약서를 ♤♤은행에 제출하면서 & & & & & 의 명의로 27억 5,000만 원의 대출을 신청함으로써, 그와 같이 토지매수용역대금이 소요 되는 것으로 오인한 ♤♤은행으로부터 2007. 7. 3. 27억 5,000만 원의 대출을 받았다.

(다 ) 위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고인이 ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽ 및 △△△△△△에 허위 의 공사계약서와 재무제표 등을 제출하여 공사실적이 충분한 것처럼 거짓으로 꾸며 신 용보증을 신청함으로써 이들로부터 각 신용보증서를 발급받은 다음 이를 이용하여 금 융기관들로부터 대출을 받고, ☆☆☆☆☆ 및 ♤♤은행에 허위의 토지매매계약서들이나 용역계약서를 제출하여 그와 같이 토지매수자금 또는 용역대금이 소요되는 것처럼 거 짓으로 꾸며 대출을 신청함으로써 대출금을 받아낸 것은, ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽ 및 △△△ △△△을 기망하여 신용보증금액 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하거나, ☆☆☆☆☆ 및 요 ♤은행을 기망하여 대출금을 편취한 것이 되어 모두 사기죄가 성립하고 , 그에 관한 범 의도 충분히 인정되며, 사후에 피고인이 위 피해자들에게 신용보증에 기한 대위변제금 또는 대출원리금을 모두 변제하였다고 하여 이와 달리 볼 것은 아니다. 이에 관한 피 고인의 주장은 이유 없다.

(2) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and occupational embezzlement

(A) The part on the victim △ case

1) Construction cost portion

A) In a case where a company uses funds owned by one company for another among the one-person companies whose shares actually belong to a person who actually belongs to a single company, each company cannot be deemed identical to the one-person holding a separate corporate personality. Thus, barring special circumstances such as the use of the above funds for the benefit of the company, it should be deemed that the act of using the funds constitutes embezzlement for business purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1525, Aug. 23, 1996; 2004Do3314, Sept. 22, 2006). In addition, even a single-person company, the company and its shareholder cannot be deemed as the one-person shareholder’s own property immediately because it is separate character, and thus, if one-person shareholder consumes funds for his/her own business at his/her discretion during the occupational custody, it also constitutes embezzlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1040, Jul. 9, 199).

Meanwhile, in the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to an intention to dispose of another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party's interest, such as his/her own property, and even if he/she wishes to return, reimburse, or preserve it later, there is no problem in recognizing the intention of unlawful acquisition (Supreme Court Decision 9Do214 delivered on December 8, 200).

B) When the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, if all of the Defendant’s companies are one of the Defendant, who actually owns the entire shares, and the receipt of construction payment from other companies is anticipated to take measures such as collecting claims, such as seizure of a large amount of tax liability and reimbursement liability, the Defendant is able to infer the above construction cost in advance and use 50 million won and 38.4 million won and 550 million won paid for each of the construction in new-gu and passenger ship and passenger ship in △△△, which are owned by the Defendant, by ○○○○○○, which is another company owned by the Defendant, and the construction cost of 480 million won paid by Hanjin Heavy Industries in △ City is anticipated to have been paid from other companies.

C) According to the above facts, the act of receiving and using 000 funds for the construction work paid on terms and conditions or by using them for personal purposes, which is another company of the defendant, or by receiving them directly, constitutes a crime of embezzlement as it is based on the intent of unlawful acquisition. The defendant's assertion on this is without merit.

2) Retirement pay portion

A) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be recognized.

① As a result of the Defendant’s arbitrary tax audit around September 2006 at the Busan Local Tax Service, there was a tax amount of KRW 3.5 billion, including corporate tax, etc., on Cheongsan case.

② □□토건이 매년 수억 원 이상의적자를 내고 금융기관들에 대하여 수 십억 원의 대출금 채무를 안고 있는 상태에서 위와 같이 거액의 조세 채무까지 부과되 어 회사의 자력으로는 이들 채무를 변제하고 정상적인 운영을 지속해 나가기 어렵게 되자, 피고인은 2007. 1.경 □□토건을 폐업하기로 마음먹고, 폐업하기에 앞서 회사 자 금을 사용하기 위하여 회계담당 직원인 ♡♡♡에게 자신에 대한 퇴직금으로 6억 원을 지급해 달라고 지시하였는데, ♡♡♡가 퇴직금 지급규정에 의하면 6억 원을 지급할 수 없어서 세무처리상 문제가 생길 수 있다고 말하자, 피고인은 대표이사의 회사에 대한 공로로 처리하면 되니 그대로 지급해 달라고 재차 지시하여, 퇴직금 명목으로 6억 원 을 받아 갔다.

③ On February 107, 2007, the Defendant prepared meeting minutes of a general meeting to pay a retirement allowance to himself/herself as a representative director and a single representative director, and made a report on retirement income tax at the competent tax office.

④ After that, on March 22, 2007, i.e., i., e., i., e., (i).

B) According to Article 388 of the Commercial Act, remuneration for a director of a stock company shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders when the amount is not determined by the articles of incorporation. The amount of retirement for the representative director is a kind of remuneration paid in return for the performance of duties while in office, and it is apparent that in the case of a so-called one company, it shall be established as the general meeting of shareholders only if the stockholder attends the general meeting of shareholders, and it shall be decided according to the intention of the stockholder. Thus, it is not necessary to separate procedures for convening the general meeting. Even if there was no fact that the general meeting was held, if the minutes of the general meeting were prepared by the one stockholder, it shall be deemed that there was a resolution, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da25123, Dec. 10, 2004).

In light of these legal principles, according to the above facts, the defendant, as the one shareholder and representative director of Cheongdong-gu, prepared the minutes of the shareholders' meeting in order to pay 600 million won as retirement allowance to himself/herself, and accordingly received 600 million won from Cheongdong-gu. Thus, it is difficult to view that he/she embezzled 600 million won of the funds of Cheongdong-gu company.

C) On the other hand, on the other hand, between a stock company and a stock company and a shareholder cannot be the same person as a separate legal entity. Thus, if a single shareholder or a major shareholder causes damage to the stock company as a result of his/her breach of trust, the crime of breach of trust shall be established. If a company’s executive officer obtains pecuniary advantage or causes a third party to do so by violating his/her duties, thereby causing damage to the company, the crime of breach of trust shall be established. It does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust on the ground that the company actually obtained a shareholder’s understanding on the act of breach of duty as above or the resolution of the board of directors was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do7027, Nov. 9, 2006; 9Do822, Nov. 24, 200).

In accordance with the above facts, although the defendant had a duty to faithfully perform his duties as the representative director, the defendant has imposed tax amounting to KRW 3.5 billion on the △ case due to his own misconduct, etc., the defendant preservation of the company's property and thereby, rather than trying to protect the interests of the creditors and customers of the association, which is interested parties, for the purpose of protecting the interests of the company's creditors and customers, and has violated the company's retirement payment regulations prior to its closure, and has violated the company's retirement allowance payment regulations and paid retirement money which is KRW 60 million to himself, thereby promoting only private interests and causing loss. Thus, this act constitutes a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the defendant's criminal intent is sufficiently recognized.

D) However, the crime of occupational breach of trust and the crime of occupational embezzlement are property crimes of the same nature as the crime of the same trust, which are based on a fiduciary relationship, and there is no difference in the punishment, and only apply the same crime to the same crime differently. Since Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is the provision on the aggravated punishment, provides the same punishment, the court may apply the crime of occupational breach of trust to the charges of embezzlement and punish them without changing any indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do2651, Nov. 26, 199).

Therefore, as seen above, although the defendant's act of receiving KRW 600 million from the case of retirement allowance constitutes a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), even though the court below punished it by applying it as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the error of applying such Act and subordinate statutes cannot be deemed as affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do1335, Nov. 27, 1990; 89Do1417, Jun. 8, 1990). The defendant's assertion on this is without merit.

( 나 ) 피해자 ★★에 대한 부분

1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts may be determined.

가) ★★은 연산8동 일대의재개발사업을 추진하면서 국민은행및우리은행 으로부터 '프로젝트 파이낸싱' 자금으로 합계 2,650억 원을 ★★의 계좌에 입금받아, 위 재개발사업의 시공사인 포스코건설 및 신탁관리자인 대한토지신탁으로부터 공동으 로 위 자금의 관리를 받으면서, 이들의 승낙을 받아 재개발사업에 소요되는 자금을 인 출하여 사용하게 되었다.

B) However, the Defendant created a false sales contract with a sum of money than the actual contract for the land and buildings subject to the said redevelopment project, thereby making the purchase fund as soon as the purchase fund is required, and withdrawing part of the “project financing” funds with the approval from the Scco Construction and the Korea Land Trust, and raising the difference in excess of the actual purchase price for the purpose other than the company.

다) 그리하여피고인은 2006. 6.경부터 2007.6.경까지 사이에 ★★의 명의 로 포스코건설 및 대한토지신탁에 원심 판시 별지 범죄일람표(2) 기재와 같이 실제 계 약보다 금액을 부풀려 위조한 허위의 매매계약서들을 제출하여 그에 따른 매수자금의 인출을 요청함으로써, 위와 같이 매수자금이 소요되는 것으로 오인한 포스코건설 및 대한토지신탁의 승낙을 받아 ★★의 계좌에서 합계 50,138,880,425원을 인출하여 업무 상 보관하던 중, 실제 매매대금을 초과한 차액 부분인 11,910,335,800원을 피고인의 다 른 1인 회사들인 □□토건, 건설, & & & & & 의 운영 및 사업자금, 지인들의 명의 를 빌어 차명으로 연산8동 재개발사업의 2차 사업부지로 계획 중인 토지들을 매수하거 나 골프장 회원권을 매입하는 자금, 주식투자자금 등으로 사용하였다 .

라) 피고인은 위와 같이 ★★의자금으로 사용한 11,910,335,800원에 관하 여, 직원인 ♡♡♡, ①00 등에게 지시하여 ★★의 장부에는 마치 매매계약서상의 매 도인들에게 그대로 지급한 것처럼 '용지 대금' 등으로 기장하게 하였다가, 부산지방국 세청의 □□토건 및 건설에 대한 특별세무조사가 종결된 후, ★★의 회사자금을 위와 같이 임의로 사용한 것이 적발될 경우에 대비하여, 2006. 11.경부터 2007. 4.경까 지 사이에 다시 ♡♡♡, 000 등에게 지시하여 장부 및 전표에 피고인에 대한 대여 금으로 바꾸어 기장하게 하였다.

2) 위 인정사실에 의하면 , 피고인이 ★★의 자금인 위 11,910,335,800원을 다 른 회사나 자신의 개인적 용도에 임의로 사용한 것은 불법영득의 의사에 기한 것으로 서 업무상 횡령죄를 구성한다. 이에 관한 피고인의 주장도 이유 없다.

(3) The point of offering of bribe

(A) the portion granted in 25 million won to 5 million won

1) In cases where a public official, without his/her intent to perform his/her duties or without a quid pro quo relationship, has had another person deliver property, only the crime of extortion is established. In such cases, if a father of property provided money and valuables as a result of the appearance of the public official’s notice of harm and injury, he/she shall be the victim of the crime of extortion. The crime of offering of bribe shall not be established (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2528, Dec. 22, 1994).

2) However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following offices can be recognized.

A) As to whether the OOOOV’s investment in the 5th stock investment, a tax investigation was conducted against the said company, and whether the gold has been leaked to the said company, the Defendant, who had his employee, asked the tax official belonging to the Busan High Tax Office about how it would be possible to ask the said company whether the said tax official belongs to the Busan High Tax Office.

나)EE가©oo으로부터위세무조사를 부산진세무서로이관시켜 오면 잘 처리하여 주겠다는 취지의 말을 듣고 피고인에게 이를 전하자, 피고인은 目에 게 돈이 들어도 좋으니 위 세무조사를 부산진세무서로 이관시켜 무마되게 하라고 지시 를 하였다.

C) Therefore, EEt applied for the transfer of the tax investigation to the Jindo Tax Office by the Jindo Tax Office, and the transfer was made by the Jindo Tax Office by the method of notifying the fact of suspicion to the Busan Jindo Tax Office. As such, the Dou-gu Tax Office, which is a tax official belonging to the Busan Jindo Tax Office, was the head of the investigation team in charge, and the above tax investigation was practically led.

D) However, EE revealed the official text sent to EE, i.e., the actual contents of EE, and i.e., how you go through., “it is difficult to see e.g., while speaking.”

E) Accordingly, from the main point of view, the Plaintiff offered entertainment to BBB, and, on the other hand, asked △△△△△△, which is the team of the investigation team, to what extent the amount of money is to be paid, △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, demanding a certain amount of 50 million won, and asked a certain amount of money so that it is too much so that the amount would be reduced, and thereafter, the △△△△△△△△△△ was called to the effect that the △△△△△△△△△ was to be involved in this day, and thus, the △△△

바) E는 피고인에게 ©©©의 위와 같은말을 전하고 피고인으로부터 ●●●에게 2,500만 원을 주라는 지시를 받은 다음, 2005. 1. 말경 ●●●와 만나 저녁 식사를 하면서 그에게 2,500만 원을 교부하였다.

G) After that, the above tax investigation was completed without additional collection of a separate tax amount in △△ case and △△ Construction, etc.

3) According to the above facts, ○○○○○○○ was the Defendant’s intent to conduct a tax investigation with respect to whether the source of the Defendant’s stock investment funds is the Defendant’s company funds for △△ case and construction, and on the condition that the tax investigation is completed and closed without suspicion, in other words, the Defendant was provided with KRW 25 million from the Defendant due to the consideration relation to the performance of his duties, and the Defendant also provided KRW 25 million from the intent to purchase the duty of ○○○○○○, a tax official, at the same time. As such, the Defendant’s act constitutes the crime of offering a bribe, and the Defendant’s act constitutes the crime of offering a bribe, and otherwise, it is difficult to view that the Defendant provided the remainder 25 million won out after receiving the notice of harm and injury related to the tax investigation from △△△△△△. The Defendant’

(나 ) ◆◆◆에 대한 부분

원심이 적법하게 채택·조사한 증거들을종합하면, 피고인은부산지방국세 청에서 □□토건 및 건설에 대한 특별세무조사를 벌이는 것과 관련하여, 당시 부 산지방국세청장이던 ◆◆◆에게 세무조사를 ★★으로까지 확대하지는 말아주고 세금추 징도 줄여 달라는 내용의 청탁을 한 뒤, ◆◆◆에게 그와 같은 취지에서 현금 1억 원 을 제공한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 공무원의 직무에 관하여 뇌물을 공여한 것으로 충분히 인정된다. 이에 관한 피고인의 주장도 이유 없다.

( 다 ) ■■■ 에 대한 부분

1) The crime of offering of a bribe is sufficient to place the other party in a state where the other party can receive a bribe, and the other party is not required to receive it in reality, and therefore, the crime of offering a bribe does not require the other party to establish the crime of acceptance of bribe when it is against the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737, Feb. 24, 2006).

2 ) 원심이 적법하게 채택 · 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, 피고인은 ★★이 시행 하는 연산8동 일대의 재개발사업과 관련하여, 2007. 6. 30.경 음식점에서 관할구청인 부산광역시 연제구청의 구청장이던 ■■■을 만나 점심식사를 한 다음 , 행정절차상의 편의를 봐 달라는 명목으로 현금 1억 원이 든 가방을 그에게 건네주었으나, ■■■ 이 완강하게 거절하면서 받지 않으려 하자, 그의 앞에 위 가방을 놓아두고 먼저 음식점에 서 나간 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

3) 위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고인은 연산8동 재개발사업과 관련하여 관할 구 청장에게 그 직무에 관하여 뇌물을 공여한 것으로 충분히 인정되고, 며칠 후 ■■■으 로부터 위 1억 원을 돌려받았다고 하여 이와 달리 볼 것은 아니다. 이에 관한 피고인 의 주장도 이유 없다.

(4) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

(A) Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment means an act of pretending the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, etc. means a disguised act as if there exists no existence of the grounds for the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, or the ownership of criminal proceeds, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7881, Feb. 15, 2008). Such an act may include an act of pretending that criminal proceeds, etc. belong to a third party, such as depositing criminal proceeds, into an account in the name of another person called the so-called borrowed account (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1004, Feb. 28, 2008).

(나 ) 원심이 적법하게 채택 · 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, 피고인은 앞에서 본 바 와 같이 ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽ 및 △△△△△△으로부터 취득한 재산상 이익, ☆☆☆☆☆ 로부터 편취한 대출금, □□토건 및 ★★으로부터 횡령한 회사 자금 등을 ○○○○이 관리하는 부산 금정구 부곡동 소재 '애플타워' 건물 5층의 탕비실 내에 설치된 금고에 보관하거나, 자신의 직원들로 하여금 부산 금정구 부곡동 일대에 있는 여러 금융기관 들을 돌아다니면서 금융정보분석원에 적발되지 않도록 2,000만 원을 초과하지 않는 범 위 내에서 현금과 수표로 교환하는 과정을 반복하거나, 지인들인 ♥♥♥, 강소희, □□ □, EEE, NNN 등의 명의로 개설한 차명계좌에 입금하는 등으로 관리를 하면서 사 용한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

(C) Along with the above facts of recognition, the Defendant’s relationship between the Defendant and the next borrowed account holders in the records, the motive and circumstances for the use of these accounts, and the specific details of account transactions, etc. are comprehensively considered, and the Defendant, through the above acts, deemed to have committed the most likely cause of the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, or the reversion thereof, and the criminal intent is also recognized. The Defendant’s assertion on this is without merit.

(5) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

"Person who has issued or received a tax invoice without supplying goods or services under the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act" in Article 11-2 (4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act means a person who has issued or received a processed tax invoice without real transactions (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3362, Dec. 27, 2007).

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant is found to have issued or received a false tax invoice although there is no actual transaction fact that goods or services are supplied or received, and the list of total tax invoices by customer is forged and submitted to the competent tax office.

The Defendant’s above act constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s internal defense do not affect the establishment of the above crime. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the defendant's statement of unfair sentencing, and the decision of the court below is again decided as follows after hearing.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts of the crime and evidence recognized by this court in the judgment of the court is as follows: '1.1 on December 1, 200' after 'the second 3 billion won in the name of two construction companies' in the judgment of the court below; '3 copies of the construction contract in the name of the treatment construction company in March 1, 2003'; '3 'the first 3.6 billion won in the name of the development company in the name of 'the first 'the 6.3 billion won in the name of 'the 6.3 billion won in the judgment of the court'; 'the 1.6 billion won in the name of 'the 1.3 billion won in the 1.6 billion won in the 1.3 billion won in the 2.6 billion won in the name of 'the 6.5 billion won in the 1.6 billion won in the 1.6 billion won in the name of 'the 1.6 billion won in the 2.5 billion won in the company'.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) The point of comparison of private documents: Article 231 of the Criminal Act; and

(b) The occupation of uttering of the perjury documents: Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act; and

다 . 피해자 ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽, △△△△△△, ♤♤은행에 대한 사기의 점 : 각 특정경

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

A. Article 12(1) of the Act provides that “The Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to a person who is involved.”

(d) Aggravated punishment, etc. of a specific Economic Crimes, covering the crime of occupational embezzlement against the victim Cheongsan case;

Article 3(1)2 of the Act, Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act

(e) The point of occupational breach of trust: Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act

마. 피해자 ☆☆☆☆☆에 대한 사기의 점 : 포괄하여 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관

Act No. 3(1)1, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

바. 피해자 ★★에 대한 업무상 횡령의 점 : 포괄하여 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에

Act No. 3(1)1, Article 356, and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act

(g) The point of offering of a bribe: Articles 133 (1) and 129 (1) of the Criminal Act;

(h) The most of acquisition and disposition of criminal proceeds: Regulation and punishment of criminal proceeds Concealment, including all of them;

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Labor (Selection of Imprisonment)

(i) Issuance or receipt of false tax invoices: Article 11-2 (4) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; and

Imprisonment with prison labor;

(j) Matters concerning the submission of a list of total tax invoices by customer: Article 11-2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

Parag. 3 (Selection of Imprisonment)

2. Competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

(a) Between the crimes of uttering of each falsified investigation document under Article 1. B of the judgment of the court below: The case where the most serious criminal fact is committed;

The contract amount under the name of New Stock Company 8,863,200,000 won and the above investigation as of December 8, 2000

penalty specified in the crime of uttering

(b) Between the crimes of uttering of each falsified document under Article 2. B of the holding of the court below: The most severe lot of crimes;

Punishment specified in the crime of uttering of a falsified document under the name of the corporation

다. 원심 판시 제6. 가. (2)의 각 위조사문서 행사죄 상호간 : 범정이 가장 무거운 ◈

◈◇◈ 합자회사 명의의 위조사문서 행사죄에 정한 형으로 처벌

3. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Victims of the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, Article 50 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act with the largest punishment

☆☆☆☆☆에 대한 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반( 사기)죄에 정한

Aggravation of concurrent Crimes)

4. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act ( normal consideration in favor of the following),

5. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

6. Additional collection:

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

이 사건 범행들을 개략적으로 살펴보면, 피고인은 연산8동 일대에 대규모 아파트를 신축 · 분양하는 재개발사업을 시행하고 '미월드' 부지에 콘도미니엄 신축· 분양사업을 추진하는 과정에서, ① 200부에 가까운 공사계약서 , 토지매매계약서 등을 위조 · 행사 하고, ② 이로써 신용보증기관 및 금융기관 등을 기망하여 신용보증금액 합계 60억여 원의 재산상 이익을 취득하고 대출금 합계 217억여 원을 편취하였으며, ③ 자신이 사 실상 소유한 1인 회사인 □□토건 및 ★★의 회사 자금 합계 129억여 원을 횡령하고, 배임행위로 6억 원의 손해를 가하였으며, ④ 자신이 유용한 회사 자금의 추적을 피하 기 위하여 범죄수익의 취득 또는 처분에 관한 가장행위를 하고 , ⑤ 260여 부의 허위 세금계산서를 교부하거나 수취하고, 허위의 매출처별 세금계산서 합계표를 세무서에 제출하였으며, ⑥ 위와 같은 위법행위로 인한 두 차례의 세무조사를 무마하기 위하여 담당 세무공무원 및 부산지방국세청장에게 합계 1억 2,000여만 원의 뇌물을 공여하고 , 재개발사업지역의 관할 구청장에게 1억 원의 뇌물을 공여하였다.

The total amount of damage caused by fraud, embezzlement, and breach of trust exceeds 35 billion won. As a result, multiple actual crimes were committed, such as forging and uttering private documents, forging and uttering criminal proceeds, issuance and receipt of false tax invoices, etc. A total of KRW 22,00,00 in three times in the process, which led to serious damage to the fairness and integrity of public officials’ duties by granting a bribe of KRW 22,00,000 in total, and thereby seriously impairing the fairness and integrity of public officials’ duties. As such, the crime and the nature of the crime are not good, as it may be deemed that one used planned and tight methods in relation to one’s own business to have committed such unlawful acts. In addition, according to the record, the overall Defendant appears to have been subject to criminal punishment by many relevant persons due to one’s own illegal act, and has not been fully responsible for the crime of this case, such as causing economic damage. Nevertheless, the Defendant cannot be exempted from the punishment corresponding to this.

다만, 피고인이 그 동안 가벼운 벌금형을 네 차례 받은 외에는 달리 범죄전력이 없 는 점, ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽ 및 △△△△△△에 대한 구상금 채무를 모두 변제하고, ☆☆ ☆☆☆의 대출원리금을 전액 상환하였으며, 당심에 이르러 ★★에 대한 횡령 범행과 관련된 우리은행 및 국민은행의 '프로젝트 파이낸싱' 대출금을 전액 상환하고, ♤♤은 행의 대출금 중 편취금액도 상환함으로써, 사기 범행의 피해는 모두 회복되고, ★★에 대한 피해도 대부분 회복된 것으로 보이는 점 , 그 동안 회사 자금을 유용하여 차명으 로 매수하였던 연산8동 재개발사업의 제2차 사업예정부지 및 골프장 회원권도 ★★의 명의로 이전한 점, 수사과정에서 자신과 관련된 다른 사람들의 범행을 밝히는 데 적극 적으로 협조한 점, ★★의 직원들 및 협력업체들, 연산8동 재개발사업지역 주민들, ' 미 월드' 부지의 소유자 등이 피고인에 대한 선처를 탄원하는 점 등의 유리한 정상도 있

In full view of the above points and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence shall be determined as ordered.

Non-Crime

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendant embezzled 600 million won of the company's funds that he had been in custody in the course of his business for the purpose of the △ Hospital on January 2007, and this constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime for the reason as seen earlier, but as long as the defendant found the defendant guilty of a crime of occupational breach of trust in relation to the crime of this 1, it shall not be sentenced to

Maternity Only (Presiding Judge)

Lee Young-young

Type 1