A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On January 26, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for one year, due to a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, at the Daegu District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 10, 2007.

[2] The defendant has been engaged in the overall operation of the church while serving as the principal of the E church and as the principal of the E church as the principal of the church in Songpa-gu Seoul, Seoul, from June 1985 to December 2006.

As the Defendant needed the real estate business cost of the Defendant, such as the purchase and auction of real estate from around 2001 to around 2002, the Defendant made a false statement to F, who is a church believers, that the missionary work cost is necessary, and borrowed KRW 3.13 billion and used it as real estate business cost.

However, the above loan from F does not go through the resolution of the church conference or the financial report of the church, and the defendant's name was made by the church in the absence of knowledge, and it is not an effective exercise of power of representation, and thus, the debt of the church was the debt of the church.

The above borrowed money was borrowed from the Defendant’s personal real estate business cost, and was actually used for that purpose, and the Defendant was imposed on the business income, rent income, etc. generated from the above real estate business, and the judgment of conviction against the evasion of tax was finalized (Seoul District Court Decision 2006 Height 93). The Defendant Company faithfully manages the property owned by the victim E church while performing his duties as the chairman of the above church and as the pastor, and when disposing of the property, he did not dispose of the property, he did not follow the resolution of the general assembly of the church but did not dispose of the property at will, in violation of his duties, he should pay the money borrowed from the F. However, he had the intent to cause the victim church to change it.

On April 1, 2005, the Defendant issued a promissory note 2.41 billion to F in the name of the said church office at the above E church office.