Defendant 1 and two others

Poil et al.

Law Firm Woo, Attorneys Cho Chang-soo et al.

Defendant 2

Defendant 1-A through (c) of the judgment of the court below, with respect to the crimes set forth in Article 1-3(3) of the judgment and the crimes set forth in the judgment of the court below, the crimes set forth in Article 1-d(1) of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for one year, and by imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 2,000,000 into one day.

The 348 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes and the crimes of the 3rd in the judgment, and the 74 days shall be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant 2.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above imprisonment for four years shall be suspended, and the execution of each of the above imprisonment for two years shall be suspended for Defendant 2 and Defendant 3.

To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine against Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged in this case, it is not guilty of the fraud against Defendant 1, violation of the Labor Standards Act, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes against Defendant 3.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Defendant 1 is a member of the art church (the name of the church omitted) association of Seongbuk-gu Seoul (the name of the church omitted), who is a substantial representative in charge of all the affairs of the above church such as the finance and personnel affairs, etc. on June 23, 1998 and ordered a summary order of KRW 500,000 to a fine for the crime of injury in the North Branch of Seoul District Court on July 8, 1998, and the above order was finalized on July 8, 1998; Defendant 2 concurrently held office of the managing director and the office building director of the non-indicted 8 corporation and the office director of the above church, while serving as the director of the above church; Defendant 3 was working as the representative director of the corporation in Seocho-gu Seoul (the name of the company omitted); Defendant 3 was issued a summary order of KRW 7 million as a violation of the Labor Standards Act from the Seoul District Court on June 28, 199 and confirmed on January 1, 2016.

1. Defendant 1

A. On August 23, 1996, Defendant 2, who had worked as the head of the planning office of the above church at the planning office of the above (the name omitted of the church), shall transfer the church to a non-indicted 1 corporation located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the name omitted) site as promoted by the above church at the time, and upon the petition of Nonindicted 9, etc., who was the head of the above church, he shall deliver KRW 30 million to the head of the above church under the pretext of using it as a street funds solicited by tax officials for the purpose of gathering the special tax accountant inspection from the 5th of the same month from the Dobong Tax Office, which was the head of the above church.

B. On September 20 of the same year, at the office of the above church planning office, there was a situation where: (a) there was a tax accountant's check on the non-indicted 1 corporation as stated in the preceding paragraph; and (b) whether the above church was a disguised decentralization of the shares of the non-indicted 1 corporation; and (c) there was a concern that the permission issue of the above church building continues to be a new and opposing demonstration due to the non- religious problem; and (d) there was a problem in adjusting the station area so that the permission might be delayed in the competent office of Dobong-gu; (b) there was a concern that the pertinent public official's request for a tax investigation to facilitate the tax investigation; and (c) there was an amount of KRW 5,235

C. While carrying out a plan to relocate and newly build the same church to the land of the above non-indicted 1 corporation, the fact that the above non-indicted 1 corporation's stocks, which actually held 100% stocks, are in mind by lending the name of the non-indicted 1 corporation to the non-indicted 17 and falsely distributing them, is still held by the church from May 195 to October 10 of the same year. However, even though the members who are stockholders in the name of the above company did not receive the sale price, the church still holds all of the shares, but as if the members were actually transferred, the church receives a lump sum to write down the money from the members to enter the church, and distributed shares by means of falsely preparing the stock transfer contract;

On March 31, 1996, the Dobong Tax Office and the Dobong Tax Office in Dobong-gu Seoul, Seoul and prepared a disguised separation of shareholders' names as above in the Dobong-gu, Seoul and the Dobong-gu, and prepared as if the church members did not own all the shares, to submit a detailed statement of the change of shares of the above non-indicted 1 corporation in the name of non-indicted 1 corporation, which is the sex director of the above church and the representative director of the above company on the name of the above non-indicted 1 corporation on October 9 of the same year, and to transfer the land and buildings of the above non-indicted 1 corporation to the 3,800,000,000 won which are lower than the appraisal price or the officially announced land price in the above church (this 2,806,010,939,000 won shall be offset against the church claims of the above company). Accordingly, the above non-indicted 1 corporation's total amount of special surtax and corporate tax should be imposed and collected from the above oligopolistic shareholders by preparing the tax base on October 197 and the above.

D. On July 22, 1997, the Defendant prepared a construction work contract agreement with (name omitted) corporation (name omitted) corporation and total construction cost of KRW 30.8 billion, which will be newly constructed in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (detailed omitted), and refused to issue a guarantee to the Construction Mutual Aid Association on the ground that the said company submitted the said contract to obtain an advance payment guarantee to the Construction Mutual Aid Association, but it is too unfavorable for the contractor. On July 30, 1997, the Defendant: (a) prepared a construction work standard contract to issue a guarantee and submitted it to the said Mutual Aid Association for the said Mutual Aid Association; (b) prepared a new construction work standard contract to obtain a guarantee; and (c) submitted it to the Corporation; (d) submitted it as stipulated in the original contract; (d) the said company had filed a lawsuit against the Construction Mutual Aid Association before the commencement of construction works; and (d) the said church continues to have filed a lawsuit against the Construction Mutual Aid Association.

(1) On December 1, 1998, at the office at the site of new construction of the above church, the head of the planning office of the above church and the head of the new church construction headquarters, while delivering documents to Defendant 2 who had been engaged in the affairs such as the permission for the construction of the above church, and when testimony is made in the court, the court shall request the person to give testimony as stated in the documents and have the person make a resolution to make a false testimony. On December 3, 1998, the court of Seoul District Court No. 562 delivered on December 3, 1998, which was tried in the above court of Seoul District Court No. 562 delivered on December 3, 199 to the President of the Korean Civil Service (the presiding judge's attitude omitted), the Korean Civil Service Association (the representative secretary) of the above court of Korea (the defendant 1) raised against the representative of the defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association (the case No.

(A) The above defendant 2 testified that "no such fact exists," despite the fact that the above defendant 2 had been at the beginning point of the Construction Mutual Aid Association, as the day on which the termination of the construction contract between the (name omitted) church and the (name omitted) corporation for the advance payment claims; and

(B) The facts are the testimony that, although the person has submitted a construction work contract and a construction work standard contract to Nonindicted 40 Non-Indicted 40; and

(C) In fact, he bears the testimony that “no fact exists” even though he has received a request from the construction mutual aid association to deal with the work of claiming the return of the advance payment from the above church;

(D) The Defendant, a pastor of the above church, was met due to the conclusion of the construction contract with the above church and the non-indicted 8 corporation, and thereafter, the Defendant, even though he had consulted on the construction contract of the above church, testified that the above church was only in a contractual relationship, but not in a written advisory service thereafter.

(E) The facts are as follows: (a) around November 1997, the Dong gave testimony to the above (name of the company omitted) Nonindicted 39 directors, or the first branch of the Construction Mutual Aid Association, that the reason between the two is that the above (name of the company omitted) was due to the said construction contract and deposit relationship; and (b) the reason for the testimony of the above "

(2) On August 19, 199, the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 405) attended and testified as a witness of the appellate court (case number omitted) of the case in which the 8th Civil History Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jae-jin) of the above court is being tried and taken an oath.

(A) The fact is that, in preparing a standard contract for construction works with the above (name omitted) corporation, the standard contract is used only for issuing a letter of guarantee by the Construction Mutual Aid Association, and is discarded after obtaining the certificate, and the contents of the contract are stated to be "no special agreement exists" despite the fact that the special agreement was made for the initial contract; and

(B) The facts indicate that the statement of the waiver of the construction works prepared by the Co., Ltd. (name of the Company omitted) was written at the request of the Defendant at the time of the conclusion of the standard contract, and, at the request of the Defendant, was written with the official seal of the representative director of the Co., Ltd. (name of the Company omitted) in blank, that “no such request was made, and no such request was made, and it was known that it was the fabricated copy submitted by the Defendant to the court

(C) The facts revealed that the above defendant 2 concurrently held office as the head of the above church planning office and the head of the new church construction headquarters who is engaged in the affairs such as the permission of the above church construction, and that the above case of the above advance payment was discussed, and therefore, although the above defendant 2 was discussed about the above case of this advance payment, the above defendant 2 merely stated that the above defendant 2 was a member of the Japanese church and a regular director of the Gangwon North Korean church, and there was no relationship with the (the name of the company omitted) corporation or this advance payment guarantee, and there was no discussion about this issue at the time of the claim for the instant advance payment, and there was no fact between the defendant and the association, and there was no fact that the defendant did not have entrusted it with a large amount of return of KRW 2.9 billion to a member who has no interest, and there was no reason to entrust it with a large return of KRW

2. Defendant 2

A. On August 23, 1996, at the planning office of the (name omitted) church conference, from around the 5th of the same month as above 1-A, at the time of the commencement of the special certified tax accountant's check, the above defendant 1 had no tax accountant's check on the tax officials in charge of the above defendant 1, and at the request of the above defendant 1 to delayed taking measures such as seizure until the church takes over the above company's site, the above company's land was received at the request of the above public official in charge of the tax office, i.e., a gold of KRW 30 million, even though he knows that the above company's land was delivered to the public official

B. The above defendant 1 at the same place around September 20 of the same year, and at the same time, the tax accountant's report on the above non-indicted 1 corporation was conducted, as described in the above paragraph 1-B, and the above church was also examined as to whether the above church disguisedd the shares of the non-indicted 1 corporation. The issue of permission for the above church building was also likely to continue to be a new demonstration due to the inter- religious problems in the Dobong-gu Office and to delay due to the adjustment of station area areas, etc. Furthermore, the issue of permission for the establishment of a school foundation, which was being promoted together at the same church, was not easy. The above defendant 1 who delegated this duty to the defendant, was asked by the public official in charge of the above defendant 1 to conduct the work well, and received 5,2350,000 won from tin with knowledge that it was provided as a street for the public official in charge of the Dobong-gu Office and the Ministry of Education's establishment of the university.

3. The defendant 1 or 3

On July 22, 1997, the Defendants entered into a construction contract for the aforementioned (name omitted) new construction works, but the contents of the construction contract were granted a wide range of right to rescind the contract, and the contents of the construction contract were unilaterally favorable to the owner due to the lack of any provision on the settlement of construction completion money, and thus the issuance of a letter of guarantee for advance payment and performance of contract from the victim Construction Mutual Aid Association was rejected by the victim Construction Mutual Aid Association on the ground that the contents of the construction contract are unilaterally favorable to the owner. On July 30, 1997, the above (name omitted) Planning Office deleted the provisions on the cancellation of contract in a separate construction standard form and the right to cancel contract which was favorable to the owner, and then again prepares the contents of the construction contract, the standard construction contract prepared by Defendant 3 as of July 30, 1997 was issued by the Construction Mutual Aid Association, and the contents of the contract are governed by the construction contract written on July 22, 1997.

On August 4, 1997, at the office of the Victim Construction Mutual Aid Association located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, through Nonindicted 39, Defendant 3 submitted a standard construction contract in July 30, 1997, which was prepared by the head of the above Construction Mutual Aid Association, to obtain only a guarantee to Nonindicted 40, the above director of the above Construction Mutual Aid Association via Nonindicted 39, as if it were the true contract, and applied for the issuance of a guarantee. On August 5, 1997, when trusting the true construction contract at the same place, the letter of advance payment guarantee in an amount of KRW 3 billion from the above Nonindicted 40, and one letter of contract guarantee received an advance payment in an amount of KRW 80,000,000 from the above Nonindicted 40, and acquired pecuniary profits equivalent to the joint and several surety interest.

[Each fact described in No. 1-A, B, C, and Decision 2]

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in part of the first trial record and entry of Defendant 2 in the first trial record;

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 10 in the third trial record

1. Entry of the witness in each part of the protocol of the fourth and fifth trial by the witness;

1. The statement made by Nonindicted 17 and the witness’s partial statement made by Nonindicted 10 in the fifth trial record

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 47 and Nonindicted 48 in the sixth trial record

1. Each of the statements made by Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 12, and Nonindicted 49 in the seventh trial records

1. Each part of the witness’s statements made by Nonindicted 50 and Nonindicted 7 in the 8th trial record

1. Each part of the statements made by the witness, Nonindicted 51, Nonindicted 52, and Nonindicted 49 in the 9th trial record

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect to the prosecution against Defendant 1, and entry of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect to Defendant 2;

1. Each statement made on the prosecutorial statement against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 (including the part of the replacement of Defendant 1, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 53, and Nonindicted 10)

1. Each statement in each prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 47 (including the part on Nonindicted 7’s statement), Nonindicted 54, and Nonindicted 48

1. Entry into the protocol of seizure;

1. Each investigation report (report on the hearing of telephone statements, supplementation of the register of shareholders, confirmation of the officially announced value of Nonindicted Co. 1, grasping the tax evasion amount, filing of the shareholder property inquiry data, and filing of tax data);

[The facts stated 1-D.]

1. Defendant 1's partial statement in the third protocol of trial;

1. The description of the witness's partial statement in the fourth trial record;

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant 1 (including the part concerning the replacement of the defendant 2);

1. Statement of Defendant 2 in the police statement;

1. Each description of the copies of each protocol of examination of witness;

1. Each statement of a contract for construction works, building work standard contract, and each statement of each judgment; and

【Fact 3 at the time of sale】

1. The statements made by Defendants 1 and 3 in each part of the first trial records, No. 2001 Highest 1380;

1. Defendant 2, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 45, and Nonindicted 40 each legal statement

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant 3;

1. Each statement made in each prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 21, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 46, and Nonindicted 55

1. Each description of a letter, a copy of a civil judgment, a construction contract, a construction work standard contract, and an advance payment statement on waiver; and

[At the time of sale]

1. References to criminal records and investigation reports (date of confirmation) of Defendant 1; and

1. Descriptions of criminal records of Defendant 3;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1

Articles 133(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, 129(1) (the delivery of third-party brain, the choice of imprisonment), Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 9(1)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the occupation of tax evasion, the choice of limited imprisonment and the concurrent imposition of fines), Articles 152(1), 31(1) (the occupation of the perjury and the choice of imprisonment), 152(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of the perjury and the choice of imprisonment), Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (the selection of

B. Defendant 2

Articles 133(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of acquiring third-party brain and the occupation of imprisonment)

C. Defendant 3 and Defendant 1

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1), and Article 30 (Fraud Points)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 3: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [Defendant 1-A through (c) of the judgment of the court below] [Article 1-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax)] and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [In the case of crimes and No. 3 of the judgment, the punishment provided for in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) with the largest punishment, the punishment provided for in the judgment of the court below shall be aggravated, and the punishment provided for in

1. Discretionary mitigation;

- Defendant 1: Article 53, Article 55(1)3, and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (Article 55(1)3, and Article 55(6) of the Criminal Act (Article 55(1) of the Criminal Act does not apply to a fine prior to the commission of this case, the full amount of evaded

- Defendant 3: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act)

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant 1: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (As regards Defendants 1 and 3, considering the same circumstances as the reasons for discretionary mitigation; as regards Defendants 2, there is no criminal conviction for Defendant 2; and as regards the circumstances such as the outlined situation)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 1: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Dismissal of an application for compensation order;

Articles 25(1), 32(1), and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

[Supplement against Defendant 1]

1. Summary of Defendant 1’s fraud and violation of the Labor Standards Act among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1

A. On January 4, 1995, the fact is false at the Gmar hotel coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, stating that the victim did not have the intent and ability to pay the benefits and bonuses and the sales expenses to Defendant 2, the victim shall be paid KRW 3.5 million monthly salary, KRW 2 million per month, and KRW 600 per bonus, and KRW 3.0 million per month by acquiring the benefits of the victim from March 1995 to April 200 through acquiring the office work of the (name omitted), the office work of the defendant located in Seongbuk-gu (name omitted), and the planning office of the school juristic person that is being established and promoted, and paying the sum of KRW 2.4 million to the victim by acquiring the benefits of the above (name omitted), the office work of the church, and the planning office work of the school juristic person that is being established and promoted, and the sum of KRW 3.00,000,000 per month by acquiring the benefits of the victim from March 2, 1995 to April 200.

B. From March 1995 to April 27, 2000, Defendant 2 retired while working in the said workplace and retired from the said workplace, the sum of Defendant 2’s monthly salary of KRW 3.5 million per month, KRW 2 million per month (excluding KRW 42 million per month from July 1998 to March 2000), and KRW 47.5 million per annum of bonus, including KRW 600 million per annum, shall not be paid within 14 days from the date of retirement, which is the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment, without agreement between the parties to extend the due date.

2. Prosecution of the defendant;

Defendant 1, under an agreement that he shall pay the same name and amount as that stated in the above facts charged from an investigative agency to this court, asserts that there is no room to appoint Defendant 2 as the secretary general of the church or the planning office of the school juristic person that is promoting the establishment of the church, and denies each of the above facts charged.

3. Facts recognized.

According to the witness witness's partial statement, each prosecutor's office, police interrogation protocol (including the part concerning the whole part of Defendant 2), each prosecutor's statement against Defendant 1, Nonindicted 56, Nonindicted 55, Nonindicted 9, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 14, and Nonindicted 21, each prosecutor's statement about Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 21, each statement of the police's statement about Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 21, investigation report (to hear Nonindicted 39 telephone statement), letter of appointment, confirmation document, payment confirmation (including the above part, investigation record No. 40954), each of the prosecutor's interrogation records against Defendant 1 (including the part concerning Defendant 2 confrontation) concerning Defendant 1, a copy of the prosecutor's statement about Defendant 21, a copy of the prosecutor's statement about Defendant 1, a copy of the confirmation document, a copy of the confirmation document, a design change and work instruction, each statement of facts, each of the entries and photographs (including above part, each of the investigation records No. 9248, Dec. 307, 209).

A. Around July 1994, Defendant 1 came to know of Defendant 2 through the introduction of Nonindicted Party 18 pastors. On January 4, 1995, Defendant 1 requested Defendant 2 to assist in the new construction, etc. of a (rupture omitted) church at the tea hotel shop. Defendant 1 identified Defendant 2 as the name of the chief of the (rupture omitted) church. From July 1994, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to perform external affairs while informing Defendant 2 of the name of the chief of the (rupture omitted) church.

B. Defendant 2, as a working-level employee on August 30, 1996, filed an application with the Minister of Education for establishment of a church (name omitted) with the Minister of Education, and was delegated by Defendant 1 on September 10 of the same year with the authority to jointly file an application for permission for the establishment of a church (name omitted) and to resolve the case regarding the disposition of revocation of disposition in conflict with the application by the Dobong-gu Office for permission for construction.

C. (School Name omitted) On July 11, 1995 and September 20, 199, after deliberation by the Traffic Impact Assessment Committee and the Building Committee, on March 7, 1996, after deliberation by the Dobong-gu Building Committee, submitted an application for building permission to the Dobong-gu Office on March 13, 1996. An opposite civil petition was rejected, and obtained permission to build a church on July 23, 1996 after the administrative appeal, and obtained permission to build a new church on December 5 of the same year. Meanwhile, on December 6, 1995, the school juristic person was approved to change the name of the school juristic person from the Minister of Education to the non-indicted 20 school juristic person on January 12, 198.

D. On March 3, 1998, Defendant 1 appointed Defendant 2 as supervisory or management officer at the place of new church construction work (the name omitted) as the principal of the church meeting, and Defendant 2 had worked almost every day from around the above construction site to January 15, 2005 and performed duties as supervisory or management officer at the above construction site. Defendant 2 paid KRW 2 million each month from the (the name omitted) church during the period from July 1998 to March 200, Defendant 1 received KRW 2 million each month from the (the name omitted) church for the period from July 1998 to March 21, 200. The relationship with Defendant 1 did not work at the above construction site after March 20, and immediately thereafter, Defendant 2 received the confirmation letter from the (the name omitted) church construction promotion committee to receive KRW 2 million each month for administrative affairs at the place of new church construction work.

4. Determination

However, the evidence of criminal facts should be presented by the prosecutor in criminal proceedings, and even if the defendant's indictment is unreasonable and the defendant's indictment is false, the defendant cannot be found guilty, and criminal facts should be proven with a high probability sufficient for the judge to have a high degree of probability without reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to form a conviction, the defendant's interest should be judged as the defendant's interest even if there is a doubt that the defendant is guilty.

According to the above facts, although it is recognized that Defendant 2 performed the management and permission to build a church, permission to establish a school foundation and supervision of the site of new construction of a new school foundation, it is difficult to believe all of the above evidence for the following reasons, and there is a lack of evidence to recognize the above facts charged. As to whether Defendant 1 agreed to pay Defendant 2 the above name and amount of money to Defendant 2, and whether Defendant 2 was employed as the staff of the church, there is health room, and evidence directly corresponding thereto, and each statement in the police, the prosecutor's office, and this court, and the prosecutor's office of Nonindicted 9, and the prosecutor's office of Nonindicted 14.

A. Defendant 2’s statement

First, even after the investigation of this case was commenced, Defendant 2 was falsely informed of the facts about his educational background, career, etc. to the surrounding persons, including Defendant 1, etc., and even after the commencement of the investigation of this case, graduated from the college of Korea-U.S. before the public prosecutor, and stated that he had been working as an inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2000 type 130659 type 241, 342 type 2 type 2). However, according to the records in the academic background inquiry report prepared by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry submitted by the defense counsel, he did not have graduated from the above university. The career as working with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is also without the ground. The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry has been working as a head of the planning office for the construction of the U.S. comprehensive from 190 level 190 to 195 level 195 level 190 level 202No313). However, according to the records of the Seoul High Court decision (2002No313).

Second, on August 23, 1996, Defendant 2 stated that the tax official sent KRW 30 million from Defendant 1 to a shopping bag without confirming the content thereof. Defendant 2 delivered KRW 52 million to Nonindicted 13, the director of the corporate tax accounting division of the Dobong tax office on September 20, 1996 and received KRW 1.2 million from Defendant 1 on September 20, 1996, and exchanged KRW 1.2 million cash and KRW 4 million in cash (294 pages of the investigation record No. 130659), and delivered KRW 20 million in cash among them to Nonindicted 15, 196.

However, according to each fact-finding report prepared by the President of the Korea Exchange and the President of the Industrial Bank of Korea, Defendant 2 received the above KRW 30 million from Defendant 1, and deposited KRW 20 million in the account of the Industrial Bank of Korea on August 26, 200 a.m. on the following day. On August 27, 1998, he withdrawn KRW 14 million in cash, and again deposited KRW 14 million in cash on September 2, 1996, the following day. According to the above fact-finding statement from August 26, 196 to December 7, 196, he was found to have received KRW 75 million in cash, but he did not have received KRW 40 million in cash from Defendant 14 to December 26, 2000 in the above account. However, according to the above fact-finding statement of KRW 14,500,000,000 from Defendant 1, 296,000 won in cash.

Third, according to Defendant 2’s statement of the above 4th trial record, Defendant 2 gave 15 million won among the above 52 million won to Nonindicted Party 15, and 50 million won was additionally given to the above Nonindicted Party 13, and 10 million won was used as old employees’ drinking expenses, and 7 million won was used as his daily living expenses, and it was difficult to view Defendant 1 as Defendant 2’s non-indicted Party 2’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 36.

Fourth, according to the above facts, it is difficult to view Defendant 2 as Defendant 2’s owner at the time of the above new construction contract at the time of 198, and Defendant 2’s new construction contract at the time of 2000,000,000 won for Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s new construction contract at the time of 80,000,000 won, and Defendant 2’s new construction contract at the time of 9,000,000 won for 17,000,000 won for 8,000 won for 9,000,000 won for 9,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 9,000 won for 20,000 won for 9,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 9,000 won for 1,000 won for 2,000 won for 9,000 won.

B. Each prosecutorial statement of Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 14

First, from around 192 to May 195, Non-Indicted 9 was employed as the auditor of Non-Indicted 1 corporation and embezzled, Defendant 1 was accused of having been subject to criminal punishment by Defendant 1 to the Board of Audit and Inspection of Tax Evasion (related to Non-Indicted 1-C at the market). Defendant 2 was a witness in a hostile relationship. The statement was made by Non-Indicted 2 to obtain permission for the establishment of a school foundation from around 1994 to about 10 years before the beginning of the church, and it was difficult to find that Defendant 2 did not have any objective fact-finding that it was difficult for the first time with Defendant 1 to obtain 0% of the annual salary from around 00 to about 90% of the annual salary for about 195, including that of Non-Indicted 2, Defendant 1 and Non-Indicted 2 did not have any duty to obtain 0% of the annual salary for about 00 days before the closing of the church. It was also difficult to find it against Defendant 1’s objective fact-finding 4.

(c) Benefit payment statement, etc.;

In addition, evidence that conforms to the fact that there was a payment agreement, such as benefits, as stated in the facts charged, is written in each of the following items: Defendant 1’s statement of non-indicted 20 school foundation payment (226 pages) and the letter of agreement (17 pages) dated December 10, 198, which is deemed as having been written by Defendant 2 as the chief executive officer of the non-indicted 20 school foundation.

In relation to each of the above documents, on October 23, 200, Defendant 2 stated that "at the time of making an oral benefit agreement only, but on December 10, 1998" (the investigative record 38 pages) and on November 17, 2000, Defendant 2 stated that "the monthly salary agreement was made only verbally, but not on documents, in order to receive compensation for high birth without receiving any remuneration, according to the contract to sell the school juristic person, Defendant 1 stated that "at the time of making an initial statement on December 10, 1998 (the investigative record 140 pages), Defendant 1 stated that "at the time of making an investigation statement on March 30, 201, Defendant 1 did not receive any payment," and that "at the time of making an additional statement on March 10, 2001, Defendant 2 signed the agreement to sell each of the above documents and the agreement on March 14, 1995 (the above agreement on March 29, 2001).

In light of the aforementioned facts charged, the non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 4’s non-indicted 4’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted.

5. Conclusion

Thus, it is difficult to believe all the statements made by Defendant 2 in the police, the prosecution, and the police and each statement made by Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 14, which correspond to this part of the facts charged, and each statement made by Nonindicted 14 in the police cannot be believed, and it is insufficient to recognize them by the contents of the wage payment statement or written agreement mentioned above, and there is no other evidence to recognize them. Therefore, this part of the facts charged falls under the case where there is no evidence to prove a crime and thus, is acquitted

[Supplement against Defendant 3]

1. Summary of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes against Defendant 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes against the Victim Gangseo Construction Co., Ltd

Defendant 3: (A) around 195, the above (the above (the above (the name company omitted) 2.5 billion won of the construction contract for the above new construction project; (b) the owner of the above new construction project was unilaterally awarded 9.7 billion won of the construction project; (c) the owner of the above new construction project who purchased the above new construction project in the name of the Jung-gu 2.7 billion won of the construction project; and (d) the owner of the above new construction project who acquired the above new construction project without the consent of 9.7 billion won of the construction project; and (d) the owner of the above new construction project without the consent of 1,43.2 billion won of the construction project; and (e) the owner of the above new construction project without the consent of 9.7 billion won of the construction project; (e) the owner of the above new construction project without the consent of 9.7 billion won of the new construction project; and (e) the owner of the new construction project without the consent of 9.7 billion won of the construction project for the new construction project.7 billion won of the construction project.

2. Details of the lawsuit brought by the defendant 3;

The construction of the building project in this case between Gangseosan Construction Co., Ltd. and the (name omitted) Association of July 22, 1997 (name omitted) and the (name omitted) Association of the same month provided a guarantee for the construction of the building project in this case. During that period, it is difficult for the Gangwon Construction Co., Ltd. and (name omitted) Co., Ltd. to provide a guarantee on the mutual satisfaction of the contract for the construction project to be submitted to the Construction Mutual Aid Association, and it was not a guarantee by deceiving the (name omitted of the company) Co., Ltd. to the (name omitted) Co., Ltd. at the time of the guarantee, and at the time of the guarantee, it was not anticipated that the (name omitted of the company) Co., Ltd. will and ability to perform the construction project in this case.

3. Facts recognized.

According to the Defendants’ respective statements at the investigation agency and this court, Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 58, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 60, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 61, and Nonindicted 62 on their respective statements, respective written judgments, construction contract documents, building work standard contracts, waiver notes, and advance payment notes, No. 1-1 (No. 197 contract statement), No. 3-2 (No. 97 appraisal statement), No. 3-4 (No. 9-6) report on new construction (No. 9-1), No. 9-1 (No. 5-2 (No. 6-4) report on the commencement of construction), No. 9-1 (No. 9-1) report on new construction (No. 5-1), No. 9-1 (No. 6-1) report on new construction (No. 5-2) and 53 (No. 5-4 (No. 6-1) report on new construction)

A. (Name of Company) A corporation is a construction company with its business purposes such as civil engineering, construction, and steel production works (the trade name of Non-Indicted Company 63 on August 28, 1968 was mutually changed to Non-Indicted Company 64 on August 28, 1976, Non-Indicted Company 65 on June 198, and (the name of company omitted) corporation on September 1984, which began from around 1995, with the total amount of 9 billion won (the total amount of 9.7 billion won was accumulated due to the failure to purchase in cash, the total amount of 9.7 billion won was 19.7 billion won, and the total amount of 9.7 billion won was revoked on August 29, 1997 on September 13, 1994 on September 14, 1997).

B. (School Name omitted) On July 22, 1997, the school name omitted entered into a contract for construction works (hereinafter “instant contract for construction works”) with the stock company on the land owned by the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul Metropolitan Government Number omitted) (Seoul Metropolitan Government Number omitted) (hereinafter “School Name omitted”) to construct the (School Name omitted) school building on the land owned by the (School Name omitted), with the construction cost of KRW 30.8 billion (Public Interest Amount + KRW 28 billion plus KRW 2.8 billion), advance payment (contract amount), 10% of the construction cost, and the construction period from the commencement date to December 31, 1999, while the commencement date shall be within 21 days from the commencement date of the construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. However, (Name omitted) to receive advance payment from the Daehan immediately after the conclusion of the instant construction contract, the company (name omitted) presented a construction work contract form (hereinafter “original contract”) prepared at the time of the conclusion of the instant construction contract as the principal contract and received advance payment guarantee from the Construction Cooperative. However, the representative of the Diplomatic Association stated Nonindicted 7 in the original contract, while the name of the construction permission was not “Defendant 1”, the original contract was not in accordance with the standard form for construction work under the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s notification, and the (name omitted) was defective as it was stated in paragraph (3) of the above criminal facts, and the company (name omitted) prepared a standard form for construction work (name omitted) agreement with the Plaintiff on July 30, 1997; and (i) prepared a new standard form for guarantee contract with the name of the Diplomatic Association (name omitted); and (ii) prepared a new (name omitted); and (iii) prepared a standard form for each of the (name omitted) agreement with Defendant 1, the (name omitted omitted); and (iii) written agreement with the Plaintiff.

D. (Name omitted) A corporation and Gangseo Construction made a mutual credit guarantee agreement from around 1994 to around 1997 with the Construction Mutual Aid Association for the purpose of mutual credit transaction (the so-called "small-term guarantee"), and made individual guarantees, such as loan guarantee, operational fund guarantee, construction guarantee, and advance payment guarantee. Between January 1997 and July 1997, (name of a company omitted) a corporation provided joint and several guarantees for the 13 contracts of Gangseo Construction. (name of a company omitted) A corporation provided joint and several guarantees for the 10 contracts of Gangseo Construction (name of a company omitted) (the name of a company was written in writing that the financial situation of a corporation was not good (the name of a company omitted) prior to the several months prior to the instant guarantee, and Gangwon Construction was also aware of this lawsuit, but it was also guaranteed in accordance with the mutual guarantee agreement with (name of a company omitted) corporation).

E. (Name omitted) On July 22, 1997, Non-Indicted 45, who was acting as an agent of the company, found in the Gangseo Construction Office, requested that the construction contract in this case be jointly and severally guaranteed under the mutual guarantee agreement that submitted the original contract based on the instant construction contract to the Gangseo Construction Office. The Gangseo Construction immediately affixed the name of the representative director of the Gangseo Construction's office and the seal impression affixed to the "contractor Guarantee" of the said original contract, and the (name omitted) joint and several surety (hereinafter referred to as the "company name omitted) of the company's debt guarantee for the instant construction contract to the Dasan Construction Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Guarantee. The meaning of the instant guarantee" is the meaning of the "construction guarantee" or "payment guarantee for advance payment guarantee" in addition to the construction guarantee. The above contract was concluded by the contractor [the (name of the company omitted), and the construction contractor is jointly and severally liable between the construction company and the (name omitted) company (name omitted) company of this case and the company (name omitted) company of the construction work in this case.

F. Therefore, on August 4, 199, a stock company (name omitted) submitted a standard contract to the Financial Cooperative as the principal contract, and entered into an advance payment guarantee contract with the Financial Cooperative as to the (name omitted) obligation to return advance payment to the Association (name omitted) within the warranty period (from August 4, 1997 to December 31, 199) under the instant construction contract, and submitted it to the Diplomatic Association (name omitted) with the guarantee certificate that the Financial Cooperative guarantees the obligation to return advance payment to the Association, and received a payment of KRW 2.9 billion as part of the advance payment of the instant construction contract from the Diplomatic Association on August 5, 197 following that date.

G. Meanwhile, on February 27, 1997, the Diplomatic Association (OOB) constructed the instant church building between Nonindicted Co. 8 and Ilsung Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) and the 1997. The DOB omitted Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) concluded a contract for construction with Nonindicted Co. 8 (OB omitted) at the first time, with the construction cost of KRW 28.6 billion. However, the DOB omitted request was not issued an insurance policy because Nonindicted Co. 8’s failure to pay the above construction cost had already been due to the bankruptcy, and Nonindicted Co. 21, the COB omitted, which was the actual owner of Nonindicted Co. 8’s construction site, tried to take over the above construction site and to take over the above construction site to the maximum extent possible, but the COB omitted and concluded the construction contract with Nonindicted Co. 8 and the Seoul Construction Site Co., Ltd. (OB omitted.).

H. Ultimately, on August 297, 1997, after the date of the contract, 21 days from July 22, 1997, the company (name omitted) had been urged to start the new construction of the building of this case, and on August 26, 1997, the company (name omitted) still failed to start the construction even though it was urged (name omitted) to reply from the school meeting to urge the commencement of the new construction of the building of this case. On August 26, 1997, the company (name omitted) sent a reply to the effect that the construction was likely to go due to the normal progress of the construction due to the failure to take over the site of the above reply from the school meeting (name omitted omitted) on August 29, 197 and continued to go against the intention of the construction of the building of this case to the school council (name omitted), but on September 22, 1997, the (name omitted omitted) was cancelled by mail.

I. Since then, on March 2, 1998, the Diplomatic Association concluded a new construction contract with the Hansung Co., Ltd. to construct the instant building by determining the construction price of KRW 31.9 billion (the supply price of KRW 29 billion + value added tax 2.9 billion) and the construction period from March 1998 to August 31, 200.

(j) On the other hand, on September 6, 1997, the Diplomatic Association filed a civil lawsuit seeking advance payment of KRW 2.9 billion against the mutual aid association based on the instant advance payment guarantee contract, but the first instance court lost the lawsuit, and appealed from the Seoul High Court (case No. 540, Mar. 30, 2000). However, the Seoul High Court ruled that the advance payment guarantee contract of this case was lawfully revoked by exercising the right of revocation on the grounds that it was deceiving the mutual aid association by notifying the mutual aid association of the defectiveness or false facts with respect to the important matters of the said principal contract. The above judgment became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Supreme Court on December 26, 200.

(k) When the Diplomatic Association lost a lawsuit claiming advance payment against the construction mutual aid association as above, on May 31, 200, the Diplomatic Association rendered a civil lawsuit against the (name omitted) corporation and Gangseosan Construction, which sought advance payment of KRW 2.9 billion from the Seoul District Court on January 25, 2002, on the basis of the above joint and several liability, and rendered a judgment that Gangseo Construction Co., Ltd. (name omitted) and the (name omitted) Diplomatic Association jointly and severally guaranteed the instant construction contract between the (name omitted of the company) corporation and the (name omitted) Diplomatic Association to pay KRW 2.9 billion to the (name omitted) Diplomatic Association and damages for delay (this is currently pending in the lawsuit to the Seoul High Court).

4. Determination

In the context of fraud, deception as a requirement for fraud means active and passive act that generally assumes the duty of good faith and sincerity in property transaction. Whether a certain act constitutes deception which causes mistake to another person shall be decided objectively and objectively, taking into account the situation of transaction, the other party's knowledge, experience, occupation, etc. In this case, the fact that Gangwon Construction is jointly and severally guaranteed as a guarantor in both the original contract and the standard contract in this case is not caused by the active deception of Defendant 3 or (the name of the company omitted) company, but it is usually granted a guarantee in accordance with the mutual guarantee agreement concluded with the (the name of the company omitted) company (the "Gsan Construction" refers to the act of guarantee in this case without hearing any separate explanation in addition to the guarantee in this case) and it cannot be deemed that the construction in this case was forcibly caused by mistake or deception of Defendant 3 or (the name of the company omitted). Thus, it cannot be deemed that the construction in this case was forcibly caused by mistake or deception of Defendant 3.

In addition, in light of the above facts, since the corporation (name omitted of the company) appears to have failed to commence the construction of this case due to the failure to order the construction site from the side of the non-indicted 8 corporation, which was the former contractor, even though it had the intent and ability to perform the construction of this case at the time, and thus, the facts charged that (name omitted of the company) entered into the construction contract of this case with the church (name omitted) and received the joint and several guarantee of the Gangwon Construction cannot be further acknowledged.

If so, each of the above evidences alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, so this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of

1. An act forced;

Defendant 3 asserts that the preparation of the letter of this case by Defendant 1 was made and submitted by Defendant 1’s coercion, and that this constitutes a forced act under Article 12 of the Criminal Act and thus, Defendant 3 cannot be punished.

As seen above, it is true that Defendant 3 prepared the letter of this case at Defendant 1’s request. However, under the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 3’s crime of this part of this case was forced by either an act of violence which Defendant 1’s resistance or by intimidation, or by which there is no way to defend himself/herself or his/her relatives’ life and body. Thus, this part of the defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion on this part is without merit without any need to examine further.

2. Claim that the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes is not applied;

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are as if Defendant 3 conspired with Defendant 1 as if the standard contract was completed on July 30, 1997, and submitted it to the Construction Mutual Aid Association to obtain a letter of advance payment guarantee from the Construction Mutual Aid Association and acquired it. The above advance payment guarantee certificate which the Defendants acquired in collusion with the Construction Mutual Aid Association is expected to be invalidated through the cancellation notice given by the Construction Mutual Aid Association on the ground of fraud. It is nothing more than Chapter 1, and it does not cause any damage to the Construction Mutual Aid Association due to this part. Thus, Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes applicable to the case where the amount of profit actually acquired due to the crime is 50 million won or more, and Article 347 (1) through 352 of the Criminal Act should be applied.

In conclusion, this part of the facts charged does not mean that the defendants conspired to obtain a letter of advance payment guarantee from the Construction Mutual Aid Association, but the construction mutual aid association received advance payment amounting to KRW 3,08,000,000 from the construction mutual aid association to obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the profits of the joint and several sureties (the prosecutor corrected this part of the facts charged to the above purport on June 4, 2002). The argument that the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes cannot be applied to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes because the defendants attempted to commit fraud by acquiring property or not causing any damage, is without merit.

Judges Kim Yong-Hun (Presiding Judge)