Defendant 1 and two others

Category Rotations

Law Firm Gyeong-man et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years and by imprisonment for three years, respectively.

The number of detention days prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be 424 days, including each of the above punishment against Defendant 1 and 2.

A penalty of KRW 1,238,800,000 shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, each fraud against Nonindicted 53, 4, 122, 6, and 132 among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1, and each attempted attack against Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 116, and Nonindicted 136, and each attempted attack against Nonindicted 118, 135, and 134, and each violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the receipt of referral fees from Nonindicted 16, and Defendant 3, each of the charges against Defendant 1, the receipt of referral fees from Nonindicted 134, the receipt of false purchase tax invoices from the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 2, and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the receipt of false purchase tax invoices from the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, respectively.

The prosecution against Defendant 2 on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the issuance of false sales tax invoices among the facts charged in the instant case is dismissed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years and by imprisonment for three years, respectively.

The number of detention days prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be 424 days, including each of the above punishment against Defendant 1 and 2.

A penalty of KRW 1,238,800,000 shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, each fraud against Nonindicted 53, 4, 122, 6, and 132 among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1, and each attempted attack against Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 116, and Nonindicted 136, and each attempted attack against Nonindicted 118, 135, and 134, and each violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the receipt of referral fees from Nonindicted 16, and Defendant 3, each of the charges against Defendant 1, the receipt of referral fees from Nonindicted 134, the receipt of false purchase tax invoices from the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 2, and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the receipt of false purchase tax invoices from the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, respectively.

The prosecution against Defendant 2 on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the issuance of false sales tax invoices among the facts charged in the instant case is dismissed.

1. Defendants 1 and 2 shall be jointly prepared (No. 2005Gohap1143);

Defendant 1 entered a friendly relationship with the majority of the police officers, and maintained a special relationship with the National Police Agency 10 billion won, including Nonindicted 10,000, and Nonindicted 11. Defendant 2, who had received orders from Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “former Construction”) to provide information on the amount of KRW 10,000,000,000 from Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 1”), to Defendant 1’s office located in Jongno-gu Seoul, and Defendant 2, who had received orders from Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 1”) to expand the number of officers’ money from Hyundai Construction Co. 1, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 1”) and received orders from Hyundai Construction Co. 1, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nonindicted Co. 1, 200, Nonindicted Co. 1, who had received orders from Hyundai Construction Co. 1, 2006). It seems that Defendant 1 would have been aware of the foregoing facts.

2. Defendant 1

(a) (205 Highest 1143);

1) On April 9, 202, at the hotel shop in Seocho-gu, Seoul, 202. Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 24, the representative director of Nonindicted 23, who is an affiliate company, at the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office, was aware of the situation under which Nonindicted 24 might be detained by the Special Division of the Daejeon Public Prosecutor's Office, and was asked to explain whether it is possible to be placed on the special part of Nonindicted 24 through the legal assistance. However, I would like to know how to request the judge of the Daejeon Public Prosecutor's Office's request, but I would be able to ask the judge of the Daejeon Public Prosecutor's Office to attend the second public prosecutor's office at the second public prosecutor's office at the second public prosecutor's office at the 20th public prosecutor's office at the second public prosecutor's office at the second public prosecutor's office at the second public prosecutor's office at the second public prosecutor's office at the second public prosecutor's office at the second public prosecutor's office at the second public prosecutor's office at the second public prosecutor's office.

2) On or around March 4, 2005, the fact at Limannas hotel coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and even if a promissory note was requested by Nonindicted 30, the victim did not have the intent or ability to properly discount the promissory note, the victim makes a false statement to the effect that “The victim shall have a discount of KRW 1,50,000,000 per month with the interest of KRW 1,50,000 per month through a person who wants to be aware of the promissory note, and shall have a discount of KRW 3-4,00,000,000,000,000 from the victim’s office located in Songpa-gu, Seoul on the same day, to the effect that “The Bank shall have a discount of KRW 1,50,000 per month within 3-4,000,000,000,000 won, such as a discount of KRW 2,50,000,00.

(b) (205 Highest 1177);

1) The facts revealing the fact that the Defendant, as an adviser of Nonindicted 5’s management, had no intention to act as an advisor of Nonindicted 147 Co., Ltd., he was aware of the fact that the Defendant received a contract for the Internet sales agency portion of the company operating the said company’s sports lottery tickets business from Dongyang and the said company (hereinafter “Dongyang”) and raised the profit of the business, and that the victim was carrying out a lawsuit against the dispute arising in the process of transferring the sports lottery tickets business to Dongyang department, he would have an adverse impact on the said lawsuit and the dong department and the business activities with the said dong department

On January 204, 2004, Nonindicted 148, a director, who operated the said company on behalf of Nonindicted 5 residing in a foreign country in the office of Nonindicted 5’s venture business in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Cheongdong-gu Office for the victim Nonindicted 5’s management, in lieu of the victim Nonindicted 5, who had been staying in the said company on behalf of the victim Nonindicted 148, shows to Nonindicted 148 a pocket book indicating contact details of high-ranking officials, despite the fact that the victim had not expressed that he would pay the Defendant money under the pretext of advisory fees. In addition, even in the same solar department, “within this country, there are many persons, such as judges, public prosecutors, and the National Tax Service employees, etc., who are in charge of the said affairs, and there are many people, and even in a lawsuit with the same solar department, they may be brought about to the victim from around 00 to 100, which would cause the victim to change the business conditions, etc. of the said company from around 100 to 2000, and 1400.

2) On December 200, the victim non-indicted 32, who was known from the end of the end of the 1999, was prosecuted for having violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and was sentenced to five years of imprisonment at the Seoul High Court on March 26, 2002, and was dismissed by the dismissal from the Supreme Court to the female prison on March 26, 2002, and became aware of the fact that he was hospitalized for the purpose of treating the crym cancer after receiving a decision to suspend the execution of punishment from cryp hospitals around May 16, 2003, the defendant was tried to pay money from the victim, considering the attitude that the defendant's personality, etc. was over and had an adverse effect on the decision to extend the suspension of the execution of punishment.

Around June 2003, at the hospitalization room of the victim in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, 531, the victim still remains at a reasonable term of office, and even though there is no need for the victim to take an office at all because brain fat is completely completely cured and it is impossible to engage in social activities, the victim will make a real estate construction-related office. The victim will use the defendant's office office at the latest one room. On the last one month, at the rent and operating expenses, the amount of KRW 10 million is entered at the rate of KRW 20 million. However, the victim will not pay office operating expenses at the early 00 million, and if the victim's office expenses at the early 200,000,0000 won is 0,000 won, 200,000,000,000 won, 30,000,000,000 won, 3,000,000,000 won.

(c) (205 Highest 1178);

1) On November 1, 2003, in the "Crob hotel room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room room in Gangnam-gu Seoul Cheonggu, Seoul, the head of the 00 police station asked the Commissioner of the 200 police station to request the Commissioner of the National Police Agency to receive minor disciplinary action, such as reduction of salary or reprimand, etc., in response to his request, and Nonindicted 33 stated that the expenses to be used for entertainment expenses, etc. need not be known to the Commissioner of the National Police Agency, but not for salary reduction or reprimand, and the expenses to be used for entertainment expenses, etc. are required to be two. Accordingly, from Nonindicted 33 and from the defendant's office located in the Gangnam-gu, Seoul Cheongdong-gu, Seoul on the second and second day of the same month, the amount of KRW 20 million and KRW 500,000,000 and the amount of money and valuables for the good offices of public officials belonging to the duties of the official.

2) On December 5 of the same year, from the "Gangland" located in the Songwon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, which used a large amount of expenses by getting phone calls from Nonindicted 33, and sending 10 million won to Nonindicted 33 again. As a case name of Nonindicted 33's disciplinary action office's deposit, it received money from Nonindicted 33's No. 34 and 9.5 million won from the No. 35's No. 35's No. 5 million won from the No. 35's No. 1,500 won from the No. 36's Agricultural Account (Account Number omitted) to the defendant's accounting staff, and received money from Nonindicted 33 to arrange the transfer of money from each public official's account in the name of Korea bank (Account Number omitted).

(d) (205 Highest 1220)

In fact, even if he/she borrows money, he/she has no intent or ability to repay it when he/she receives money, and is running the apartment project at the subordinate city is the △△ General Construction Co., Ltd. (the representative director, Nonindicted 2; hereinafter “△△ General Construction”), and despite the fact that the Defendant was either △ General Construction or the said apartment construction project, it is difficult to raise the funds because he/she did not have any equity interest in, or

1) Around June 7, 2005, the victim Non-Indicted 38 of the victim Non-Indicted 38 located in the Shin-dong-dong-dong-dong-si (mutually omitted) office that "I will lend money to the victim within a reasonable period of time because I would have to repay money." It received 4.6 million won from the victim as the borrowed money from the victim and acquired it by fraud;

2) On the 29th day of the same month, by receiving 30 million won from the victim under the same name in a false manner at the same place as above, and by defrauding them;

(e) (205 Highest 1221);

In fact, even if they borrowed money from others, they do not have the intention or ability to repay it at the same time:

1) On January 27, 2004, at the store in Seoul and below, the victim, who did not have the money, borrowed the company’s money to the victim non-indicted 39 by advertising the phone to the non-indicted 39, and the victim said that “only 10 days if the money is urgently required and only 30 million won is lent, and 10 million won is used and returned to the victim.” The victim received the money from the victim to the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number 1 omitted) on the same day;

2) On March 8, 2004, after receiving a transfer of KRW 40 million from the victim to October 10, 2004, the victim Nonindicted 40, by putting a phone to the victim Nonindicted 40, with the voice of putting off the phone at the end of Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “the victim Nonindicted 40,000 won prior to the expiration of the paid-up hours, because he/she borrowed 50,000 won prior to the expiration of the paid-up hours, he/she shall be paid-up immediately, and then he/she shall receive the money by deceiving the victim from the victim on July 8, 2004, without paying the remaining KRW 20,000,000,000 from the victim;

3) Around November 9, 2004, the victim Nonindicted 41 was called the victim Nonindicted 41 and was using a maths passbook by putting a phone to the victim Nonindicted 41, and thus, it is difficult to lend money to the victim who refuses to lend money. Therefore, the victim’s “I will immediately forward money to the victim if I want to transfer money to KRW 20 million. I will immediately forward money to the victim. I receive from the victim, namely, KRW 20 million from the victim’s seat to the Defendant’s interest bank account (Account Number omitted) of Nonindicted 43’s driver Nonindicted 43.

4) 2005. 6. 13.경 서울 송파구 방이동 88-8에 있는 올림픽 파크호텔에서 피해자 공소외 42의 손을 잡고 눈물을 글썽거리면서 피해자에게 “집세도 내지 못하고, 운전사도 없고, 생활이 어렵다. 돈 9,000만 원만 빌려주면 2005. 7. 17.까지 갚겠다.”고 거짓말하여 이에 속은 피해자로부터 같은 달 14.경 피고인의 아들 공소외 44의 우리은행 계좌( (계좌번호 생략))로 9,000만 원을 송금 받아 이를 편취하고,

(f) (206Gohap9);

In July 2004, the defendant requested that the defendant be subject to investigation by Non-Indicted 83 who had been living in flight for about two years since the prosecution was suspended due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the forgery of private documents, the uttering of the above investigation document, the violation of the Commercial Act, the false entry of the original copy of the notarial deed, and the exercise of the original copy of the notarial deed, etc. in the major apartment complex located in Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, for the purpose that "it is necessary to receive 200 million won for the purpose of investigation by soliciting the public prosecutor in charge through the attorney-at-law from the high-ranking department of the prosecutor's office and the high-ranking department of the prosecutor's office to receive 10 million won for the expense of the victim, and received 10 million won for the check from the defendant on August 1 of the same year of the same year in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, as

(g) (206Gohap10)

Through Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 46 introduced Nonindicted 46’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) which is being detained in the Suwon Police Station and asked Nonindicted 47 to release Nonindicted 46 to Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 46, who is the Defendant’s office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, for the following reasons: (a) Nonindicted 46, who called Nonindicted 46, was visited to the Suwon Police Station, and called Nonindicted 46, “I would not know in the future because there is any internal problem; (b) I would make a deduction of Nonindicted 46, who will be detained during the period of detention, etc. during the period of detention.” (c) Nonindicted 47, who requested Nonindicted 47 to request the money to be paid from Nonindicted 47, May 11, 2005, Defendant 3’s office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, to receive KRW 50 million,50 million in total, and offer money and valuables from a public official under the pretext of receipt of the duties.

(h) (206 Highest 11);

On November 1, 2003, at the office of the defendant in Gangnam-gu, Seoul at the time of the first round of November, 2003, Non-Indicted 49, received a solicitation from Non-Indicted 50, “Non-Indicted 50, a person to whom Non-Indicted 50, who knows well in inside and outside, is the head of the criminal department of the Pacific Police Station, to have him go to the high level of the police, and to which Non-Indicted 50,00 won is required for entertainment expenses, etc., to pay money to Non-Indicted 50,00,” and the above solicitation was approved. After receiving from Non-Indicted 49, a letter from Non-Indicted 49, a letter of self-check check (the check number 41345067) issued at the above office, in order to arrange matters belonging to the public official’s duties.”

(i) (206Gohap55);

The facts are as follows: (a) from June 1, 2003 to February 28, 2005, Gangnamland entered 1,263 occasions (by average twice a year); (b) approximately 53,206 Kara Game games (by average of approximately 84 times a year); (c) continuously gambling in the military register where the amount of KRW 3.9 billion is lost; (d) there was no special property in the name of the defendant, including Nonindicted 53,30, and there was no special property in the name of the defendant; (g) any hotel operated by the defendant's wife was in the state of the 1,263 times each year; and (g) there was no capacity to provide the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Province with no capacity to sell the apartment house under the name of its neighboring people; and (g) there was no capacity to sell it to the apartment land within 1, including 1.

1) On September 25, 2004, the Defendant’s house located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seo-dong, stating that “The victim Nonindicted Party 51 would have repaid KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s account (Account Number 2 omitted) for 30,000 won on October 15 of the same year, the victim received KRW 30,000 from the Defendant’s bank account (Account Number 2 omitted) and, on April 25, 2005, received KRW 4,400,000 from the Defendant’s bank to the above Korean bank account, and acquired KRW 34 million in total;

2) On March 14, 2005, the victim non-indicted 52 operation (mutually omitted) conference office located in the Simcheon-si on the first and second day of 2005, "it is possible for the victim to purchase commercial buildings in the city of Hamsan to take part in the city of Hamsan, which is now model low-level and high investment value, to purchase commercial buildings in order to purchase commercial buildings in lots. It is a false statement to the effect that "the victim will take part in the sales of commercial buildings in the city of Hamsan-si, and deposit KRW 1.20,000,000 from the victim as the sales of commercial buildings, and deposit KRW 6,20,000 on the 16th day of the same month with the account (Account No. 1 omitted) in the name of the defendant, and the sum of the account number of the non-indicted 78,830,000 won in the name of the defendant, and the account (Account No. 983,0830,0,000.

(j) (206Gohap56)

1) On September 199, 199, at the victim Non-Indicted 7 office of the representative director of the company, Non-Indicted 55 corporation located in Heungdong-dong, Gwangju, the fact is that the defendant's (mutually omitted) operating status was at the time of the operation of the hotel merely because the defendant's son who was attending the university was unable to pay IMp's expenses, and there was no other special revenue, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay the expenses at the time of making a loan, it is false to the effect that "if he borrowed money to make a hotel business in the old case, he will repay it immediately." The defendant was issued KRW 10 million from the victim as a loan from the victim, and from that time to November 1 of the same year, he shall receive the total amount of KRW 40 million from the victim as above and shall acquire it under the above name and receive it.

2) The victim non-indicted 54 was aware of the fact that the victim non-indicted 54 operated the non-indicted 56 corporation, which is the manufacturer and supplier of Pakistan, in the Sungdong-gu, Ansan-si, that he want to supply approximately 25% of the quantity of softed demand and want to supply more supply quantity;

Around May 13, 2002, there is no officer or employee in a kind of telephone to the victim, and the fact was requested by Nonindicted 54 to the executives or employees in a lot for Nonindicted 54 for the purpose of raising the quantity of supply of a lot of lives about lives for Nonindicted 54, and Nonindicted 54 did not have any intention or ability to do so, it is not clear that the victim “the increase of the quantity of delivery of lotlives is likely to be well known to the executives or employees of lotlives. Mad. I would like to use the lotlives for expenses. I would like to request the sending of KRW 2 million to the victim. I would like to receive KRW 5 million from the victim for expenses, and then, I would like to receive KRW 5 million from the above account under the name of Nonindicted 57 for the same month, KRW 1 million in the name of the defendant on July 13 of the same year, and shall receive KRW 17 million in each of the above accounts under the name of the defendant on the same day.

3) On February 7, 2002, the victim non-indicted 8's operation (trade name 5 omitted) in Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. The fact is that the defendant entered into the above construction contract by receiving five million won from the victim's account in the name of non-indicted 44 in the name of the defendant, while the defendant did not intend to enter into the construction contract for the direction-setting of the (trade name 6 omitted) design operated by the victim and the (trade name 6 omitted), or to enter into the interior contract of the above hotel. However, the defendant did not intend to enter into the direction-setting construction contract for the above Gangnam-gu, Seoul and the (trade name 6 omitted) design and the above hotel (trade name 6 omitted) design and the above hotel, and it appears that the above construction contract is concluded by taking over five million won from the victim's account in the name of non-indicted 44.

(k) (206 Highest 57);

1) In the event that Defendant 2 had to receive KRW 23 million under the pretext of drinking value, golf costs, and sprinked Defendant 2 on April 2003, Defendant 2 had to receive KRW 15 million or KRW 20 million from Defendant 2 in relation to the proceeds from the sale of the building in the Yaeong-si in the middle of the 2003 Incident, Defendant 2 had to receive KRW 15 million or KRW 20 million from Defendant 2, who is an administrative officer, from Defendant 2 in the Army Headquarters in relation to the proceeds from the sale of the building in the Yama-si in the middle of the 2003 Incident; Defendant 2 did not actually check whether Defendant 2 was receiving money from the victim; and

2003. 4.말경 피고인 및 상 피고인 2에게 돈을 줄 이유가 없다고 거절하는 피해자에게 전화로 돈을 달라고 요구하면서 “너는 헌병감에게 전화를 해서 매장을 시켜버리겠다, 너 같은 것은 간단하게 보직해임도 시킬 수 있다”고 말하고, 그 무렵부터 같은 해 5. 30.경까지 사이에 전화로 피해자에게 “돈 1,000만 원을 주지 않으면 칼로 찔러서 배창자를 열어버린다, 만나면 허리를 분질러 버릴 테니 꼼짝 말고 있어라, 내가 내려 간다, 부장검사도 소주병으로 까서 빵에서 몇 개월 살다왔다, 나는 무서운 게 없다, 하고 싶으면 한다, 내가 서방파 김태촌과 친한데 조직원들을 동원하여 너를 쥐도 새도 모르게 없애 버리겠다, 군 수사기관에 피고인 2가 너에게 돈을 주는 것을 나도 목격하였다고 허위진술하여 너를 구렁텅이에 빠트리고 직위해제 시켜 버리겠다”고 말하여 이에 응하지 않으면 피해자의 생명, 신체 등에 어떠한 위해를 가할 듯한 태도를 보여 이에 겁을 먹은 피해자로부터 같은 해 5. 30.경 피고인의 국민은행 계좌( (계좌번호 생략))로 9,990,000원을 송금 받아 이를 갈취하고,

2) On May 19, 2004, Nonindicted 9 was aware that an industrial accident that occurred at the construction site of the Busan Seabaco Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scco Construction”)’s construction of the Busan Seabaco Construction site and that Nonindicted 9 directed the head of the above headquarters of the company to manage the said accident.

In June 2004, at the office of 15th floor in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Nonindicted 9 demanded that “it be given to Nonindicted Co. 60 who knows well inside the city by means of the prosecutor’s office, the police connection, and is well aware of the industrial accident accident case at the Posco construction, under a private contract, the Busan Mansco Construction (an amount equivalent to KRW 4.4 billion) will be given to Nonindicted Co. 60, and around August 11 of the same year, after obtaining the consent of Posco Construction, it was paid to Posco Construction to enter into a negotiated contract with Nonindicted Co. 60 and 4.4 billion won which was designated by the Defendant, around May 21 of the same year, 200, KRW 40 million around June 30 of the same year, KRW 200,0000, KRW 6000,0000 from Nonindicted Co. 60, and KRW 2005,000,000 from the previous public official’s profits.

(l) (206Gohap58);

around March 2005, Non-Indicted 61, who is engaged in the construction business in the name of Masco Construction in Masco Construction Masco Building 789, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, demanded that “The Ministry of National Defense transfer construction amount of KRW 100,000,000 to KRW 150,000 from KRW 100,000 to KRW 150,000,000 from the Ministry of National Defense, which is well known to the Republic of Korea and the head of the Public Procurement Service of the Ministry of National Defense, will be ordered to undertake construction works upon request from the Republic of Korea and the head of the Ministry of National Defense. This demand that “The Minister of National Defense and the head of the Ministry of National Defense will loan KRW 100,000 to KRW 124,00,000 from April 6, 201 to the Defendant’s next account (Account No. 125,000,0000 from the Defendant’s second account (Account No. 125,08,00).

(m) (206 Highest 125);

1) On April 11, 2005, the facts at the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government New-dong restaurant were considered to be used to repay the debt from the victim non-indicted 63 even if he/she borrowed money from the victim's non-indicted 63, and even if he/she did not intend to repay it within the past month, he/she shall make a false statement to the victim that " he/she plans the apartment sales business atHanam-si, which he/she plans the apartment sales business, and there is a shortage of the project cost so that he/she may borrow money from the victim who mistakens that he/she would use it for the project cost required for the apartment sales business within the several months after he/she used it for the expenses for the apartment sales business, and shall receive 50 million won from the victim's bank account (Account Number 1 omitted), 9 million won with the same account on June 14 of the same month, 30 million won with the same account on June 7 of the same year, and shall receive 80 million won in total from each apartment sales business.

2) On June 1 of the same year, the facts were found to have been considered to have been used to repay the debt due to gambling or gambling even if the victim 64 borrowed money from the victim non-indicted 64, and despite the absence of intent to repay the debt within 2 months to 3 months, the victim made a false statement to the victim that "it is planned to operate the apartment sales business atHanam-si, and the project cost may be punished for a total of KRW 40 million,00,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won."

(n) (206Gohap126)

The facts are as follows: (a) Nonindicted 3 (Death on December 21, 2004) was detained on July 13, 200 by the Special Department of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office after being investigated into the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by the Special Department of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office; and (b) was indicted on July 22, 200 and became final and conclusive after being sentenced to imprisonment with labor for three years from the Seoul District Court; (c) Nonindicted 3 did not have an intention or ability to release Nonindicted 3 for suspicion

Around July 6, 2000, the victim non-indicted 66 asked the victim non-indicted 66 to "whether it is possible to solve the non-indicted 3 with the special department of Seoul ○○○○ Gun", and the victim "I would like to get the victim to release under suspicion. I would like to know about how it is possible to do so. I would like to do so. I would like to do so. I would like to write out the path, with 50 million won, and I would like to do so." The victim's defect that "I would have 30 million won with 30 million won." The victim believed this as true, the victim received 1 million won's cashier's checks from the victim for the release of Non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-suspect-suspect's suspicion, and shall receive 30 million won in total, which is the price for the victim's non-indicted 3's release.

(o) (206Gohap208);

From July 2005, Switzerland Construction had been investigated by the Central Investigation Office of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in relation to the development of the Orna City in Gwangju City, it was approaching Nonindicted 67, the vice president of the above company, to the effect that "I would help you complete the investigation," and "I would like to help you end the investigation well, I would like to see if I would like to am a public official, I would like to am a son who would am a son who would am a son who would am a son who would am a ambling in advance, I would like to am a ambling, I would like to am a ambling when I would like to am a ambling, I would like to am a ambling, and I would like to am a ambling for the construction of Ornaco, and I would like to am a ambling."

around August 4, 2005, Non-Indicted 67 demanded on the first floor coffee shop of the first floor hotel that is located in Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, that "I will end upon entering the prosecution's high-ranking officer because he solicited. I will not see that I will do so. I will say that I will not see that I will see that I will am going to the prosecution's high-ranking officer, it will be difficult for ○○ vice president ( non-party 67) to make a payment even if I will not make a payment, and it will be difficult for I will make a payment even if I will have to do so, and only one of the construction addresses in an amount equivalent to 20 billion won for the mediation of matters belonging to the public official's duties."

(p) (206Gohap210)

On April 205, 200, Nonindicted Party 5 and Nonindicted Party 45 were suffering from damage, such as intimidationing Nonindicted Party 68 and 70 entrusted by Nonindicted Party 5 to Nonindicted Party 5’s office at the Seocho-gu Seoul High Police Agency’s office. Accordingly, the case holding that “the head of the Seoul High Police Agency is likely to request the head of the 0th 5th Do Police Agency to receive information from Nonindicted Party 4 and to receive information from Nonindicted Party 5, and that “the head of the 5th Do Police Agency would be likely to receive information from Nonindicted Party 7 and to receive information from Nonindicted Party 4,” and that “the head of the 5th Do Police Agency would be the head of the 7th Do Police Agency to receive information from Nonindicted Party 5’s office.” The head of the 7th Do Police Agency and the head of the 4th Do Police Agency’s office to receive information from Nonindicted Party 4 and to receive information from Nonindicted Party 5 on the same day.”

(q) (206Gohap211);

In fact, despite the fact that the victim Nonindicted 73 received money from the victim Nonindicted 73 as a stock investment, he did not have the intent or ability to repay the profits after investing in the shares, he had the intent or ability to do so, by deceiving the victim as if he had a promising investment place, by deceiving the money, and then using it as a fund for the gambling of Gangseo

On November 13, 2005, at the new consortium 650, Sariri-ri, Sari-ri-ri, Sari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

(r) (206Gohap212);

In fact, despite the lending of money from another person for the purpose of the lending, the victim Nonindicted 75 and Nonindicted 76 came to know from several years prior to the absence of the intent or ability to repay the money at the time of the lending;

1) On March 11, 2004, the victim Nonindicted 75 posted phone calls to the victim Nonindicted 75 on several occasions, and false statement to the effect that “I will be repaid if I will lend KRW 0,000,000 to the Hanam apartment business, which is urgently needed to use the money as hotel operating expenses,” and then I shall receive KRW 5 million from Nonindicted 75 on the 11st of the same month under the name of the Defendant’s name from the 75th of the same month to the Cho Jong bank account in the name of the Defendant.”

2) On May 13, 200 of the same year, the victim Non-Indicted 76 told Non-Indicted 76 that “I will pay money. If I will lend money, I will do so. I will do so. I shall receive from Non-Indicted 76 the money, which is the borrowed account of the defendant, KRW 10 million,000,000 from Non-Indicted 57 No. 1,000,000 won, which is the borrowed account of the defendant on the same day as the borrowed money from Non-Indicted 76, and shall receive KRW 20,000,000,000 from the same account on the following day, and shall receive KRW 10,000,000 from September 200, and shall not pay the remaining KRW 10,000 until now.

(s) (206Gohap340)

At the bar office of the victim non-indicted 17 located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from June 2003 to October 2005, the fact is that the victim non-indicted 17's attorney-at-law in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, tried to use the borrowed money from others who have 368 billion won through gambling, such as "Chora", even if they borrowed the money from others who have ever ever come to face to pay the debt due to gambling or gambling in Gangwon-do, and to use the borrowed money only to repay the debt due to gambling or gambling in Gangwon-do, without the plan or intent to pay the borrowed money, the victim's false statement that "I will lend the borrowed money to the victim, and will pay the borrowed money within the several months, and the defendant shall receive 50 million won from the victim misunderstanding that the borrowed money would be repaid within the five months of May 10 of the same year with the name of commercial bank (number: No. 44) of the defendant's child.

(t) (206 Highest 341);

In fact, even if she borrowed money from others, she wishes to use it for gambling, and she does not have the intention or ability to pay it within the time limit;

On October 13, 2004, at the Gangseodo casino located in the Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, the victim 79 calls to the victim non-indicted 79, and then the victim 10 million won is used for a short time, if he lends 10 million won in money, he can only use for a short time, and if he borrowed 10 million won in money, he will remove a kind of money from him well, and he will not know well, and he will receive from the victim 10 million won from the victim to the account (Account No. 1 omitted), which is the Defendant's borrowed account (Account No. 1 omitted).

(u) (206Gohap342);

Notwithstanding the fact that from June 2003 to June 2003, the head of △△ General Construction and the Chairperson of 146 Co., Ltd. became aware of Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2 opened a name tag of “△△ Construction”, which refers to the comprehensive construction of △△△△△△” in the office located in the building located in the building located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and opened the name tag of △△△ comprehensive Construction, and was in a close relationship with Nonindicted 2 while carrying out the name tag as the chairperson or adviser of △△△ comprehensive Construction. On the other hand, around April 30, 2004, the 4 block site was 78.3 billion won at the time of selling the apartment site, and after being awarded a successful contract by △△ comprehensive Construction, Nonindicted 2 promised to select the apartment site at the time of selling the apartment site to be entrusted with the construction of △△△ comprehensive Construction in order to help the construction of the apartment site at the time of selling it.

Around May 13, 2004, Non-Indicted 80, a vice-chairperson of △△ Group on the recommendation of △△△ to select KRW 1 billion as a contractor for the construction of the housing site in the above Pungsan area in Gangnam-gu, Seoul as of May 13, 2004, requires Non-Indicted 80, a vice-chairperson of the recommendation of △△△△ to first change the amount of KRW 400 million. On the following day, Non-Indicted 80, a vice-chairperson of the recommendation of △△△△ to first demand that Non-Indicted 80, a vice-chairperson be paid KRW 400,000,000,000 from the phone to the △△ case, “The first promise is to be responsible for receiving 40,000,000 won from Non-Indicted 80,000,000,000 won from the Defendant’s next day to the same day, and to the 1.51,5150,050,00.

(v) (206Gohap343);

Around February 14, 2005, the following facts were false: (a) even if the victim Nonindicted 81 borrowed money from the victim Nonindicted 81, it did not use it as a business fund, and (b) did not have any intent or ability to repay it at the time; (c) the victim made a false statement to the victim, stating that “if the settlement fund for the apartment construction project in the Hanam Pungsan District is urgently required, it shall be repaid within one month,” and (d) the victim received money from the victim to the bank account in the name of the defendant in the name of the bank on the same day, and acquired it by means of money from the victim;

(w) (206Gohap348);

The victim non-indicted 82, who had maintained a friendly relationship before several years, continued to make a false statement to the victim non-indicted 82, on the ground that "a apartment construction project is being conducted in the area outside the Gyeonggi-Nam and the Chungcheong Gongju, and if the apartment is sold in lots, a large amount of money is raised;"

Around October 14, 2004, the victim made a telephone, and the fact is that the victim lost the money of KRW 170 million from September 2004 to April 6, 2005, and even if there was no particular source of revenue, the victim did not have any intent or ability to repay the money, and the victim did not have an intent or ability to repay the money at the time of lending it from the victim. The victim makes a false statement to the effect that "any money is to be repaid immediately," the victim received a remittance of KRW 60 million from the victim to the agricultural bank account of Nonindicted 49, which is the Defendant's borrowed account, for the borrowed money, from September 2004 to April 6, 2005, the victim received a total of KRW 170 million from September 2004 to the Defendant's borrowed money as stated in the list of crimes in attached Table 3, and acquired it by receiving and remitting it as a loan account with a total of six times from April 6, 2005.

(x) (206Gohap349);

On December 8, 2004, the Gwangju District Court knew the fact that Nonindicted 83 was detained in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and that the victim Nonindicted 83 was released as bail in Gwangju detention center, and had Nonindicted 83 send the money to Nonindicted 83 to Nonindicted 81’s account for release on bail, with the awareness of the fact that the victim Nonindicted 83 was released as bail, and sentenced him to use it for the Defendant’s repayment of the existing borrowed money to Nonindicted 81;

On January 28, 2005, at the Gwangju detention center, Nonindicted 83 as well as Nonindicted 84 of Nonindicted 83’s wife at Nonindicted 83, and the fact is that the Defendant requested Nonindicted 81 to be the number of the above criminal cases against Nonindicted 83, and Nonindicted 83, despite the fact that Nonindicted 83 did not have any reason to pay the commission fee to Nonindicted 83, the Defendant received it by allowing Nonindicted 83 to deposit the sum of KRW 10 million with Nonindicted 85 and 86, respectively, via Nonindicted 84 on February 1, 2005, by allowing Nonindicted 83 to deposit the sum of KRW 20 million with Nonindicted 81, which the Defendant informed Nonindicted 81, who was aware of such fact.

(y) (206Gohap350);

As a case list concerning Nonindicted 33’s solicitation of disciplinary action against Nonindicted 33 from the chief of the ○○ Police Station chief to the Commissioner of the Korean National Police Agency, he is willing to disguise the fact concerning the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc. (No. 2005Dahap11788) by receiving money and valuables for the referral of matters belonging to public official’s duties by receiving activity expenses from another person’s account under the name of another person managed by the Defendant;

On December 5, 2003, Nonindicted 33 received KRW 9.5 million in the name of Nonindicted 33’s wife, Nonindicted 33’s name, and KRW 50,500,000 in the name of Nonindicted 35 in the name of Nonindicted 33’s wife, and was transferred to the Defendant’s account (Account Number omitted) in the name of Nonindicted 36’s name, the Defendant’s borrowed account, and had Nonindicted 36 immediately withdraw the money in cash and again deposit the money in the name of the Defendant’s borrowed bank account in the name of Nonindicted 87.

(z) (206Gohap351);

In order to conclude that Nonindicted 61, the chairperson, Nonindicted 61, who was the chairperson of △ Construction, would recommend the Air Security Command relocation order, and would lend KRW 100 million to the Minister of National Defense, and would receive financial gains regarding the referral of matters belonging to the public official’s duties by means of remittance to another person’s borrowed account managed by the Defendant (No. 2006 high-priced 58), with the intent to disguise the fact regarding the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc.

1) On April 6, 2005, Nonindicted 61 received 20 million won from the Defendant’s borrowed account (Account Number omitted) in the name of Nonindicted 124 account, the Defendant’s borrowed account, and let Nonindicted 124 immediately withdraw 1 million won cashier’s checks in the name of Nonindicted 124, who is aware of the fact, from Nonindicted 61, to 20,000 won, and pretended to acquire criminal proceeds, etc.;

2) On the 11th of the same month, Nonindicted 61 received 80 million won from the Defendant’s borrowed account, in the name of Nonindicted 125, the Defendant’s borrowed account, from NFF account (Account Number omitted), and then let Nonindicted 125 immediately withdraw KRW 6,000,000,000,000, in cash, from Non-Indicted 61, and pretended to obtain criminal proceeds, etc.;

(za) (206 Highest 355);

In a case where Nonindicted 21 Nonindicted 22 used expenses from Nonindicted 23 Nonindicted 22, the vice president of the vice president of Nonindicted 21 Company, as an affiliate, to solicit a judge or prosecutor in connection with Nonindicted 24’s crime of taking property in breach of trust, which is the representative director of Nonindicted 23 Company, for solicitation, Nonindicted 24, the said expenses are transferred to another person’s borrowed account under the name of the Defendant’s management, with the intent to disguise the fact regarding the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc.

around July 9, 2003, by receiving KRW 18.6 million from Nonindicted 22 to Nonindicted 25 foreign exchange bank account (Account Number omitted), the Defendant’s borrowed account under the above security name, and pretending to the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc.;

(zb) (206Gohap361)

In fact, on July 14, 2004, the victim non-indicted 89 located in Yong-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, did not have the intent or ability to repay money from others, stating that "If the land for the construction of the three-four apartment is awarded a successful bid but the down payment is insufficient, if it is lent KRW 300 million to the victim, it shall be used as the down payment for the purchase of the site, and shall be repaid within three-four months, and it shall be acquired by transfer from the victim to the bank account (Account No. 1 omitted) in the name of the defendant.

(zc) (206Gohap362);

1) On June 2003, the "Yancheon-gu Hospital" room in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul. The facts are as follows: (a) around April 2003, when the defendant introduced the defendant to appoint the non-indicted 16 attorney as the defense counsel in the case of application for suspension of the execution of punishment by the victim non-indicted 32; (b) although Non-indicted 16 attorney knew that the victim was aware of the appointment fee of KRW 200 million; and (c) even if the victim was paid the appointment fee of KRW 100 million to the non-indicted 16 attorney, the defendant did not intend to deliver it to the non-indicted 16 attorney, despite the absence of the victim's intention to deliver it to the non-indicted 16 attorney, the defendant should have KRW 100 million which was not paid to the non-indicted 16 attorney; and (d) the victim would have obtained the appointment fee of KRW 160 million from the non-indicted 16 attorney to the non-indicted 16 attorney, thereby bringing 15 billion.

2) On June 2004, at the "Gangland Casino" located in 424, Gangwon-gu, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Park Jongwon-gun, who was aware of the gambling along with Nonindicted 93, was asked to select and appoint a counsel for Nonindicted 94's case of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act by Nonindicted 93, which is the latter part of Nonindicted 93, "I would like to introduce that there is a young person who is an attorney-at-law." On the same day of the same month, Nonindicted 95, who was an attorney-at-law at the office of Seocho-gu, Seowon-gun, the general law office, called "I would like to find out the 10th day of the check, which did not result in a lot of appointment fees." On the 10th day of the same month, 10th day of the above month, 200, 30th day of the above case, and 30th day of the above case.

(zd) (206Gohap372);

From the end of September 2004 to the end of October of the same year, 2004, the head of the Seocho-gu Police Agency in charge of the promotion and personnel management of police officers to request the provision of convenience to police officers requested by the defendant at the time of personnel management by him, and the head of the △△ Police Agency in charge of the duties of the promotion and personnel management of police officers to deliver a copy of the KRW 10 million check to Nonindicted 97 to give a bribe

(zb) (206Gohap380);

In fact, even if Defendant 3 borrowed money from the victim, the victim did not have the intent or ability to repay it at the time, and was to use the money borrowed from the victim for gambling, but it was intended to do so;

Around March 3, 2004, a false statement to the effect that “the victim shall subscribe to good shares.” On the other hand, if he/she lends money from the party, he/she will sell shares after the two-year-old month, and he/she will be paid back the shares.” It receives 30 million won from the victim to the bank account in the name of Non-Indicted 44, who is the defendant’s child in the name of the money borrowed from the victim, and acquires it by fraud;

(za) (206 Highest 757);

At the office of Nonindicted Co. 99 of the Gangnam-gu, Seoul, on March 2004, Nonindicted Co. 100, Nonindicted Co. 101, the president of Nonindicted Co. 100, and the vice president of Nonindicted Co. 102, who had already been detained by the prosecutor, who again investigated Nonindicted Co. 103 and 104 of the case, and if it became known, he would cause Nonindicted Co. 104 to be investigated by non-indicted 104 to be detained by the prosecutor,” and upon the request of the prosecutor, he would receive “the expenses to have him be investigated by non-indicted 100,000,000 won and money and valuables, etc., which were received from Nonindicted Co. 102 on the front of the Hyundai Max Building, which was well known to the prosecutor’s office at the request of the prosecutor.” Accordingly, on the 29th day of the same month, Nonindicted Co. 100,000 won and money and valuables, etc.

3. Defendant 2

Non-Indicted 105 Co., Ltd., the president of the Construction Company, who is the non-Indicted 105 Co., Ltd., and subcontracted by Hyundai Construction from March 1, 2000 to February 28, 2001, there was no new contract for construction since March 1, 200, except for the construction work performed from March 1, 200 to February 28, 2001, and there was no profit from the construction work performed over a long period of one year, and there was no other property or income, and there was no other property or income, and there was a situation in which he lives with money or living expenses, etc. from the relatives around the mother-and-child.

A. On September 5, 2001, the victim non-indicted 106 office located in Chonam-dong, Sii-dong, Sii-si, and the fact is false to the victim that the victim did not have the intent or ability to repay the money when he borrowed money from the victim even if he borrowed money, and the victim does not have the intent or ability to repay it. The victim’s “only one month, and to lend the full payment amount of KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000 won from the victim, i.e., the victim’s check of KRW 20,000,000,

B. On October 10, 2001, in the office of Non-Indicted 108 operated by Non-Indicted 107, the victim Non-Indicted 107 located in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul. The fact is that even if the victim received a bill from the victim, the victim did not have the intent or ability to discount the bill, and that the victim would have “one million won to lend the bill,” but the victim would have heard the victim’s phrase “the victim would have “one million won to have no money and one to have a bill.” When the victim received the bill, it is false to the effect that “I will use five million won at the discounted price for the bill, and return the remaining money at the discounted price,” it is not used to discount the bill by the victim under the pretext of the discount of the bill from Non-Indicted 109, 110,500,000 won, but to use it as the acquisition fund of the non-Indicted 11,000,000 won to acquire the bill.

C. Around November 11, 2001, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 111 located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul. The fact is that, even if a bill is borrowed from the victim, the victim did not have the intent or ability to make a settlement at the time of the lending of the bill, the victim Nonindicted Co. 112 stated that “The settlement shall be made without the mold until November 20, 11,” and that it is false to the victim Nonindicted Co. 112, who received from the victim a letter of promissory note 40 million won at the face value of the issuance of the non-indicted 113 issue of Taedong-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul.

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The defendant 1 and 2's partial statement

1. Each testimony of Nonindicted 14, 19, 11, 149, 150, 150, and 10 by the witness

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 1 and 2;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 14, 13, 12, 18, 151, 19, 149, 150, and 152

1. Investigation report (Attachment of a written agreement, hearing statement report in the course of investigation with respect to Nonindicted Party 1);

【Fact-finding 2-Ga (2005 Gohap1143)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 22 and 30

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 22, 24, and 30

1. An investigation report (to attach a statement and a false tax invoice related data);

【2-2. Fact-finding (No. 2005 Gohap1177)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 32

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 148 and 32

【Fact-finding 2-C. (2005 Gohap1178)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 33 and 37

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 38

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 38 and 153

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 39, 40, 41, and 42

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 39, 40, 154, 41, and 42

【Fact-finding 2-3 (No. 2006 Height9)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 83 and 155

(g) fact-finding 2-3 (No. 2006 altitude10)

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Partial statement of the witness Nonindicted 47

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 47, 156, and 46

1. The statement of Nonindicted 48

【Fact-finding 2-h (No. 2006 Gohap11)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 49

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 49 and 50

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 51 and 52

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 51, 52, 41, and 2

1. Investigation report (attached documents related to the current status of real estate of a relative of Defendant 1);

1. An investigation report (in cases of attaching data, etc. on the current status of the promotion of apartments in the Haak-Saeman Park in the Southern Pung

1. Investigation report (related to the funds remitted by Nonindicted 52)

【2. Fact-finding (No. 2006 Gohap56)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 7 and 8

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 7, 54, and 8

【Defendant-Appellee 2 k. (2006 Gohap57)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Partial statement of the witness, Nonindicted 61

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement made by Nonindicted 59, 61, 9, and 62

【Fact-finding 2】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 61

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

【Fact-finding 2】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 64 and 63

1. Investigation report (Defendant 1's access to the riverland and the confirmation and report on the game amount); and

1. Investigation report (the attached report to Defendant 1, such as the interrogation protocol related to fraud, etc.);

1. Request for cooperation in investigation by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation;

【2-3 n. (2006 Gohap126)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 66 and 157

1. The statement of Nonindicted 158

1. Investigation report (to hear Nonindicted 158’s telephone statement)

1. Report on investigation (report on the last place of cashier's checks); and

【2-3 o.m. (2006 Gohap208)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 61

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 67, 9, 62, and 159

【2-2 p. (2006 Gohap210)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 69, 68, 71, 45, 70, and 72

【2-3 【3 2006 Gohap211】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 73 and 160

1. Investigation report (Attachment of Nonindicted 83’s written statement statement)

1. An investigation report (report on failure to ascertain the place of use of 20 million won in cash);

【2-r. Fact-finding (No. 2006Gohap212)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 76

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 75 and 76

1. Investigation report (the confirmation of the place of use of 5 million won received by Defendant 1);

【Wil-si 2 s. (2006 Gohap340)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 17

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The statement of Nonindicted 17

1. Investigation report (the details of use of KRW 50 million);

1. Investigation report (Confirmation of Nonindicted 77 and 78’s circumstances of financial transactions)

【2-bet. (2006 Gohap341)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 79

【Opinion 2-Ch. (2006 Gohap342)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 80, and 41

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 80, 41, and 161

【2-3 【306 Gohap343】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 81

1. Investigation report (the result of tracking the check of KRW 20 million);

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 82

【Disposition 2 at the time of sale (2006, 349)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 83 and 84

(y) fact-finding 2-Ch. (2006Gohap350)

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 33 and 36

【Time-to-date 2-3 (2006, 351)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 61, 124, and 125

1. A criminal investigation report (Report on results of account tracking);

【2-1, 206, 355】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 22

1. Investigation report (Review of Nonindicted 25 Account Records)

【Permission 2-3 of the Trade Commission (No. 2006, 361)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 89 and 162

1. Investigation report (verification of details of use of KRW 200 million);

1. Investigation report (Adjustment of the result of check tracking);

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 32

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 32, 92, 16, 95, 96, and 93

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 97

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 163 and 164

【Do. Fact-finding (2006Gohap380)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Defendant 3’s legal statement;

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor's statement against the defendant 3;

1. Investigation report (the entry into and exit from the riverland by Defendant 1);

【Fact-finding 2-Ch. (2006Gohap757)】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 103, 104, and 101

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 107

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 106, 107, and 112

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) and Article 357(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 109 subparag. 2, Article 34(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 2: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 350(1), Article 347(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Collection (Defendant 1);

Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 357 (3) of the Criminal Act, Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

1. Defendant 1 and 2 (the part pertaining to attack against Hyundai Construction, No. 2005, 1143)

A. Whether the suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 2 is voluntary

피고인 2와 변호인이 피고인 2에 대한 검찰 피의자신문조서의 진정성립은 인정하면서도 당시의 진술은 검찰에서 ‘거악 피고인 1을 잡아야 하니 협조하라. 그렇지 않으면 무고죄도 기소하고 피고인에 대해 10년을 구형할 것이다’는 취지로 말하면서 피고인을 협박하고, ‘수사에 협조하면 몇 개월 내에 나갈 수 있도록 해 주겠다’는 취지로 회유하여 허위로 진술한 것이라고 하면서 그 진술의 임의성을 다투는바, 그 진술의 임의성을 인정할 수 있는지에 관하여 보건대, 피고인이 된 피의자에 대한 검사 작성의 피의자신문조서에 대하여 그 임의성에 다툼이 있을 때에는 그 임의성을 의심할 만한 합리적이고, 구체적인 사실을 피고인이 입증할 것이 아니고 검사가 그 임의성의 의문점을 해소하는 입증을 하여야 하고, 이때 법원은 구체적인 사건에 따라 당해 조서의 형식과 내용, 피고인의 학력, 경력, 직업, 사회적 지위, 지능정도 등 제반사정을 참작하여 자유로운 심증으로 그 진술을 임의로 한 것인지의 여부를 판단하면 될 것인바( 대법원 1998. 4. 10. 선고 97도3234 판결 , 1994. 12. 22. 선고 94도2316 판결 등 참조), 검사가 제출한 증거들과 피고인 2의 법정진술에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 피고인 2는 체포된 날인 2005. 11. 20. 제1회 피의자신문조서에서부터 상 피고인 1과 공소외 11이 자신의 지명수배사실을 이용하여 제보진술을 강요하였다고 하면서 상 피고인 1의 이 사건 관여사실을 상세하게 진술하고 있는 점, ② 그 다음날인 2005. 11. 21. 제2회 피의자신문조서에서는 2003. 6. 4.경 현대건설의 대책회의에 들어가는 날 상 피고인 1을 만난 부분을 진술하면서 상 피고인 1이 “턴키라든지 불거진 부분이 많기 때문에 현대에서도 곤혹스러워 할 것이다. 몇 건이 문제된 부분이 있다고 하더라. 그러니 현대에 들어가서 턴키부분에 대해서 말을 해라. 그러면 현대건설에서도 합의문제에 적극적이 될 것이니 그런 식으로 말해라”는 취지로 자신에게 말해 주었다고 진술하고 있고, 그 외에 현대건설의 대책회의에 들어가서 있었던 일, 이후 공소외 16 변호사 사무실에서의 협상과정에서 상 피고인 1이 합의금 중 5-6억 원을 요구한 사실, 군인공제회 커피숍에서 현대건설 관계자들과 이야기 한 내용 등을 상세하게 진술하고 있는데, 이는 피고인 2가 임의로 진술하지 않고서는 수사기관에서 알 수 없는 내용들이고, 당시 공소외 14와 대질을 하였는데 공소외 14도 피고인 2와 비슷한 취지로 진술하고 있는 점, ③ 2005. 11. 25. 제3회 피의자신문조서에는 현대건설 대책회의에 들어가기 전에 상 피고인 1을 만났을 때 상 피고인 1이 “한 10억 원 정도는 받아야 하지 않겠냐”고 말했고, 상 피고인 1이 위와 같이 이야기 한 것도 있고 해서 현대건설 대책회의에서 10억 원을 요구하였다고 진술하여 전회 진술보다 더 구체적으로 진술하고 있고, 현대건설 임원들과 대질을 하니 기억이 명확해 졌고 더 이상 숨길 필요가 없다고 생각해서 사실대로 진술하는 것이라면서 진술의 경위까지 상세하게 진술하고 있는 점, ④ 2005. 12. 6. 제7회 피의자신문조서에서는 피고인 2가 지금까지 진술한 것 중에 사실이 아닌 것이 있다고 하면서 첫째, 피고인 2 자신이 수수한 액수는 5억 5천만 원이 아니라 4억 5천만 원이고, 둘째, 자신이 현대건설을 공갈한 것이 아니라 현대건설에서 알아서 사건을 수습하자고 하였고, 당분간 피해 있으라고 하면서 돈을 준 것이라는 취지로 진술하고 있을 뿐, 상 피고인 1에 대한 지금까지의 진술 중에서 잘못된 것이 있다는 취지의 진술은 없으며, “검사가 지금까지 조사해 오면서 계속해서 ‘사실대로만 진술해 달라, 허위로 진술해서는 안 된다 과장해서도 안 된다’라고 계속해서 이야기 했었다“라고 진술하고 있는 점, ⑤ 피고인 2는 십 수년 동안 (상호 1 생략)토건, (상호 2 생략)건설, (상호 3 생략)토건 등 여러 건설회사를 직접 운영해 본 경력을 갖고 있는 점, ⑥ 피고인 2는 체포되기 이전에 이미 자수할 생각을 갖고 있었던 점, ⑦ 피고인 2는 이 법정에서 검찰 피의자신문조서의 임의성을 다투면서도 상 피고인 1에 관련된 부분에 대한 검찰에서의 진술 중 유독 현대건설 대책회의에 들어가기 전에 상 피고인 1을 만났다는 검찰진술 부분에 대해서만 허위의 진술이었다고 주장하고, 그것도 제2회 공판기일에서는 착오로 잘못 진술하였다고 하다가 제4회 공판기일에서부터 검찰의 회유와 협박에 의한 진술이었다고 주장하는 점, ⑧ 피고인 1은 체포되기 전은 물론 그 이후에도 여러 경로를 통하여 상 피고인 2에게 자신은 이 부분 범행에 가담한 적이 없는 것으로 진술해 주고, 돈을 받은 것은 채권채무관계로 인한 것이라고 진술해 달라는 부탁을 계속 해온 점 등이 인정된다.

In light of the aforementioned various facts, the protocol of interrogation of Defendant 2 by the prosecution as to the suspect suspect against Defendant 2, the structure and contents of the protocol, the background of his statement, Defendant 2’s academic background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence degree, reversal process and contents of the court statement, relationship with Defendant 1, etc., which can be known through the above facts, the protocol of interrogation of suspect against Defendant 2 by the prosecution as to Defendant 2 shall be acknowledged as the voluntartariness of the statement. Thus, this part of the assertion by Defendant

B. Whether the crime of extortion is established as a co-principal

Defendant 1 asserted that there was no agreement between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 on the crime of this case and that Defendant 1 did not receive money from Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 did not receive money from Defendant 5,000,000 won. Defendant 1, despite of the fact that Defendant 1 had been forced to receive money from Defendant 1, there was no agreement between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and that Defendant 1 had been forced to receive money from Defendant 5,000,000 won, and Defendant 2 did not appear to have been forced to receive money from Defendant 1,000,000 won, and Defendant 1 had been forced to receive money from Defendant 2,000,000 won, and Defendant 1 had been forced to receive money from Defendant 2,000,000 won, and Defendant 1 had been forced to receive money from Defendant 6,000,000 won, to the effect that Defendant 2 had no agreement on modern construction.

2. Defendant 1

A. Part on the good offices received by Nonindicted 22 (No. 2005Gohap1143)

The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant’s cashier’s checks of KRW 35.2 million on September 30, 2003 include the amount that Nonindicted 26 received by Nonindicted 26 to the Defendant for the golf bond value of KRW 17 million and Nonindicted 28’s president of Nonindicted 27 Co. 28 delivered to Nonindicted Co. 21. The amount of KRW 18.6 million on July 9, 2003 was only the amount that Nonindicted 28 delivered to Nonindicted Co. 21 Co. 21 to the Defendant to pay the Defendant’s obligations. However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, this part of the crime is sufficiently recognized. Thus, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion on this part is not accepted (ordinary intermediary’s money is ordinarily received up to KRW 10,000,000,000,0000,0000,000 won, including Nonindicted Co. 22’s prosecutor’s statement as to Nonindicted Co. 22, which received the amount of KRW 2101,01.

B. The part on the fraud against Nonindicted 8 (2006Gohap56)

Defendant and his defense counsel did not deceiving Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 8 voluntarily paid money to Nonindicted 8’s desire to receive orders, so fraud is not established. However, in full view of Nonindicted 8’s prosecutorial statement and legal statement, the Defendant did not directly demand money, but did not seem to have concluded a construction contract, and the need for money was expressed, and it is recognized that Nonindicted 8 paid money to Nonindicted 8, who would not help the Defendant receive orders from the public.

Thus, since Non-Indicted 8 had the same attitude as that of the contract for construction, it is to deliver money to the defendant, and even if the defendant received money, the crime of fraud is established as long as he did not actually intend to conclude the contract for construction, so this part of the claim by the defendant and the defense counsel should not be accepted.

(c) Parts of property in breach of trust (2006Gohap342);

Although the Defendant and his defense counsel received money from the contractor, the Defendant and his defense counsel concluded a contract with △△ Construction that suggested the most favorable conditions for △△ comprehensive construction. Since the Defendant received money from △△ Construction, the Defendant did not select △△ Construction as the contractor, the Defendant’s request for the selection of the contractor does not constitute an “illegal solicitation.” However, in the crime of taking property in breach of trust, the “illegal solicitation” is not a solicitation to the extent of an act in breach of trust, but it is sufficient to request the Defendant to commit an act contrary to the social rules or the good faith principle. In determining it, the Defendant should comprehensively consider the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, namely, the amount of the given property, form, and the integrity of transactions, which are protected legal interests for this crime, and the Defendant should not be considered to have received a large amount of money from △△ comprehensive construction, and the Defendant should not be considered to have received money from △△△△ Construction to the effect that the Defendant actually received the most favorable terms and conditions for △△ Construction.”

D. The fraudulent part of the borrowed money

The defendant and defense counsel argued that the defendant had intent to repay part of the profit of the business after the completion of the sale of the apartment house between the non-indicted 2 chairperson and the non-indicted 2 of the △△ comprehensive Construction and the non-indicted 2 of the △△ comprehensive Construction after the completion of the sale of the apartment house. However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant did not have an agreement with the non-indicted 2 as alleged above, and the defendant did not want to unilaterally demand or pay part of the profit of the business to the △ General Construction and expect the defendant to unilaterally demand or pay the part of the profit of the business, and as stated in the facts of the crime, the defendant had no special ability to borrow a considerable amount of money from the victims, while the hotel operated by the defendant's wife did not have an ability to do so each year, and the defendant could not be viewed as having any motive and ability to pay part of the profit of the defendant to the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 2.

1. Defendant 1

The defendant personally known to the police officers in the office of the defendant, had the police officers start an investigation after being informed of the corruption of the officers of a large enterprise in the office of the defendant, and based on this, he received funds from many people under the pretext of obtaining large amounts of money from the large enterprise, taking advantage of the friendly relationship with the investigation agencies, military personnel or business operators, allowing them to resolve the case or assist in the business by soliciting the case by taking advantage of the weak points of the people who are faced with difficulties in legal problems or business problems, using the friendly relationship with the investigation agencies, or the business operators. The defendant committed various criminal acts, such as taking money from the large number of victims under the pretext of borrowing money, raising it for gambling funds by taking money from the large number of victims, and thereby making it difficult for them to do so through such criminal acts and the subsequent investigation and trial procedures. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the defendant has seriously damaged trust of the investigative agencies or the judicial agencies by abusing the friendly relationship with the public officials working for the police, the prosecutor, etc., and thus, it seems necessary for the defendant to be sentenced to have the same type of personality and behavior as the defendant.

2. Defendant 2

The Defendant, using the weak points of a large enterprise, commits a large amount of KRW 900 million, which is the largest amount of KRW 170,000,000, and by deceiving the amount equivalent to KRW 1700,000,00, and, even though the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant. However, it is inevitable to impose the same punishment as the order, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) there are circumstances that lead to the attacking of the modern construction; (b) the victim Nonindicted 106 and 107 does not want punishment; and (c) other circumstances shown in the arguments.

1. Defendant 1

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

1) The part concerning the fraud against Nonindicted 53 (2005 Gohap1143)

On July 29, 2004, the Defendant: (a) at the △△ Electrical Construction Office for the operation of Nonindicted 53, the victim Nonindicted 53 located in Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si, the fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim; (b) there is no intent or ability to complete the payment at the time of the payment; and (c) there is no intention or ability to engage in the apartment construction project in the public sector or new shot-si; and (d) the victim did not have an intent or ability to engage in the apartment construction; (b) the amount of interest in the apartment construction is KRW 20 billion; and (c) the victim is implementing the apartment construction in the public sector and new shot-si. Therefore, it can be said that the electrical construction is running in March of the year, and the amount of money is still short; (d) the Defendant obtained KRW 30 million from the victim as a loan, and obtained it from the victim and received it in total from the victim to April 27, 2005, as indicated in the list of crimes No.4.

2) The part of the attack against Nonindicted 5 (2005 Gohap1177)

피고인은 1994.경부터 알고 지내던 피해자 공소외 5 앞에서 검찰, 경찰, 법원, 국세청 등의 고위관료 등과의 인맥을 과시하면서 고위관료들의 연락처가 기재된 수첩을 피해자에게 보여 주거나 고위관료들과 통화를 하면서 특정인을 지칭하여 “그 사람 나쁜 사람이다. 죽일 놈이다. 조직에서 매장시켜야 한다”라고 수회에 걸쳐 말하는 등 위세를 부려 피해자로 하여금 피고인의 부탁을 거절하면 피해자의 약점을 잡아 수사기관이나 국세청 등의 고위관료에게 제보하여 피해자에게 어떤 불이익을 끼칠 수 있는 능력이 있음을 과시하여 오던 중, 피해자가 2003. 2.경 스포츠복권사업 운영업체인 타이거풀스인터내셔널 주식회사의 주식을 경영권프리미엄을 포함한 가격인 1주당 4,000원에 동양제과에 양도하려는 정을 알게 되자 피해자로 하여금 피고인이 사실상의 처인 공소외 58 명의로 보유하던 타이거풀스인터내셔널 주식회사 주식 시가 1,200원 상당도 피해자의 주식처럼 경영권프리미엄을 얹어 동양제과에 매각하도록 강요하기로 마음먹고, 2003. 2. 일자불상경 서울 강남구 역삼동 소재 피해자의 사무실에서 피해자에게 “타이거인터내셔널 주식을 샀다가 손해를 많이 보았는데 동양제과에 주식을 팔 때 내 주식도 같이 넣어서 팔아 줘야 된다”라고 요구하였으나, 피해자가 거절하자 위 일시경부터 같은 해 3. 초순경까지 사이에 수회에 걸쳐 피해자에게 “요즘 것들은 버리장머리가 없다. 후레자식들. 네가 이러고서 매각협상이 잘 되겠냐. 나한테 잘못하는 놈치고 잘되는 놈 하나도 없다”라고 협박하여 만일 피해자의 요구를 들어 주지 아니하면 위 매각협상 및 피해자의 사업에 막대한 지장이 초래될 것으로 겁을 먹은 피해자로 하여금 같은 달 10. 같은 동 소재 피해자 경영의 공소외 115 주식회사 사무실에서 피고인이 보유하던 타이거풀스인터내셔널 주식회사 주식 10만주를 1주당 3,900원, 총 대금 3억 9천만 원에 매수하는 계약을 체결한 후 같은 날 매매대금을 공소외 58의 계좌로 입금하게 함으로써 위 매매대금 3억 9천만 원과 시가에 따른 매매대금인 1억 2천만 원과의 차액인 2억 7천만 원을 갈취하고,

3) The part regarding attempted attack against Nonindicted 116 (No. 2005Gohap1177)

Around January 2003, the Defendant had been aware of a lot of money from Nonindicted 117 Co., Ltd., representative Nonindicted 116 on or around March 2003 through the introduction of Nonindicted 118 on or around the part of Nonindicted 117 Co., Ltd., with intent to attract money and valuables to the victim under the pretext of supporting the Defendant’s office.

Around May 203, in the office of the victim located in Seocho-gu Seoul Coast Guard, the victim opened a private office in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Transport Center. The office was forced to enter the office. The defendant demanded that the defendant be the most large PDP and book board, which was rejected from the victim, but the victim called the victim's cell phone from the same city to the police officer in the middle of July of the same year, and "I will not want to keep the defendant's cell phone. These believers will not be able to do so. Thus, I would like to stop employment. I would like to see that I would see that I would have to leave the victim with a voice recording for 2-3 occasions without obtaining the telephone, and that I would not have the victim interfere with this request from the victim's cell phone and would not have the victim interfere with this request."

4) Part on the good offices and acceptance of Nonindicted 118 (No. 2005Gohap1177)

On December 2002, the Defendant had Nonindicted 118 file a complaint against Nonindicted 120, etc. against Nonindicted 120, etc. against Nonindicted 118, who is an investment advisory company, against Nonindicted 119, for the crime of intimidation, etc., and had Nonindicted 118 receive money and valuables as the item of solicitation for the handling of the case.

around January 2003, at the office of Nonindicted 119, Nonindicted 118, Co. 118, located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Nonindicted 118, saying, “I would be able to punish Nonindicted 120, etc. by requesting the police officers who are well known to the public within the Republic of Korea to the police officers who are well aware of the public. I would be able to give and receive money from Nonindicted 118, who agreed to give and receive money KRW 3 million from the police officers who directed the above case from Nonindicted 118 to the solicitation of the police officers who directed the above case.”

5) The part on the fraud against Nonindicted 4 (2005 Gohap1221)

Although the Defendant does not have to receive KRW 3 billion from △△ case, the Defendant was well aware of the representative director or executive officers, such as Macco Construction and △△ case, in large-scale construction business chain, and had the same attitude of giving a subcontract for construction works while performing the same as those of the leaders of all levels of society frequently.

Around May 25, 2005, the victim non-indicted 4 was able to walk the phone to the victim non-indicted 4, and "the 130 million won was prepared to prevent the Do, and the 20 million won was defaulted due to a lack of the 20 million won, the same shall apply to the day of the default, and as a very urgent circumstance, the △△ case loans the party cash now now, and as the time was low, he would receive the 3 billion won from the △△ case as soon as he was paid the 3. billion won, which he would be repaid." From around the 26th of the same month from the victim, he received 20 million won from the time of receiving the Defendant's agricultural account (Account Number omitted) in the non-indicted 20 in the non-indicted 20,000 won from the time of receiving 20,000 won from October 28 of the same year, and shall receive it under the name similar to the 63.2 million won, as shown in attached Table 5.

6) Part on the good offices and acceptance of Nonindicted 83 (No. 2006Gohap9)

On July 2004, the defendant received the request from the non-indicted 83 who had been living in flight for about two years since the indictment was suspended due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the forgery of private documents, the event of the above investigation document, the violation of the Commercial Act, the false entry of the original copy of the authentic deed, and the exercise of the original copy of the authentic deed, etc., in the major apartment complex located in Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. The defendant requested the victim to the effect that "it is necessary to receive 200 million won for the purpose of assistance by soliciting the public prosecutor in charge through the attorney-at-law from the high-ranking department of the prosecutor's office and the high-ranking department of the prosecutor's office who had been living in flight for about two years," and that the victim should receive 50 million won for the expenses from the victim on August 1 of the same year, in relation to the mediation of matters belonging to the public official's duties.

7) Fraudulent part against Nonindicted 122 (No. 2006Gohap10)

The facts are as follows: from June 2003, the Defendant continued to stay gambling in Gangwon-do casino even if he was deprived of KRW 100 million. However, even though he did not have any revenue source, the Defendant borrowed money from others, despite having no intention or ability to repay it at the same time, the Defendant loaned money to Nonindicted 123, who was the Defendant’s relatives, although he did not have any intention or ability to do so, the Defendant provided money from Nonindicted 123, who was introduced to the effect that “I would have any other person lend money, because I would have no money, so I would have to comply with the promise on the due date. I would have the victim’s non-indicted 122 from November 2003 and on December 12, 203, who was introduced to the Defendant.”

On January 15, 2004, Nonindicted 123 borrowed money from the phone to Nonindicted 123 on the phone, and Nonindicted 123 stated that “I would have you lend money to you without any money, so I would be able to do so within me,” and “I will pay me a full payment within me,” by hearing the word “I would have you would pay me a full payment because I would have you would have you have no money to do so,” and then I would have the victim wired KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s borrowed account, which is the Defendant’s borrowed account, with the victim wired KRW 50 million to the above account on the same day.

8) Part on the good offices and acceptance of Nonindicted 61 (2006Gohap58)

around March 2005, the Defendant: (a) requested Nonindicted 61, at the coffee shop of the building Maco Construction in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, to “The Ministry of National Defense (Ministry of National Defense) to transfer the construction cost of KRW 100 billion from KRW 100 billion to KRW 150 billion; (b) as the Republic of National Defense and the head of the Public Procurement Service of the Ministry of National Defense are well aware of the internal affairs commander and the head of the Ministry of National Defense, the Defendant would be ordered to take orders upon request from the competent commander and the head of the Ministry of National Defense to take the construction cost of KRW 100,000 from Nonindicted 61 who consented to the request from the Aeronautical Commander and the head of the Ministry of National Defense to take the orders for the relocation of the Maco Construction; and (c) around April 6 of the same year, the Defendant received KRW 200,000 from the Defendant’s account number of Nonindicted 124,50,000 won from each of the Defendant’s accounts.

9) The part concerning the fraud against Nonindicted 6 (2006Gohap124)

The facts are as follows: (a) on June 2004, the date of adjudication was designated as June 30, 2004; (b) Nonindicted 6 attorney-at-law was appointed as KRW 40 million and contingent fee 20,000,000; (c) the Defendant did not resume the pleading; (d) the Defendant introduced Nonindicted 6 attorney-at-law to the Dong Mancheon Shopping Center and participated in negotiations; and (e) the Defendant did not receive any delegation from Nonindicted 6 attorney-at-law for the full or partial return of the start money paid from the representative director of the Dong Mancheon Shopping Center, Inc. (hereinafter “Dong Mancheon Shopping Shopping Center”) to Nonindicted 6 attorney-at-law for the resumption of the pleading; and (e) the Defendant did not receive any delegation from the attorney-at-law for the purpose of returning the start money to Nonindicted 6 attorney-at-law; and (e) the Defendant did not want to receive any delegation from the attorney-at-law for the resumption of the pleading.

On June 28, 2004, at the office of the defendant in the Korea Land Corporation located in Chungcheongnam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the defendant got a telephone from the victim Nonindicted 6 and was delegated to him by Nonindicted 127, etc. The returned commencement amount is the case that "the defendant would return to Nonindicted 127, etc., the defendant would return the start amount as if he would not have been able to do so because he would return half of the start amount as to whether he would not have been able to do so, and if he would have been able to have money at the East Asian shopping center, the defendant would have 20,000 won in money from the victim in the name of the defendant, and shall take it over through a bank account in the name of Nonindicted 125 in the name of the defendant, which is the name of the defendant.

10) The part on the fraud against Nonindicted 132 (206 Gohap126)

The Defendant does not have an intention or ability to enable the victim non-indicted 132, who operates a manufacturer or supplier of asphalts, to supply asphalts at the site of the expansion of the local road between Yong-Yacheon-Yacheon-Yacheon-Yacheon-do, where construction was being carried out in the year 200 (mutually omitted 7 omitted) Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Construction”).

On September 30, 200, at the Masan-gun, Masan-gun (mutual omitted) hotel located at the end of the end of the year, the victim found that he had been able to enter into a license agreement at the above site, “(trade name 7 omitted) construction staff members frequently. It does not have to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be

11) Part on the good offices and acceptance of Nonindicted 135 (No. 2006Gohap209)

Of July 202, the Defendant was at the office of Nonindicted 29 Attorney at Seocho-gu Seoul District Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul High Court 2002, and around that time, from 135, Nonindicted 135, the president of the Dong Office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the chairman of the Dong Office of the Dong Office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was discovered to violate the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc., and issued a warrant of arrest after refusing to attend. Nonindicted 135 upon the request of Nonindicted 135, the Defendant sought an attorney-at-law 29 along with Nonindicted 135 and consulted, but Nonindicted 29, who was aware of the case, did not enter into a defense counsel appointment contract between Nonindicted 29 and 135, so that the Defendant would be able to receive a prior notice from Nonindicted 30, 500,000 won, and the Defendant would be able to keep the Defendant from receiving money and valuables from Nonindicted 135 and 1300,000.

12) The part regarding Nonindicted 136’s attempted attack (2006Gohap348)

Around October 21, 1996, when the Defendant received a loan of KRW 1.3 billion in total from the Busan F&C branch of Samsung 136 at the time of offering a loan to the victim non-indicted 136 who was the head of the above branch at the time of the above bank's lending of KRW 1.3 billion in cash with a loan fee. On April 30, 1997 and May 1, 1997, when the Defendant borrowed a promissory note as collateral and borrowed KRW 136 million from 136,136 to 10,000,000 from 136, the Defendant refused to pay the above promissory note as collateral, and then, the Defendant would have been urged to repay the sum of KRW 20,000 from 136,000,000 to 20,0000.

Around March 27, 2004, when demanding the repayment of the said money by telephone, the victim would bring a civil lawsuit to the victim who wants to pay the said money without paying the money, by threatening the victim to the effect that “the victim would bring an accusation against the reproduction of the old check,” thereby inducing the victim, who frightened, to waive the claim equivalent to the said KRW 200 million, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the said amount. However, on May 12, 2004, the victim filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Western District Court for the claim for the payment of the money with a favorable judgment of the Seoul Western District Court on April 27, 2005, and did not bring the purport into effect by taking a preservative measure on the Defendant’s property, and did not bring the case to attempted crimes.

13) The part concerning criminal proceeds with respect to good offices and taking measures from Nonindicted 61 (No. 2006 senior 351)

The Defendant, who is the chairperson, Nonindicted 61 of △ Construction, committed by Nonindicted 61, who received activity expenses from another person’s account under the name of the Defendant’s management in order to recommend the order for the relocation of the Defense Headquarters, with the intent to disguise the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc., by receiving money and valuables on the intermediation of matters belonging to the public official’s duties, such as accepting money and valuables.

A) On April 6, 2005, Nonindicted 61 received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 124, the Defendant’s borrowed account (Account Number omitted) in the name of Nonindicted 124, which is the Defendant’s borrowed account, for the above activity expenses, from Nonindicted 61, and let Nonindicted 124 immediately withdraw KRW 1 million by the cashier’s checks of KRW 20,000,000, which may be received, and pretended to the fact regarding the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc.;

B) On the 11th of the same month, Nonindicted 61 received 80 million won from NFF account in the name of Nonindicted 125, the Defendant’s borrowed account, for the above activity expenses, from Nonindicted 61, and had Nonindicted 125, who is unaware of the circumstances, immediately withdraw 60 million won cashier’s checks, cash 20 million won, and pretended to obtain criminal proceeds, etc.;

14) Part concerning brokerage and acceptance against Nonindicted 134 and criminal proceeds (2006Gohap355)

Defendant

A) On January 13, 2004, the Gangwon-do casino located in Gangwon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, which was investigated by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in the Central Investigation Division of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office as a result of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (tax), the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (mutually seven omitted). The construction president, who was informed of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (mutually seven omitted) to help Nonindicted 134 receive a preference by solicitation to the investigation team through the prosecutor's connection. On February 13, 2004, Nonindicted 49, who was transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant's interest bank account (Account Number 2 omitted). On February 2, 2007, 2000 won, received money and valuables from public officials on two occasions.

B) undermining the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc.;

around January 13, 2004, Nonindicted 134 received from Nonindicted 134 the above security name of the Defendant to the account (Account Number omitted) of Nonindicted 49, the Defendant’s borrowed account, and made Nonindicted 49, who is aware of the fact, immediately withdraw 10 million won in front of the check, and pretended that he received it and received it and received it to the effect that he acquired criminal proceeds, etc.;

15) Part on Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (No. 2006Dahap362) due to the receipt of the referral fee from Nonindicted 16 attorney

The defendant prepares and holds a so-called "scambook" in which the name, telephone number, and place of work of senior public officials working in the military, police, prosecutor's office, court, etc. include 1,000 persons working in the military, police, prosecutor's office, or court, etc., and the defendant presents the above book to persons around ordinary times, communicate with senior public officials, etc. in the workplace with the requester, or accompany them to the above public officials, etc., or accompany them with the above public officials, etc. in a meal or golf place, and as if he could exercise considerable influence over the handling of legal cases under investigation or under trial, he/she is a person who has been fluenced. As to the acceptance of legal cases or legal affairs, even though he/she introduced, arranged or entices a specific attorney-at-law or other related persons to the specific attorney-at-law or his/her office staff, and then received or requested them in return for this,

On May 19, 2004, when there was a serious industrial accident that caused the death of three members of the Corporation at the construction site of 200,000,000 from May 19, 2000, which was constructed by the Busan Macco Construction at the Busan Macco Construction site. Nonindicted 62, who was aware of the fact that there was a close relationship with the police, prosecutor's office, and court, asked the defendant about the appointment of the lawyer, who was ordered by Nonindicted 9, the vice president of Macco Construction, who was under the direction of Nonindicted 62, the representative director of Macco Construction who was aware of the fact that there was a close relationship with the police, prosecutor's office, and the defendant, who was under the direction of Nonindicted 3, 600,000,000,000 won for the above 60,0000,000 won for the defendant's 160,000,0000 won.

16) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (No. 2006Da363) due to Defendant 3’s receipt of the referral fee for the case

On May 1, 2005, the Defendant was asked from Nonindicted 45 to Nonindicted 46 who was detained in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the office of Defendant 3 on the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, about whether he could release Nonindicted 46 who was detained in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and discussed on Nonindicted 46’s release issues. Nonindicted 46’s parents around that time, the Defendant was willing to introduce Nonindicted 46’s office to Nonindicted 3, 46’s father’s office. Nonindicted 47 stated that “The amount of KRW 200 million is necessary to release Nonindicted 46’s father,” Nonindicted 3, 46’s parents, and 1.5 billion won to find out the aggregate of Defendant’s cashier’s checks, and 1.5 billion won to Defendant 3, 400 million won, and 1.5 billion won, and 1.7 billion won, Defendant’s cashier’s’s checks.

B. Determination

1) The part on fraud against Nonindicted 53

The following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor and the defense counsel, i.e., lending money to the defendant, i.e., the No. 1 through No. 4 of the crime sight table No. 4 was lent by the defendant to help the defendant execute the electrical construction works in the area of e.g., the defendant's help., the non-indicted 53 actually received the electrical construction works from the defendant's help in the above area; ii) the No. 5 was lent to the defendant's help to execute the comprehensive sports site construction works in the area of e.g., the non-indicted 5's loan to the defendant; iii) the No. 6 and No. 7 was already lent to the non-indicted 53 to the non-indicted 130 million won and the defendant could not be trusted with the defendant's ability to obtain e.g., the defendant's loan to the non-indicted 50 million won and the defendant's loan to the non-indicted 30 million won and the defendant's loan to the non-indicted 500 million won.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

2) The part of the attack against Nonindicted 5

Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is a written statement of Nonindicted 5, which corresponds to this part of the facts charged, but this is not admissible as it is not recognized by the person making the original statement (the record reveals that Nonindicted 5 was not admissible as it was no other evidence, even before receiving the written statement from the prosecutor on December 15, 2005 and on November 23, 2005 after he was investigated by the prosecutor, he left Japan again on December 12, 2006 and left Korea again on December 25, 2006 and did not return to Korea until the date of the closing of the argument in this case. Such circumstance cannot be deemed to constitute a case where the person making the original statement on the date of trial as stipulated in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be deemed to constitute a case where the person making the original statement on the date of the statement cannot make a statement on the date of the closing of argument in this case).

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged also constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the

3) The part regarding Nonindicted 116’s attempted attack.

According to Nonindicted 116’s legal statement, the Defendant’s intimidation Nonindicted 116 was not due to Nonindicted 116’s refusal of Nonindicted 116’s establishment of the office, but due to Nonindicted 116’s failure to receive a telephone in order to cease the relationship with the Defendant, the Defendant, who was the same as the code does not fit, and thereby, threatened the Defendant with the defect. Thus, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was threatened to take the office from Nonindicted 116, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged also constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the

4) The part concerning mediation acceptance against Nonindicted 118

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant received money from Nonindicted 118 under the pretext of soliciting the police, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and rather, according to Nonindicted 118 and Nonindicted 165’s legal statement, Nonindicted 118’s offering of money to the defendant does not offer money to the defendant in various ways at the time, and it does not amount to the defendant’s offering of money to the police, and the amount is limited to KRW 1.7 million, not to KRW 3 million, but to KRW 1.7 million, and Nonindicted 165’s offering of money to the defendant at around the time of the instant case, and it is only recognized that Nonindicted 118’s offering of money to the defendant and received KRW 1 million at the expense of the defendant.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged also constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the

5) The part on fraud against Nonindicted 4

Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is a written statement of Nonindicted 4, which corresponds to this part of the facts charged, but this is not admissible as it is not recognized by the original person making the original statement (the record reveals that Nonindicted 4 was exposed to a foreign country on several occasions on December 12, 2005 before he received the written statement from the prosecutor, and he left the Hong Kong again on March 8, 2006 after he was investigated by the prosecutor, but left the Republic of Korea on March 10, 2006 and left the Hong Kong again on April 9, 206 and did not return to the Republic of Korea even until the time of the closing of the argument in this case. Such circumstance cannot be deemed to fall under the case where the original person making the statement on the date of trial as provided in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be deemed to fall under the case where it is impossible to make the statement on the date of trial).

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged also constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the

6) Part of mediation acceptance against Nonindicted 83

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant paid 20 million won to the non-indicted 16 attorney to the non-indicted 83 as his money, and demanded the non-indicted 83 to pay 50 million won for the appointment of the non-indicted 16 attorney. Accordingly, the non-indicted 83 to deliver a copy of the non-indicted 16 attorney-at-law check as shown in this part of the facts charged in this part as the non-indicted 16 attorney-at-law's appointment. Thus, the crime of fraud is established against the defendant (as to the difference between KRW 20 million and KRW 50 million between the defendant and the defendant's appointment of the actual attorney-at-law), separate from the crime of fraud (as to KRW 30 million between the defendant and KRW 50 million between the defendant and the defendant's appointment of the defendant, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone received the above money and valuables from the non-indicted 83 as to mediation of matters belonging to

Therefore, since there is no proof of a crime as to this part of the facts charged, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (recrimination) due to the receipt of KRW 10,000 from Nonindicted 83 in the judgment that was indicted for

7) The part on fraud against Nonindicted 122

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant lent money to the non-indicted 123 who is his own son and the non-indicted 123 had the non-indicted 122 transfer money to the defendant and the responsibility for him, and the non-indicted 123 stated that "the defendant should not be allowed to give money to his her son and her son". Thus, the defendant is deemed to have borrowed money from the non-indicted 123, and the non-indicted 123 did not participate in the loan of money to her son anywhere to the non-indicted 123, so long as the defendant did not "a lending money to his son even if she lends money to his son-gu," the defendant cannot be deemed to have deceiving the non-indicted 122 who is the victim through the non-indicted 123, and there is no other evidence to support this.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

8) Part of mediation acceptance for Nonindicted 61

In light of the fact that Nonindicted 61 stated that the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to this court, not as activity expenses, and that “the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to Nonindicted 61, which was bound in the investigation records of 2006Kahap208,” the prosecutor’s statement as to Nonindicted 61, which was also bound in the investigation records of Nonindicted 61, also stated that “the Defendant lent money in connection with the order of construction work before the death of the State, and lent KRW 100 million,” the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant received KRW 100 million from Nonindicted 6, as stated in this part of the facts charged, with respect to the arrangement of matters belonging to the public official’s duties as stated in this part, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. ( even if the Defendant was paid in the name of the borrowed money without the intention of return, it is determined that the Defendant

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (reconciliation) due to the number of financial gains from Nonindicted 61, which

9) The part concerning the fraud against Nonindicted 6

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant introduced Nonindicted 6 to the person who made the statement at the same shopping center; and (b) concluded a contract with Nonindicted 6 to appoint the same shopping center as the Defendant’s representative; (c) the employee at the same time transferred the money to Nonindicted 6 or delivered the money directly to Nonindicted 6; and (d) Nonindicted 6 did not receive any other evidence for non-indicted 6’s failure to return the money in consultation with Nonindicted 127 and the head office of the same Incheon shopping center’s non-indicted 128,000’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 6’s statement.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

10) Fraudulent part against Nonindicted 132

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor and the evidence submitted by the defense counsel, the defendant has established a close relationship with Nonindicted 134 who was actually the representative director of the construction (mutually omitted). In fact, Nonindicted 134 requested several times to the business known to the defendant, Nonindicted 132 also paid money in the thought that it is before the defendant's desire to take construction work by using a wide human relationship, and Nonindicted 132 paid KRW 10 million to the defendant, which is merely an excessive payment of the expenses, such as the drinking value, which the defendant originally planned to have to pay to Nonindicted 132, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant had no intention or ability to deliver the contact to Nonindicted 132, or Nonindicted 132 had been accused of this point, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

11) The part concerning mediation acceptance against Nonindicted 135

The second written statement of Nonindicted 135, which corresponds to the facts charged, is acknowledged by the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor. In other words, according to the first written statement by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 135, Nonindicted 135, Nonindicted 135, the prosecutor’s first written statement by the prosecutor, stating to the effect that, “At the time, Nonindicted 1, 29, the prosecutor in charge of the instant case or the chief prosecutor, who was at the time of Nonindicted 29, was a subordinate prosecutor at the time of his incumbent office, shall resolve the case if Nonindicted 29, was appointed.” The second written statement by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 135, which is consistent with this part of the facts charged, stated to the effect that “The said prosecutor transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant,” and that Nonindicted 29, through the mail, was unable to acknowledge any other evidence that was presented by the prosecutor with respect to the remaining part of the facts charged, and it cannot be acknowledged that there was a lack of credibility and credibility of the written statement by the prosecutor after his request.”

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

12) The part regarding Nonindicted 136’s attempted attack

Intimidation in the crime of extortion should be such that the other party realistically feel fear. According to the prosecutor's office and court statement of Nonindicted 136, it is clear that the defendant received KRW 5 million from the defendant in relation to the loan around October 1996, and the defendant talked about the receipt of the above loan fee from Nonindicted 136, and the prescription of public prosecution has already already lapsed while the defendant talked about the receipt of the above loan fee from Nonindicted 136, and Nonindicted 136 was found to have not experienced any doubt about the defendant's talk, and the crime that Nonindicted 136 received the loan fee of KRW 5 million has already expired at the time of the crime in this case since the prescription of public prosecution was five years, it is impossible to punish Nonindicted 136 as the expiration of the prescription of public prosecution period even if the defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the prosecutor notified Nonindicted 136 of the harm and injury caused the fear of the statute of public prosecution, and there is no inconsistency with the evidence that the defendant's fear was completely known.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

13) The part concerning criminal proceeds with respect to referral and taking over of goods from Nonindicted 61

Since the facts charged in this part of the charges for the same purpose as those of Article 1-b. 8 (2) (2006Gahap58) of the above innocence portion falls under a case where there is no proof of crime, each not guilty should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the non-indicted 61 in the judgment on the relation of the crime is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment as to the receipt of financial benefits from

14) Part concerning brokerage and acceptance of Nonindicted 134 and criminal proceeds

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor and the defense counsel, the third prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 134, which corresponds to the facts charged, is acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the defense counsel, i.e., ① the Defendant’s name in the first and second prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 134 is indicated as Nonindicted 16 attorney’s fees or simple loans, ② Nonindicted 134’s statement (Evidence No. 20) submitted by the defense counsel, the Defendant paid 10 million won to the Defendant at the Seoul Asan Hospital. The Defendant only played a role between Nonindicted 16 attorney and Nonindicted 134 in relation to the investigation into the charter’s fund, and the Defendant stated that there was no request from the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to believe that the above statement was not supported by the cross-examination on Nonindicted 134, the original prosecutor, and there is no evidence to support the credibility and probative value of the statement as indicated in the above protocol, and there is no other evidence to prove the remainder of the facts charged.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, each not guilty is sentenced under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

15) The part on violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to the receipt of the referral fee from Nonindicted 16 Attorney

검사가 제출한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인이 공소외 16 변호사에게 별지 6 기재 범죄일람표 기재와 같이 여러 사건 등을 소개한 사실 및 피고인이 공소외 16 변호사로부터 3회에 걸쳐 1억 3,500만 원을 지급받은 사실은 인정되나, 검사와 변호인이 신청하여 채택한 증거들에 의해서 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 공소외 16 변호사가 작성한 금전출납부(수사기록 922면 이하 편철)에 의하면, 2003. 9. 29.자 1억 원에 대해서는 ‘9/29 피고인 1 1억 송부(하나은행 통장)’로, 2005. 4. 26.자 2,000만 원에 대해서는 ‘4/26 피고인 1 2000 대여(법인통장)’라고 기재되어 있고, 공소외 16 변호사가 작성한 업무일지(수사기록 915면 이하 편철)에 의하면, 2003. 9. 29.자 1억 원에 대해서는 ‘9/29(월) 피고인 1에게 1억 송부(하나은행 통장) 어디에 투자한다~ 내용은? 모른다’로, 2004. 10. 28.자 1,500만 원에 대해서는 ‘10/28(목) 피고인 1, 공소외 139 수임료 1,500만 원 반환(임대리 통장에서 수표)’으로, 2005. 4. 26. 자 2천만 원에 대해서는 ‘4/26(화) 피고인 1, 2,000만 원 대여 법인통장에서 온라인’이라고 각 기재되어 있는 점, ② 공소외 16 변호사는 이 사건 금원을 은행실명계좌에서 피고인의 실명계좌로 송금하거나 1,500만 원권 수표를 지급하였는데, 공소외 16 변호사가 거액의 사건 소개비를 지급하는 것이었다면 추적이 용이한 실명계좌나 고액권의 수표를 이용하지는 않았을 것으로 보이는 점(더구나 공소외 16 변호사는 공소외 140, 141, 142 등 사건소개인들에게 사건소개비를 지급하여 변호사법을 위반하였다는 혐의로 검찰의 내사를 받다가 피고인에게 1,500만 원을 지급한 2004. 10. 28. 및 2,000만 원을 지급한 2005. 4. 26. 이전인 2004. 8. 9. 혐의 없음 또는 입건유예 등의 결정을 받은 바 있으므로, 그 후 피고인 1에게 위 1,500만 및 2,000만 원을 사건소개비로 지급할 의사였다면 위 금원들을 위와 같이 실명계좌로 송금하거나 고액권의 수표로 지급하지는 않았을 것으로 보인다), ③ 사건을 소개받고 수임한 시점과 돈 거래가 있었던 시점이 수개월 이상씩 차이가 있고, 수임료에 대한 소개비 비율이 대단히 높고 그 비율도 일정하지 않은 점(검사는 피고인이 공소외 16 변호사에게 계속적으로 사건을 소개하여 오던 관계에서 구체적으로 특정사건에 대한 소개비라는 인식 없이 이미 소개한 사건은 물론 앞으로 소개할 사건에 대한 대가까지 포함하여 포괄적으로 소개비를 지급받은 것으로 판단하여 기소하였으나 변호사 업계에서 이와 같은 방식으로 소개비를 지급받지는 않는 것으로 보인다), ④ 피고인은 2003. 6.경부터 2005. 10.경까지 강원랜드 카지노에서 수십억 원을 탕진하면서 도박자금이 필요하자 법조인들을 포함하여 주변사람들로부터 닥치는 대로 금원을 차용하여 밝혀진 차용금의 수액만도 십수억 원 상당이 되는 점, ⑤ 공소외 16 변호사는 검찰 고위간부를 지낸 변호사로서 이 사건 무렵 법조브로커에게 거액의 사건소개비를 지급하면서까지 사건을 유치할 필요가 없었던 점, ⑥ 공소외 140, 143의 각 검찰 진술기재는 피고인과 공소외 16 변호사 사이의 이 사건 금전거래의 구체적 내역에 대해 전혀 알 수 없는 지위에 있는 자들의 진술로서 그 자체로 막연한 추측성 진술기재에 불과한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 검사가 신청하는 증거들만으로는 위 금원이 사건소개의 대가임을 인정하기에는 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으며, 오히려 기록에 의하면, 2003. 9. 29.자 1억 원과 2005. 4. 26.자 2천만 원은 피고인이 도박에 중독되어 주위의 여러 사람들로부터 수억 원의 돈을 차용하여 도박에 탕진하던 중에 공소외 16 변호사로부터 차용한 금원이고, 2004. 10. 28.자 1,500만 원은 피고인이 공소외 83 사건의 수임료 중 일부를 공소외 16 변호사로부터 반환받은 금원인 것으로 인정될 뿐이다.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged also constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the

16) The part on violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act due to receiving the referral fee from Defendant 3 on the part of the case

The following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor and the defense counsel, i.e., the defendant consistently stated that the loan amount is borrowed with the defendant 3,00 won; ② the defendant 3's living under the inspection of the defendant 20 years or more is hard to understand that the defendant 3,00 won or 3,00 won was paid with the introduction fee in the case of 5,00 won; ④ the defendant 3,000 won was asked for the payment of the loan amount to the defendant 3,00 won and 3,000 won was not offered to the defendant 1,000 won, and there was no other evidence suggesting that "the defendant 3,000 won was paid to the defendant 3,000 won and 3,000 won was not offered to the defendant 1,000 won." The defendant 3,000 won was not offered to the defendant 3,000 won and there was no other evidence suggesting that the defendant 3 had been paid to the defendant 1,000 won."

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

2. Defendant 2

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

1) The violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (No. 2005 Gohap1219) due to the receipt of false purchase tax invoices

The Defendant, a representative director of Nonindicted Co. 114, who was the Defendant, received a tax invoice on January 2001, even though he did not receive any goods or services without being supplied, he received a false tax invoice of KRW 70,909,00 at the ○○○ Gas Construction Site located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government or the office of Nonindicted Co. 114 located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-ro, Seoul, even though he did not receive any goods or services.

2) Non-fixed part (2006Gohap207)

In fact, the Defendant reported that Nonindicted 144 (the Director of the Ministry of National Defense’s Facilities, who was retired from the Army on November 30, 2001) or Nonindicted 145 (the Director of the Ministry of National Defense’s Facilities and the Director of the Korea-U.S. Military Organization’s Official Service) retired from the Army on January 30, 2002, when the Defendant was serving in the military, and in 199 and 2000, when the Defendant was serving in the military, for solicitation such as construction order or provision of other convenience, provided that he received a bribe in relation to the military order construction, and provided that Nonindicted 144 and 145 were subject to criminal punishment, with the aim of having Nonindicted 145 receive criminal punishment;

During the period from May 200 to June 200 of the same year, Nonindicted 1’s fraud and offering of bribe to Hyundai Construction’s executive director and Nonindicted 144, 145, etc. at the investigation bureau of the National Police Agency located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul National Police Agency and the five team offices located in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 12, etc.;

A) With respect to Nonindicted 144:

On October 199, with Nonindicted 1, 199, Nonindicted 144, who was in office as the manager of the regular school located in Gwangju, was found to have been in office as the head of the regular school located in Gwangju, and was directly supplied KRW 10 million to Nonindicted 144 at the entrance. At that time, Nonindicted 144 was aware in advance of Nonindicted 1’s transfer of KRW 10 million to the KAF or the director of the facility to Nonindicted 144 and delivered KRW 20 million in total to Nonindicted 144 at the entrance. When Nonindicted 144 was in office as the director of the Ministry of National Defense, Nonindicted 1 sent KRW 10 million to Nonindicted 14,000,000 to Nonindicted 14,000,000 won, and Nonindicted 1 sent KRW 1,000 to Nonindicted 144,000,000 on his own name in Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

B) As to Nonindicted 145

Of January 1, 200, the head of the Ministry of National Defense's facility, introduced Nonindicted 1,00,000 won, which was prepared by the company, to a shopping bag in order to introduce Nonindicted 1,00,000 won, which had been prepared in advance, to the head of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cheongdong, to the head of the Ministry of National Defense's facility, at the same time. On March 2000, 200, Nonindicted 1,000 won, which was 145 military units and meals around Samsungdong-dong, which were prepared in advance by the company, and delivered 20,000 won, which was prepared in advance by the company to the head of the company, to the head of the non-indicted 1,50,000 won in shopping bags. On August 11, 200, Nonindicted 1, 200, which was distributed to the head of the Gangnam-gu Cheongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1,500,000 won, which was distributed to the company's.

B. Determination

1) The violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the receipt of false purchase tax invoices

In this part of the facts charged, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that if the purchase tax invoice was issued on or before January 2001, but it was not delivered on or before December 29, 2000 as stated in the indictment, the prosecution of this case was passed on or before December 29, 2005. The date and time of the crime is not only an important requirement to specify the crime, but also an element to determine whether the statute of limitations for the crime has expired, it is not permissible to punish the defendant as long as the defendant committed the above crime at the time stated in the indictment, even if it is acknowledged that the defendant received false purchase tax invoice, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged because there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant received false purchase tax invoice of this case on or before January 201, 200.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

2) Non-fixed part

In the event that Nonindicted 1 made a voluntary statement at the investigative agency’s request for the testimony of Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 1’s statement on the charge of offering money to Nonindicted 4, which was made by Nonindicted 1 or investigation agency’s request, does not constitute a voluntary statement of the Defendant. As such, Nonindicted 1’s statement at the time of Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 1’s statement on the charge of offering information to Nonindicted 4, which was made by Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 1’s investigation agency, was not made, and Nonindicted 1’s statement on the charge of Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 1’s statement on the charge of offering information to Nonindicted 4, which was made by Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 14, and Nonindicted 1’s statement on the charge of Nonindicted 4, which was made by Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 1’s statement on the charge of offering information to Nonindicted 4, which was later made by Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 1’s statement on the charge of false testimony, the Defendant’s statement was not made by Nonindicted 1, but by Nonindicted 1, who was aware of the facts.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

3. Defendant 3

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant is an attorney-at-law, although an attorney-at-law does not offer or promise to offer money, valuables, entertainment or other benefits in return for introducing, arranging or soliciting with respect to the acceptance of legal cases or legal affairs;

The part 1-A 16 (2006 Gohap363) was acquitted on Defendant 1 on the same date and at the same place as the above 1-A (2006 Gohap363) and the case was introduced from Defendant 1 on the same day and at the same place, and the case was accepted in KRW 100 million, and in return, Defendant 1 provided money and valuables in return for the mediation of the case by delivering KRW 30 million to Defendant 1 on the same day the sum of KRW 10 million cashier's checks in KRW 30 million.

B. Determination

For the same reasons as 1-B(16) of the part of innocence against Defendant 1 on the above above, since there is no proof of crime as to this part of the facts charged, the judgment of innocence is made pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged (No. 2005Gohap1219);

Defendant 2: (a) was the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 114; and (b) was prohibited from issuing a tax invoice without supplying goods or services; (c) around January 2001, Defendant 2 issued a false tax invoice of KRW 200,000,000, total amount of KRW 3,000,000, to the Seosung-dong (mutually 3 omitted) case at the Seosung-gu, Daejeon (mutually 3 omitted) office located in the construction site of Hyundai Manbol, Seocho-gu, Seoul or Seodae-gu, Seoul, without supplying goods or services.

2. Determination

Article 11-2 (4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that the crime of issuing a tax invoice for non-transaction is established by each tax invoice (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3945, Nov. 24, 2000). This part of the facts charged is clearly clear as to Chapter 3 of the false tax invoice because each supplied amount is not specified. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the individual facts constituting an offense to be specified in the indictment are not specified.

Therefore, this part of the indictment constitutes invalid in violation of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and this part of the indictment is dismissed in accordance with Article 327(2) of the same Act.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Do- Charter (Presiding Judge)