Defendant

Jeju District Court Decision 201Na1000

Attorneys Kim Jong-sung et al.

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

3,210,600,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

On August 6, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul High Court on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (taxes) to the president of Nonindicted Co. 21 and the Seoul High Court on August 6, 2010, and was currently pending in the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1096

In around 1996, the Defendant introduced Nonindicted 2, who operated 11 companies, including Nonindicted Co. 59, Nonindicted Co. 22, Nonindicted Co. 23, Nonindicted Co. 10, Nonindicted Co. 7, and Nonindicted Co. 7 (hereinafter “affiliated company of the same kind”).

From 200 to 200, the Defendant introduced Non-Indicted 2 a political and economic personnel in the area of Busan, South and North Korea to introduce them, and around 2003, upon receiving a bank loan request from Non-Indicted 2, the Defendant showed his connection and influence by inducing the president, etc. of the city during the city.

1. Receipt of money and goods under the pretext of arranging the workshop of Korea Development Bank;

On June 2004, Nonindicted Co. 10, which Nonindicted Co. 2 established and operated for the purpose of bridge structure project, filed an application for the workout program on August 16, 2004 when Nonindicted Co. 2 delayed loans from the Korea Development Bank, the principal creditor bank (hereinafter “Industrial Bank”) and the said bank could not repay bills guaranteed by the said bank.

On December 12, 2004, since it was not able to repay the principal and interest of the Industrial Bank in arrears, and the bill was not paid to the customer as goods payment with the guarantee of the Industrial Bank's guarantee. Thus, if the Industrial Bank did not pay the debt by the decision on the workout, it is inevitable that the affiliates, such as Nonindicted Company 10, and Nonindicted Company 7, etc., on the mutual guarantee relationship with Nonindicted Company 10, would be at the same time due to its default, and thus, Nonindicted Company 2 was in an urgent situation in which the decision on the early workout of the Industrial Bank was made.

2004. 12. 3. 서울 영등포구 (이하 생략) 소재 산업은행 ▤▤▤에서, 공소외 2는 “계열사 연쇄 부도를 막을 수 있도록 원자재 지급보증기한을 연장해 주고, 2004. 12. 10.까지 워크아웃 개시결정을 내려 달라.”고 요청하였음에도, 산업은행 워크아웃 담당자는 “ 공소외 7 주식회사, 공소외 23 주식회사, 공소외 59 주식회사, 공소외 22 주식회사와의 합병을 전제로 위 4개 기업에 대하여 실사를 마치고, 2005. 5.경 워크아웃 개시 여부를 결정하겠다.”며 공소외 2의 요청을 거절하였다.

On December 6, 2004, Non-Indicted 2 sought to the effect that “the decision to commence the workout program was made until December 10, 2004 upon solicitation of persons related to industrial banks, and help them extend the payment guarantee period for raw materials”. The Defendant exercised influence on the executive officers and employees of the industrial bank through Non-Indicted 4, a vice-president of the Industrial Bank.

After that, the Defendant received a request from Nonindicted 2 in the middle of August 2005 to the effect that “the Defendant would assist in making a favorable decision by soliciting persons related to an industrial bank to make a favorable decision by raising the amount of investment conversion, adding the payment guarantee of raw materials, increasing interest rates, and adjusting the capital increase with capital increase of affiliates,” from Nonindicted 2 in response to Nonindicted 2

Of March 2006, upon receipt of the request from Nonindicted 2 to the effect that “the position of Nonindicted Company 10 is reflected as much as possible in the position of Nonindicted Company 10 by soliciting persons concerned of the Industrial Bank on the conversion of loans into investment, decision of a merged company, adjustment of the interest rate on the balance of debts after investment, etc.”

On April 15, 2006, Nonindicted 2 asked Nonindicted 2 to the effect that “The parties concerned of an industrial bank shall be allowed to make a solicitation so that the positions of Nonindicted 10 corporation can be achieved by the agreement between the industrial bank and Nonindicted 10 corporation on April 14, 2006.”

From December 2004 to July 2006, Nonindicted Party 2 expressed his intent to engage in monetary cases several times at the request of the Defendant for the early decision on the workout program for Nonindicted Incorporated Company 10 in industrial banks, extension of payment guarantee for raw materials, whether and to what extent loans are paid, interest rate on loans, extension of repayment period, and the scope of capital increase consideration.

Accordingly, on December 8, 2004, the industrial bank notified the non-indicted 10 corporation on December 10, 2004 that "the repayment of principal and interest shall be suspended until June 30, 2005, and the payment guarantee of raw materials shall be extended" was actually commenced on December 10, 2004, and on July 1, 2006, the loans 13 billion won for the non-indicted 10 corporation was converted into equity investment to acquire 23.34% of the shares of the non-indicted 59 corporation and the repayment period of the remaining loans shall be extended, so that the affiliated company of the non-indicted 10 corporation was recovered.

Non-Indicted 2 failed to conduct monetary cases from July 2006 to February 2, 2007 due to continuous tax investigation, prosecutorial investigation, and management circumstances, which were immediately after the successful rehabilitation decision of affiliated companies similar to the same type of subsidiary, with the case where: (a) the investigation and prosecutorial investigation are completed and the situation of management was sought as the office of the defendant located in Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted) around around 2007; and (b) the case where Non-Indicted 2 tried to assist the company to recover by soliciting persons related to industrial banks, etc.; and (c) provided money equivalent to KRW 20 to 3 billion that can take over 10% of the shares of Non-Indicted 7, and the defendant consented thereto.

After that, around October 2007, the Defendant received KRW 500 million in cash from Nonindicted 2 by allowing Nonindicted 2 to transfer two of Nonindicted 2’s drivers, who received Nonindicted 2’s instructions, to the Defendant’s vehicle, in the vicinity of the road in the △△ Building located in the Defendant’s office.

On April 208, the Defendant received KRW 1.1 billion in cash from Nonindicted 2’s driver Nonindicted 1, who received Nonindicted 2’s instructions, to transfer three bags and one shopping bags containing KRW 1.1 billion in cash on the Defendant’s vehicle. On September 2008, the Defendant received KRW 1.1 billion in cash from the ○○ hotel underground parking lot located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Small and Medium-gu, and around September 2008, received KRW 1.1 billion in cash in the above way at the ○○ hotel underground parking lot located in the Jung-gu, Seoul.

As a result, the Defendant received KRW 2.6 billion in cash from Nonindicted 2 on three occasions from October 2007 to September 2008 on the intermediation of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions.

2. Adjustment of disputes over reclamation of public waters, tax investigation and closed, or receipt of money and valuables under the pretext of financial loans intermediary;

(a) Details of good offices;

Accordingly, Nonindicted 2 was willing to request the mediation of matters belonging to the duties of public officials and executive officers and employees of financial institutions by regularly paying money or goods under the monthly salary to the Defendant, who has a wide connection and influence in each sector of society, and by issuing large merchandise coupons and without compensation, and by donating iron bars and steel bars to the Defendant.

1) A dispute on reclamation of public waters

On July 25, 2006, Nonindicted Co. 7 submitted an application for reflection of a basic plan for reclamation to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on Nov. 20, 2007 in order to promote the second reclamation project of Han-ri (number 1 omitted) 1.60,000 square meters of a branch line in Han-ri-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The reclamation license was granted from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on Nov. 20, 207, and the reclamation implementation plan was commenced on Jan. 23, 2008 after obtaining authorization from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on Jan. 22, 2008. On the other hand, Nonindicted Co. 19 was approved on Oct. 16, 2006 after obtaining approval from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on Aug. 4, 2007, the above agricultural and industrial complex was designated on Aug. 4, 2007.

When the project of the above non-indicted 19 company is normally conducted, 1/3 of the sea in front of the site of the non-indicted 7 company was buried and suffered enormous losses. Thus, the non-indicted 7 company filed a civil petition that the above agro-industrial complex project is unfair from October 2006 to April 2008, 2008, such as viewing throughout the city, Msan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, and the Sinsan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, etc., and it was unlawful that the act of authorization and permission for the Sinsan City's agro-industrial complex was illegal, and it filed a civil petition against the Sinsi requesting the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission to "the cancellation and change of the approval of the agricultural and industrial complex" on April 29, 2008, and the request for the inspection by the Board of Audit and Inspection on August 18, 2008.

On the other hand, at around July 3, 2008, Nonindicted Party 2 asked the Defendant to explain the situation of dispute with Nonindicted Company 19 and to the effect that Nonindicted Company 2 suspended the reclamation work of Nonindicted Company 19 upon the request of the relevant agencies such as the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, etc.

On July 23, 2008, Nonindicted 2 sent to the Defendant a document that “the state of dispute over the reclamation of public waters in the Han-gu Area” and requested that the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission file a civil petition against a large city and request the Board of Audit and Inspection. As such, Nonindicted 2 requested the public officials of relevant agencies to offer good offices so that they can make a favorable decision to Nonindicted 7 Company by exercising influence, and the Defendant consented to Nonindicted 2’s request.

On August 11, 2008, Non-Indicted 2 requested the defendant to request the relevant persons, such as the Board of Audit and Inspection, along with documents stating major contents of the request for examination and request for inspection by the Board of Audit and Inspection, personal information of the department in charge, personal information of the person in charge, and the schedule of the Coordination Committee under the control of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission. On October 11, 2008, Non-Indicted 2 requested the defendant who visited the place of dispute at the beginning of the year of the 2008, stating the progress of the civil petition by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, the progress of the internal resolution by the Board of Audit and Inspection, etc., and the defendant consented to the request by Non-Indicted 2.

(ii) relating to tax evasions;

On October 29, 2009, the investigation4 of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted by Nonindicted Co. 59, Nonindicted Co. 23, Nonindicted Co. 7, Nonindicted Co. 20, Nonindicted Co. 20, Nonindicted Co. 24, and Nonindicted Co. 10, which were operated by Nonindicted Co. 2 from the investigation4 of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, began to conduct a special tax investigation on the books and documents of six corporations.

Nonindicted 2 asked the Defendant to the effect that “Non-Indicted 2 started a tax investigation in Seoul Regional Tax Office and helps the Defendant to reach less taxes,” and the Defendant consented to Nonindicted 2’s request.

On December 209, Nonindicted Party 2 requested the Defendant to reduce the tax investigation by soliciting the persons concerned at the National Tax Service’s office located in Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted) to reduce the tax investigation period. Nonindicted Party 2 consented to Nonindicted Party 2’s request.

(iii) relating to a loan to a single bank or our bank;

Nonindicted Co. 8 obtained a loan of KRW 60 billion from the Nonghyup around June 2008, and then sought an additional loan of KRW 20 billion from the Nonghyup from March 2009 due to the shortage of facilities and operation funds. However, Nonindicted Co. 8 did not have a loan to Nonindicted Co. 7, other affiliates, and the prospects of shipbuilding games are uncertain due to the global financial crisis.

After that, on December 2009, Non-Indicted 2 asked the Defendant to obtain a loan of KRW 20 billion from agricultural cooperatives, and the Defendant respondeded to the purport that “Non-Indicted 2 will help the Defendant receive a loan if there is no person to do so.”

이에 공소외 2는 2010. 2.~3.경 피고인에게 전화로 ‘우리은행 ▽▽지점에서 350억 원 신용대출을 추진 중에 있으니 우리은행 ▤▤▤ 관계자에게 부탁하여 대출이 성사될 수 있도록 도와달라’는 취지로 부탁하였고, 피고인은 공소외 2의 부탁을 승낙하고, 우리은행 고위 임원에게 전화하여 공소외 8 주식회사가 대출을 받을 수 있도록 해달라고 영향력을 행사하였다.

한편, 공소외 2는 그 무렵 ‘하나은행 창원 ♡♡♡♡에서 150억 원 신용대출을 추진하고 있으니 하나은행 관계자에게 부탁하여 위 대출이 성사될 수 있도록 도와달라’는 취지로 알선을 부탁하였고, 피고인은 공소외 2의 부탁을 승낙하였다.

(b) Acceptance of money or valuables;

As above, the Defendant received money and valuables from Nonindicted 2 in return for mediation of civil petitions filed by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection against the public waters reclamation conducted from around July 4, 2008 to March 2009; ② tax investigation conducted from October 2009 to January 2010; ③ National Tax Service’s audit conducted from around December 2009 to around April 201; ③ solicitation and week 5 relating to the credit extension of Nonindicted Company 8’s domestic and bank loans, which were conducted from around December 2009 to April 2010.

1) Acceptance of KRW 400 million from July 2008 to August 2010 on a monthly salary of KRW 400 million.

From July 15, 2008 to August 16, 2010, the Defendant received total of KRW 400 million from Nonindicted 2 on 26 occasions as indicated in the annexed crime list, in return for the solicitation and mediation of disputes over reclamation of public waters, tax investigations, loans from financial institutions, etc.

2) Acceptance of each gift certificate KRW 100 million around November 2008 and January 2009.

On November 2008 and January 2009, the Defendant received gift certificates worth KRW 200 million in total, including KRW 100,000,000,000, from the Defendant’s above office, to the effect that Nonindicted Party 2 would assist well in various pending issues, such as the consideration for solicitation and good offices related to public waters reclamation disputes, from Nonindicted Party 2.

3) Conclusion

Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 20 million from July 2008 to August 2010 as gift certificate 200 million and KRW 400 million from monthly salary as to intermediation of matters belonging to the duties of public officials and officers and employees of financial institutions.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 1, 3, 2, 5, and 25 of the witness

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 18, 26, and 27 of the witness

1. Some statements of each protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the prosecutor (including the part of the interrogation of the non-indicted 2 and 5)

1. Each statement made on Nonindicted 2, 1, 5, 3, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 18, 33, 6, 34, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 27, 47, 48, and 49 (including each substitute part);

1. A copy of each written statement made by the prosecutor against Nonindicted 50, 51, 52, and 29;

1. Each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 2, 3, 53, 30, 45, and 54

1. A copy of the real name shares management statement of Nonindicted 27 in the records of Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office No. 2009 type 71967;

1. 공소외 7 주식회사 제출 피고인 소득자별근로소득원천징수부 1부, 피고인 명의 우리은행 계좌 거래내역 1부, 공소외 59 주식회사, 공소외 23 주식회사, 공소외 7 주식회사 주식변동 상황 명세 각 1부, 공소외 55, 56, 57의 공소외 59 주식회사, 공소외 23 주식회사, 공소외 7 주식회사 주식양수도 계약서 사본 각 1부, 공소외 55, 56, 57 주식거래내역서 각 1부, 공소외 55, 56, 57 주식거래 관련 양도소득과세 표준 신고 및 자진납부세금계산서 1부, 공소외 2 명의 경남은행 계좌 거래내역 1부, 한내지구 공유수면 매립 분쟁 상황(2008. 7. 23.), 현안 업무 보고서(2008. 8. 11.), 한내지구 공유수면 매립 분쟁 상황(감사원 심사청구 및 감사청구내용)(2008. 8. 20.), 공소외 19 주식회사- 공소외 7 주식회사 공유수면 매립분쟁 법정소송 관련 보고서(2009. 6. 22.), VIP 사업장 방문(Time Schedule)(2008. 10. 11.), 주요현안 업무 보고서(2008. 10. 11.), 산업은행 차입금(원금) 상환연기 요청 문건 1부, 휴대폰 촬영사진 및 분석결과 각 1부, '중장비부품 제조사업 현황' 문건, 공소외 5 통화내역 발췌 각 1부, 공소외 7 주식회사 비상장주식평가조서(2007. 10. 31.자), 주식평가내역(2007. 12. 31. 기준), 공소외 59 주식회사 비상장주식평가조서(2008. 3. 20.자), 공소외 23 주식회사 비상장주식평가조서(2008. 3. 22.자), 공소외 7 주식회사 비상장주식평가조서(2008. 3. 22.자), 공소외 7 주식회사 비상장주식평가조서(2010. 1. 13.자), 공소외 7 주식회사 주식가치평가보고서(2009. 2. 17.자), 서울지방국세청 세무조사 관련 자료, 개인신용카드 내역, 개인 GS칼텍스 보너스 카드내역, 법인카드내역, 하이패스내역, 공소외 7 주식회사 제출 서울지방국세청 세무조사결과 내역 사본, ◈◈그룹 세무조사 추징내역, ◈◈ 관계사 연도별 세무조사 내역, 공소외 2외 사건 관련자 4명의 항공기 탑승내역 1부, 사용내역 정리 1부, 통장 거래내역 및 계좌 입출금 내역( 공소외 34 작성), 고속도로 하이패스 사용내역, 공소외 2가 소지한 법인카드 ▷▷카드 2008. 9. 사용내역, 주식가치 평가자료[ 공소외 59 주식회사, 공소외 23 주식회사, 공소외 7 주식회사] 3부, 공소외 4 인물정보(동아닷컴, 연합뉴스) 각 1부, 공소외 11의 출입국 조회 내역 1부, 2010. 2. 11.자 ▽▽지점장 작성 공소외 8 주식회사 신청의견, 2010. 3. 350억 대출 신청 관련 자료, 피고인 2008. 1. ~ 2010. 8. 급여대장 사본, 공소외 7 주식회사 2008. ~ 2010. 기구 조직도 사본 각 1부, 중앙일보 인물검색 결과 1부, 공소외 10 주식회사 WORK-OUT 진행 상황보고(2004. 12.) 사본, 산은 내부 확정사항(2004. 12. 8.) 사본, 제품공급(매매) 계약서 사본, 지급보증서 사본 각 1부, 회사 업무 진행 사항(2005. 8. 10.) 사본, 공소외 10 주식회사 경영정상화 추진 항목별 협조 요청(2006. 3. 10.) 사본, 공소외 10 주식회사 경영정상화 추진 항목별 협조 요청(2006. 4. 15.) 사본, 공소외 10 주식회사 경영정상화계획의 이행을 위한 특별약정서 사본, 한내지구 공유수면 매립 분쟁 상황(2008. 7. 23.) 사본, 한내지구 공유수면 매립 분쟁 상황(2008. 8. 20.) 사본, 주요현안 업무 보고서(회장님 계열사 공장 방문시 2008. 10. 11.) 사본, 감사원 심사청구 처리 공문(2009. 3. 17.), 감사원 감사청구사항 회신 공문(2008. 10. 9.), 국민권익위 민원처리결과 알림 공문(2008. 10. 27.), 계열사 현황(2009. 12. 29.), 항공기 탑승내역(대한항공, 아시아나항공) 각 1부, '거제타임즈'인터넷기사[기고: 공소외 58] '거제시장님께 드리는 건의문' 사본 1부, 공소외 7 주식회사 제2차 공유수면매립사본( 공소외 7 주식회사 경영실장 공소외 58 작성) 1부, 공소외 7 주식회사에서 거제시청으로 보낸 공문 각 1부, 거제시청에서 공소외 7 주식회사로 보낸 회신공문 각 1부, 공소외 7 주식회사에서 마산지방해양수산청(항만청)으로 보낸 공문 각 1부, 마산지방해양수산청(항만청)에서 공소외 7 주식회사로 보낸 회신 공문 각 1부, 공소외 7 주식회사에서 국토해양부에 보낸 공문 각 1부- 공소외 87 법무법인, 공소외 7 주식회사에서 국민권익위원회에 보낸 공문, 공소외 87 법무법인 의견서 각 1부, 국민권익위원회에서 공소외 7 주식회사로 보낸 회신 공문 및 의결서 각 1부, 감사원 심사청구서 각 1부, 감사원 감사청구서 각 1부, 감사원 심사청구 및 감사청구 회신공문 각 1부, 공소외 7 주식회사가 낙동강환경유역청에 보낸 공문 각 1부, 낙동강환경유역청에서 공소외 7 주식회사로 보낸 회신공문 각 1부, 공소외 7 주식회사가 거제시의회로 보낸 공문 각 1부, 거제시의회에서 공소외 7 주식회사로 보낸 회신공문 각 1부, 한내조선특화농공단지개발 실시계획승인고시(거제시), 협의조건준수촉구공문(마산지방해양수산청), 한내조선특화농공단지개발 실시계획승인관련 의견조회공문(해양수산부) 각 1부, ' 공소외 10 주식회사 경영정상화 방안 수립(Executive Summary, December 2004)' 보고서 사본 1부, 공소외 45 부행장 사용 우리은행 외부발신 통화내역, 피고인· 공소외 54 통화내역, 언론기사 검색결과(날짜별) 각 1부, 2004년도 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 추진 관련 공문서철 각 사본 1부, 2003년 이후 워크아웃업체 현황 1부, 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 관련 화면 캡쳐 출력물, ∀∀∀∀∀실 작성 공소외 10 주식회사 현황, 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 추진현황(2004. 11. 25.자), 공소외 10 주식회사 면담 자료(2004. 12.), 공소외 10 주식회사 처리 방향(2004. 12. 3.자), 공소외 10 주식회사 채무재조정(안) 결론, 공소외 10 주식회사 처리 방향(2004. 12. 6.자), 공소외 10 주식회사 향후 처리 방안(2004. 12. 7.자), 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 처리계획(2004. 12. 7.자), 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 처리계획(2004. 12. 8.자), 공소외 10 주식회사 제3차 채권금융기관자율협의회 부의안건(2004. 12. 9.), 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 처리계획(2004. 12. 9.자), 유상증자 및 회사합병 등에 관한 확약서, 공소외 10 주식회사에 대한 기업개선작업계획 승인신청, 공소외 10 주식회사 제3차 채권금융기관자율협의회 부의안건(2004. 12. 8.), 공소외 10 주식회사 채권은행 공동관리관련 경영정상화계획 승인신청, 공소외 10 주식회사 제3차 채권금융기관자율협의회 부의안건(2004. 12. 9.), 공소외 10 주식회사 제4차 채권은행자율협의회 부의안건(2005. 2. 17.), 공소외 10 주식회사 제2차 채권은행자율협의회 부의안건(2004. 11. 4.), 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 계속추진 방안 검토(2005. 11.), 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 처리계획 문건 사본 3부, 공소외 10 주식회사 경영정상화계획 승인신청 공문 사본 1부, 서울지방국세청 세무조사통지서, 근로소득원천징수영수증 6부(사람별. 연도별 각1부), 공소외 59 주식회사, 공소외 22 주식회사, 공소외 23 주식회사, 공소외 7 주식회사 비상장 주식평가 조서, 피고인 등 2007. 11. 6. 공소외 21 주식회사 주식 매각 내역, 2007. 11. 8. 이후 공소외 55, 56, 57 등 ▷▷증권 계좌 거래내역, 공소외 21 주식회사 제출 피고인 연도별 소득금액 내역, 성북세무서 발급 피고인 2007.~2009. 소득금액증명서, 상품권 구입내역서 1부, 대체전표 사본 1부, 보고문건 3부, 2010. 11. 4. 부산지방국세청 조사3국장 공소외 60으로부터 전송받은 팩스 전송문 사본 1부, 2010. 10. 25. 서울지방국세청 조사4국 공소외 38 사무관으로부터 전송받은 팩스 전송문 사본 1부, 공소외 2 개인 계좌 현금 출금 내역 1부, 공소외 29 현금 조성 내역 1부, 공소외 8 주식회사 대체전표, 계정별원장 사본 1부, 피고인 ↔ 공소외 54 통화내역, 피고인 ↔ 공소외 2 각 통화내역, 피고인 ↔ 공소외 5 각 통화내역, 피고인 ↔ 공소외 61 통화내역, 피고인 ↔ 공소외 1 각 통화내역, 피고인 ↔ 공소외 59 주식회사 등 법인 전화번호 통화내역, 피고인이 사용하는 휴대전화 가입자 조회결과 1부, 공소외 49 관리 전화번호부 캡쳐 화면 출력물 1부( 공소외 62, 63), 국세청 관련자 인적사항 및 연락처 관련 자료 각 1부, 공소외 62(인물검색, 직장가입조회, 전화가입조회), 공소외 63(인물검색, 전화가입조회), 공소외 64(전화가입조회), 지도검색 출력물( ☆☆빌딩과 포스코 아파트와 거리 확인) 1부, 인터넷 출력물(포스코 아파트 입주시기 등 확인) 1부, 통화내역서, 서울시교통정보센터의 도로구간별 속도확인요청 회신, 서울도시고속도로의 속도자료협조요청 회신, 한국도로공사의 고속도로 교통자료 송부, 비씨카드주식회사의 카드사용내역관련 확인요청에 대한 회신

1. Each investigation report [the report on the acquisition of shares by Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 7, Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., Ltd., Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 1, and Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 8, and Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 1, 2000, Nonindicted Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 5, and Nonindicted Co. 1, 2000, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and Nonindicted Co. 1, 2008, and Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., Ltd., 800, and Nonindicted Co. 1, 2010.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Crime paragraph (1): Article 7 (General Provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)

B. Criminal Claim 2: Article 3 (General Provisions) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (including the portion of benefits received from December 15, 2009 to August 16, 2010)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Article 40 and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 40 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [In the case of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Crime of Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 (Ruling of Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2007HunBa25 Decided June 25, 2009)

1. Additional collection:

Article 10 (3) and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Dismissal of public prosecution;

A. Summary of the assertion

In the crime of acceptance of good offices, it is not an element of the actual act of good offices in case of receiving money in advance in return for the act of good offices in the future. However, the act of good offices naturally becomes an element of the act of good offices in case of receiving money in advance.

Therefore, the form of mediation must be clearly specified, but the defendant can properly exercise his right to defense. Paragraph (1) of the facts charged of this case only abstractly state that "the employee of an industrial bank has exercised his influence over the employee of the industrial bank through Nonindicted 4, etc.," and it does not specify what method the employee of the industrial bank has exercised, and thus, it is inevitable to exercise his right to defense.

Therefore, Article 1 of the facts charged of this case does not specify the facts charged, so the prosecution of this case must be dismissed.

B. Determination

The phrase “the receipt of money and valuables or benefits with respect to the intermediation of matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions” under Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”) means the receipt of money and valuables, etc. under the pretext of arranging and soliciting matters pertaining to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions, and does not necessarily require specific specification of the other party to the mediation’s duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do3115, Oct. 24, 2000; 200Do2968, Oct. 26, 2001). This should be viewed equally in a case where money and valuables are received in connection with the past brokerage activities.

In addition, considering the nature of the offense charged, the specification of the facts charged is sufficient to specify the facts causing the prosecution by pointing out the date, time, place, method, purpose, etc. to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts charged. Even if some of the facts charged are unclear, if the facts charged can be specified along with the stated other matters, and if it does not interfere with the exercise of the defendant's right of defense, it does not affect the validity of the indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do1900, Jun. 25, 199; 200Do2968, Oct. 26, 2001).

Although Article 1 of the facts charged of this case does not specifically specify the executive officers and employees of the financial institution subject to mediation or the contents of their duties, the defendant received a request from Nonindicted 2 to request from the interested parties in connection with the workout program of Nonindicted Company 10 and exercised influence over the industrial bank through Nonindicted 4, etc., and in return, received a total of KRW 2.61 billion on three occasions, and received a total of KRW 2.61 billion on three occasions, and specified the facts charged as far as it can be distinguished from other facts charged by pointing out the date, time, place, method, and purpose. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

2. Arranging in relation to the workout program for an industrial bank;

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant merely introduced Nonindicted 4 to Nonindicted 2, and did not commit an act of mediating an industrial bank’s executive or employee’s exercise of influence over Nonindicted 10 Company’s workout program.

(b) The progress of the workout program for the Industrial Bank;

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined in this court, the following facts can be recognized.

1) The situation of Nonindicted Co. 10 at the time of applying for the workout program

Nonindicted Co. 10 was established by receiving foreign currency loans of KRW 20 billion from the Industrial Bank at the end of 1996. However, in 197, there was serious difficulties due to the increase of loans due to exchange loss and the breadth of interest rates, etc., as of the end of 2003, the loans from the Industrial Bank reached approximately KRW 32.8 billion, and the loans from the Industrial Bank, which are the principal creditor bank, were omitted at around June 2004. Nonindicted Co. 10 was selected as an enterprise subject to the workout program after being judged as liquidity in the Management Stabilization Committee of the Special Support for Small and Medium Enterprises in the Bank around June 2004, and around July 2004, the Industrial Bank Changwon branch of the Bank to be a target enterprise participating in the work from the Creditor Financial Council and applied for the work on August 16, 2004.

2004. 9. 17.경 제1차 채권은행 자율협의회에서 공소외 10 주식회사에 대한 채권행사를 2004. 11. 10.까지 유예하였고, 2004. 10. 4.경 공소외 10 주식회사에 대한 워크아웃 업무가 산업은행 창원지점에서 산업은행 ∀∀∀∀∀팀으로 이관되었으며, 2004. 11. 2. 제2차 채권은행 자율협의회에서 공소외 10 주식회사에 대한 채권상환 유예기간을 2004. 12. 10.까지 연장하기로 결정하였다.

2) An interview held on December 3, 2004 with persons related to the Industrial Bank of Korea.

공소외 2는 2004. 12. 3. 공소외 10 주식회사의 대표이사인 공소외 5와 함께 산업은행 ▤▤▤에서 공소외 32 ∀∀∀∀∀실장 등 산업은행 측 담당직원을 만나 워크아웃 조기개시 여부 및 조건에 관한 협의를 하였다. 공소외 2는 ‘2004. 12. 10.까지 워크아웃 개시를 결정해 달라’고 산업은행 측에 요청하였으나 산업은행 측은 ‘2005. 5.경까지 워크아웃 개시를 유보하고, 공소외 7 주식회사, 공소외 23 주식회사, 공소외 59 주식회사, 공소외 22 주식회사와의 합병을 전제로 4개 기업에 대하여 실사를 마친 다음 워크아웃 개시 여부를 결정하겠다’고 하며 공소외 2의 요청을 거절하였다.

However, at the time of the payment guarantee of the industrial bank, Nonindicted Co. 10 issued bills under the payment guarantee of the industrial bank, and purchased raw materials from Nonindicted Co. 12, and continued to pay the above raw materials. The maturity of the above bills was December 30, 2004, and the payment guarantee deadline of the industrial bank was December 31, 2004. In the case of Nonindicted Co. 12, the date of the commencement of the work with respect to Nonindicted Co. 10 until December 10, 2004 and the extension of the payment guarantee period of the industrial bank was the situation where Nonindicted Co. 10, Nonindicted Co. 59, Nonindicted Co. 223, Nonindicted Co. 207, Nonindicted Co. 204, which was operated by Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 24, who did not go through the extension of the payment guarantee period of the industrial bank, could not return the entire period of the payment guarantee period from 201 to 201.

In addition, since Nonindicted Co. 7, Nonindicted Co. 68, Nonindicted Co. 23, Nonindicted Co. 19, Nonindicted Co. 59, and Nonindicted Co. 22 had a large company in each affiliate, such as Nonindicted Co. 69, etc., they may cease to engage in a transaction relationship with the large company when it is merged with Nonindicted Co. 10, which is an insolvent company, and it is impossible to raise funds through an affiliate in the future, and the plans for merger between Nonindicted Co. 10 and the rest of the four companies presented by the side of the industrial bank were proposals that are difficult to accept as Nonindicted Co. 2.

At the time of consultation on December 3, 2004, Nonindicted 2: (a) considered Nonindicted 18’s team leader at the Industrial Bank’s 18 team leader (“Nonindicted 2”) that “I would have found that I would like to find the situation because the funds of the small and medium enterprises were difficult; (b) would eventually result in death; (c) the team leader at Nonindicted 18’s team did not proceed with the agreement with each other on the following grounds: (a) it would be necessary to determine that I would like to kill a large company by selling it, and if I would like to know the company at any time, I would like to accept the conditions of the demand of the Industrial Bank; and (d) Nonindicted 2 was the chief of the Industrial Bank’s office at the time of consultation; and (c) Nonindicted 32, the chief of the office of Nonindicted 32, said that “I would like to buy the company even if I would have to do so if I would like to buy the company.”

산업은행 ∀∀∀∀∀실 과장 공소외 70은 2004. 12. 3. 공소외 2와의 면담 이후, ‘합병제의 거절시 워크아웃을 중단하고 합병제의 수용시 2005. 6. 30. 이전에 계열사 합병에 대한 타당성 검토 후, 검토 결과에 따라 채무 재조정을 확정한다’는 내용의 주7) 문건 을 작성하였다.

3) The background leading up to the solicitation of the defendant on December 6, 2004

공소외 2는 2004. 12. 3. 산업은행 ▤▤▤에서 위와 같이 협의가 결렬된 후, 창원으로 내려가 공소외 5에게 공소외 10 주식회사의 워크아웃 전반에 대한 상황을 정리한 문건을 작성하도록 지시하였다. 이에 공소외 5는 ‘ 공소외 10 주식회사 WORK-OUT 진행 상황보고 주8) ’ 라는 문건을 작성하였고, 산업은행 ∀∀∀∀∀의 조직도가 기재된 자료도 따로 만들어서 공소외 2에게 건네주었다.

On December 6, 2004, Nonindicted Co. 2, 2004, found the office of the Defendant, displayed the above documents and materials, and upon which Nonindicted Co. 2 returned bills from Nonindicted Co. 12 to Nonindicted Co. 10, if the term of payment guarantee is increased in the president and the industrial bank, Nonindicted Co. 2 returned bills to the president and the industrial bank, and asked that the industrial bank will talk about it.

피고인은 공소외 2의 부탁을 받자마자 전 산업은행 부총재였던 공소외 4에게 전화를 하여 간단하게 사정 설명을 하고, 공소외 2를 데리고 ●●●●빌딩 주9) 에 있는 공소외 4의 사무실로 찾아가 “내가 꼭 도와주어야 할 동생이고, 산업은행에 문제가 있어서 왔다”고 말하며 위 문건을 공소외 4에게 건네주었다(피고인은 공소외 4에게 전화만 해주었을 뿐이고 함께 공소외 4에게 찾아간 사실은 없다고 주장하나, ① 공소외 2는 피고인과 함께 공소외 4를 찾아갔다면서 당시의 상황에 대해 구체적이고 일관되게 진술하고 있고, 공소외 2가 이 부분에 대해 거짓으로 진술할 이유가 없는 점, ② 공소외 2는 공소외 4의 얼굴도 모르고, 공소외 4의 사무실이 어디에 있는지도 모르고 있어 혼자서 공소외 4를 찾아가기 힘든 상황이었던 점, ③ 피고인은 공소외 2가 회사의 사안에 대해 조리 있게 잘 설명하지 못한다는 것을 알고 있었던 점, ④ 피고인은 2000년 이후 공소외 2를 친동생처럼 아끼고 공소외 2 회사의 일을 챙겨주었던 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피고인이 공소외 2 혼자 공소외 4를 찾아가도록 하지는 않았을 것으로 보이는바, 피고인의 주장은 이유 없다).

공소외 4는 산업은행 ∀∀∀∀∀실 조직도가 기재되어 있는 자료를 보더니 “ 공소외 32는 예전에 내가 데리고 있던 사람이다”고 말하며 산업은행 관계자에게 전화를 하였고, 잠시 후 공소외 2에게 공소외 32를 찾아가서 이야기해보라고 말하였다.

4) Change in the attitude of the industrial bank up to the decision on December 10, 2004

공소외 2는 공소외 4와의 만남 이후 곧바로 공소외 5에게 전화를 하여 “산업은행에 지금 들어가야 되니 당신이 약속시간을 정하고 빨리 올라와야겠다”라고 말하였고, 그 날 서울로 올라온 공소외 5와 함께 산업은행 ▤▤▤을 찾아가 공소외 32 실장을 만났다. 공소외 32 실장은 공소외 2를 보더니 “피고인은 나를 모를 테지만 나는 피고인을 잘 안다. 왜 진작 피고인 이야기를 안 했냐”고 말하며 매우 친절하게 대해주었고, 부드러운 분위기에서 협의가 진행되었다.

Since then, on December 8, 2004, the Industrial Bank notified Nonindicted 5 of the fact that “I will start the Workhouse on December 10, 2004 without discussing the merger issue of affiliated companies. I will delay the repayment of principal and interest until June 30, 2005 and extend the payment guarantee of raw materials.”

산업은행 ∀∀∀∀∀실 직원 공소외 72는 2004. 12. 8.부터 2004. 12. 9. 사이에 3차례에 걸쳐 ‘ 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 처리계획’이라는 총재 보고용 주10) 문건 을 만들었다[ 공소외 72는 위 문건에 관하여, 상사가 작성하라고 해서 작성했는데, 공소외 10 주식회사 정도 규모의 회사는 주요 업체에 해당하지 않아 총재 보고 대상 기업은 아니었고, 왜 작성하라고 했는지 잘 모르겠다고 진술하고 있다].

On December 10, 2004, the Industrial Bank issued a decision to commence the workout program to Nonindicted Co. 10 as notified to Nonindicted Co. 5 prior to December 10, 2004.

5) The process of solicitation by July 2006, which was the end of the workout program.

Even after the decision on commencing the workout, Nonindicted 2 asked the Defendant to explain the matter continuously and request the Industrial Bank to exercise its influence so that there is no favorable decision for Nonindicted Co. 10.

Around August 10, 2005, Nonindicted 2 prepared and sent documents to the Defendant via Nonindicted 5, 2005, Nonindicted 2 prepared and sent them to the Defendant. Around March 10, 2006, Nonindicted 2 called “request for cooperation by item of business normalization of Nonindicted 10 Stock Companies” was prepared and sent to the Defendant. Around April 15, 2006, Nonindicted 2 prepared and sent documents to the Defendant, “request for cooperation by item of business normalization of Nonindicted 10 Stock Companies” (hereinafter “request for cooperation by item of business normalization”). Around April 15, 2006, Nonindicted 2 requested the Defendant to explain the contents of each of the above documents to the Defendant and exercise influence over the Industrial Bank.

On July 1, 2006, Nonindicted Co. 10 was merged with Nonindicted Co. 59, and KRW 13 billion out of the loans of an industrial bank was converted into acquiring 23.34% of the equity shares in Nonindicted Co. 59, and the remainder of the loans KRW 21 billion was decided to pay off 16 times from March 24, 2010 to December 24, 2013, and successfully graduated from the workout program.

C. Whether the defendant's act constitutes good offices

1) In a case where it is limited to introducing and arranging a person who acts as a broker, the crime of receiving and arranging money is not established under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”). However, the crime of receiving and arranging money and goods is not established only under the pretext of receiving and arranging money and goods directly by specifying the public official in charge, but also under the pretext of receiving and arranging money and goods through intermediarys that can exercise influence, etc., as well as not specifically specifying the public official in charge, the crime of receiving and arranging money and goods under Article 3 of the Special Crimes Act can be established. The other party of receiving and arranging money and goods must be a public official finally, even if it is not necessary to specify the person in question, and the other party of receiving and arranging money and goods must be a public official in question. However, even if there is no need to be a public official, it does not necessarily belong to his/her duties, and even if public official is not a public official, it does not necessarily belong to his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2828, Jun. 28, 2007.

2) 그러므로 피고인이 단순히 공소외 4를 공소외 2에게 소개시켜주었는지, 아니면 공소외 4를 통해 산업은행의 임직원에게 청탁하였는지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 위 산업은행 워크아웃 진행 경위에 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 공소외 2가 산업은행 측과의 2004. 12. 3.자 면담 이후 계열사의 연쇄부도가 우려되는 급박한 상황에서 피고인을 찾아가 도움을 청한 이유는 피고인이 금융권이나 사회 곳곳에 상당한 영향력이 있다는 것을 알고 있었기 때문인 점 주14) , ② 공소외 2는 2004. 12. 6. 공소외 5가 작성한 문건을 가지고 피고인을 만나 “산업은행에서 보증기간을 늘려주지 않으면 부도가 날 상황입니다. 산업은행에 아시는 분 있습니까. 도와주십시오”라는 취지로 이야기하였는바, 공소외 2가 피고인에게 부탁한 내용이 산업은행 워크아웃과 관련하여 공소외 4나 중간자를 소개해 달라는 취지가 아니라 어떠한 방식으로든 현안을 해결할 수 있도록 도움을 달라는 취지였던 점, ③ 공소외 2가 피고인에게 보여준 문건에는 산업은행 ∀∀∀∀∀실에서 업무를 담당하고 있음이 명시되어 있고, 산업은행 ∀∀∀∀∀실 조직도 및 담당자가 기재된 자료도 있었던 점, ④ 피고인은 공소외 2를 데리고 산업은행 전 부총재였던 공소외 4의 사무실로 가서 직접 공소외 4에게 공소외 2를 소개하면서 꼭 도와주라는 취지로 이야기한 점, ⑤ 공소외 2가 2004. 12. 6. 공소외 4를 만난 직후에 다시 산업은행에 갔을 때 ∀∀∀∀∀실장인 공소외 32가 “왜 미리 (피고인)회장님 말씀을 안 하셨습니까”라는 취지로 이야기하며 피고인을 언급한 점, ⑥ 공소외 2는 2004. 12. 6. 산업은행 측과의 면담을 성공적으로 마친 후 공소외 4가 아닌 피고인에게 전화하여 감사 인사를 하였던 점, ⑦ 공소외 2는 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃이 개시된 이후에도 계속적으로 피고인에게 현안을 보고하며 알선을 부탁한 반면, 공소외 4와는 그 이후 만나거나 연락한 적이 없는 점, ⑧ 공소외 2는 산업은행 문제가 잘 해결된 이후 그 감사의 표시로 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 피고인에게 26억 1,060만 원의 현금을 교부한 반면, 공소외 4에게는 명절 선물 이외에 특별한 사례를 한 사실이 없는 점 등을 종합하면, 공소외 2는 피고인에게 산업은행 임직원에게 알선을 하여 줄 제3자의 소개를 부탁한 것이 아니라 산업은행에 영향력을 행사하여 줄 것을 부탁한 것이라 할 것이고, 피고인 또한 단순히 산업은행 임직원에게 알선을 하여 줄 제3자의 소개만을 한 것이 아니라, 공소외 4를 통해 직접 알선한 것으로 보아야 할 것이므로(이 점에서 피고인이 직접 알선의뢰인으로부터 알선행위를 의뢰받지도 아니하고, 알선의뢰인과 알선상대방 사이의 중개를 하지도 아니하였던 대법원 2000. 10. 24. 선고 99도3115 판결 사안과는 그 사실관계를 달리한다), 피고인의 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Receipt of money and valuables;

A. Summary of the assertion

The facts that the defendant received KRW 500 million from Nonindicted 2 around October 2007 are acknowledged, but there is no fact that the defendant received KRW 1.1 billion around April 2008 and KRW 1.06 billion around September 2008.

B. The credibility of Non-Indicted 2’s statement, a money donor

1) Summary of the statement

The defendant was exempted from the crisis of the industrial bank by making efforts, and all of the problems have been resolved well, and the amount of 2.6 billion won in cash has been raised in response to this. It would be like to say that the defendant is in cash at the same time as that of the defendant, and it would be like to open the shares of the company in 2007. The defendant's consent to this was made up of 2.61 billion won in cash up to 2.66 billion won in cash on three occasions.

The first is between September 2007 and October 2007, carrying KRW 500 million in cash on the between the two roads and around the road of the defendant's office. The second is between April 2008 and May 2008, carrying KRW 1.1 billion in cash on the between the two roads and the two roads, and delivered it to the defendant's office. The third is between September 2008 and October 2008, carrying KRW 1.1 billion in cash on the between the two roads between the two roads and the two roads, and delivered it at the ○ hotel underground parking lot of the defendant's office.

2) Relevant legal principles

In a case where the issue is whether to receive money or not, in order to be convicted solely by a statement made by a person who provided money in the absence of objective evidence, such as financial data to support the receipt of money, the statement made by the person must be admissible as evidence, and there is credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining credibility, the credibility of the statement should also be examined in accordance with the above criteria, such as the reasonableness, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement itself, and in particular, in a case where there is a suspicion of a crime against him/her, and there is a possibility that the investigation is being initiated or under investigation is being conducted against him/her, and in a case where there is a possibility that the evidence of the statement might not be denied, there is a suspicion that he/she will use it, and even if there is no possibility that the statement might affect the statement that he/she intends to escape from the imminent place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8137, Jan. 15, 209).

3) Voluntaryness of the statement

From August 30, 2010 to September 17, 2010, Nonindicted Party 2 interviewed 19 times with the defense counsel. At the time of the preparation of the instant written statement or the written statement, Nonindicted Party 2 appears to have participated or interviewed by the defense counsel even at the time of the preparation of the written statement or the written statement, and on the other hand, Nonindicted Party 2’s voluntariness of the statement is recognized on the ground that any

4) The rationality and objective reasonableness of the statement

A) The motive for giving money or valuables

As seen earlier, Nonindicted Party 2 was faced with the crisis of the entire chain of bankruptcy due to loans of industrial banks in excess of KRW 30 billion of Nonindicted Company 10 in 2004. However, from the commencement of the workout program on December 10, 2004 to the completion of the workout program on July 10, 2006, Nonindicted Party 2 talked with the Defendant to the effect that, whenever there are important pending issues, he/she would receive assistance upon request of the Defendant each time the workout program is successfully completed, he/she would have to give an economically visible answer in the process, and the Defendant also received some money and valuables with the indication of audit by Nonindicted Party 2, and the motive for offering money and valuables seems to be sufficient.

B) source of funds

(1) In full view of each prosecutor’s protocol against Nonindicted 29 and 31, each prosecutor’s protocol against Nonindicted 50, 51, 52, and 29, each prosecutor’s protocol against Nonindicted 73, 74, and 75, each of the statements, cash payment records for provisional payments, each of the financial transaction data, each of the records, Nonindicted 2’s cash withdrawal details, Nonindicted 29’s cash withdrawal details, Nonindicted 8’s cash transfer statement, and the copy of each account book, etc., the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) From around 2005, Nonindicted Party 2 created cash by requesting Nonindicted 29 to purchase promissory notes or checks and exchange them in cash. Nonindicted 29 exchanged promissory notes or checks through 31 et al., and delivered them to Nonindicted 2 by means of exchanging them on October 2006, KRW 100 million around October 2007, KRW 100 million around October 2007, KRW 50 million around June 2008, KRW 30 million around June 25, 2008, and then distributing them to Nonindicted 1 in shopping bags.

(B) From 2008, Nonindicted 2 directed the managing director of Nonindicted 8 Company 76 to “to prepare cash by making use of the transaction with Nonindicted 8 Company,” and created cash in such a way that the managing director of Nonindicted 76 was engaged in business through Nonindicted 50 and Nonindicted 51, the representative of Nonindicted 77 Co. 51. The representative of Nonindicted 50, the representative of Nonindicted 77 Co. 2, 2008, the managing director of Nonindicted 76, KRW 30 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 300 million, KRW 300,000,000 won, KRW 50,000,000,000 won, around October 28, 2008, KRW 2008, KRW 108,000,000,0000,000 won, around 28, 2000,000 won, around 28, 2008.

(C) Nonindicted 52 lent KRW 50 million in cash to Nonindicted 2 on October 2007, and KRW 650 million in cash on April 14, 2008.

(D) Nonindicted 30 repaid approximately KRW 194 million to Nonindicted 2 in cash over 19 times from January 2007 to October 2007.

(E) From February 2007 to October 2007, Nonindicted 2: (a) withdrawn KRW 96 million from Nonindicted Co. 59; (b) Nonindicted Co. 23; (c) Nonindicted Co. 7; and (d) withdrawn KRW 76 million from Nonindicted Co. 20 as the provisional payment; and (c) withdrawn KRW 69 million from the passbook in the name of the family; and (d) created cash from the passbook in the name of the family.

If any of the above facts is arranged, it shall be as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 공소외 29 공소외 50 공소외 51 공소외 52 공소외 30 기타 06. 10. 1억 원 ？ ？ ？ ？ 07. 10. 1억 원 ？ ？ 5천만 원 3억 5,900만 원 08. 1. ？ ？ 3억 원 ？ ？ 08. 4. ？ 3억 원 2억 원 6억 5천만 원 ？ 08. 6. 3억 5천만 원 3억 원 ？ ？ ？ 08. 7. ？ 3억 원 ？ ？ ？ 08. 8. ？ ？ 1억 원 ？ ？ 08. 9. ？ ？ 2억 원 ？ ？ 08. 10. ？ 5억 원 4억 원 ？ ？

(2) In light of the above details of raising funds, Nonindicted 2’s following statements regarding the source of funds offered to the Defendant are highly reliable.

(A) The source of cash KRW 500 million delivered to the defendant around October 2007.

With respect to the source of KRW 500 million delivered at around October 2007, Nonindicted 2 stated that Nonindicted 2 made cash 2-300,000 won received by Nonindicted 29 upon the request of Nonindicted 29 to exchange in cash, cash 2-30,000 won in cash, and cash 2-30,000,000 won in cash borrowed from Nonindicted 52, which were in custody in the house at ordinary times, are consistent with the facts recognized above.

(B) KRW 1.1 billion delivered to the defendant on April 2008.

As to the source of KRW 1.1 billion delivered to Nonindicted 76 on April 2008, Nonindicted 2: (a) instructed Nonindicted 76’s regular director to “to prepare cash by using a transaction with Nonindicted 76; and (b) Nonindicted 76’s regular director, through Nonindicted 50 and Nonindicted 51, the representative of Nonindicted 78 Co. 50 and Nonindicted 78 Co. 51, respectively, to provide KRW 1.1 billion by adding up KRW 3-40,000 in cash borrowed from Nonindicted 52 to KRW 6,50,000 in cash borrowed from Nonindicted 52 in the house; and (c) around April 2008, Nonindicted 208, when the conclusion of a stock transfer contract was discussed with the Defendant, but it was not prepared to think of cash; (d) Nonindicted 76’s regular director, who borrowed money from Nonindicted 52 prior to the conclusion of the transfer contract, made a statement to lend it, consistent with the facts acknowledged earlier.

(C) KRW 1.06 billion delivered to the Defendant on September 2008.

As to the source of KRW 1,00,000,000 delivered around September 2008 to Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2: (a) prepared cash worth KRW 2-300,000,000,000 prepared by Nonindicted 50 and Nonindicted 51, the representative Nonindicted 77 Co. 50 and Nonindicted 78’s representative Nonindicted Co. 51, together with the cash worth KRW 1,000,000,000,000,000 received from Nonindicted 29; and (b) stated that the cash remaining after the payment to the Defendant was made by exchanging Nonindicted 29 for a check and used for the company’s capital; (c) consistent with

(C) the date, place, and method of giving money or valuables;

Nonindicted Party 2 stated that Nonindicted Party 2 was carrying cash over three times in 2007 A (the period from September to October), spring in 2008 (the period from April to May), and B in 2008 (the period from September to October) and granted it to Nonindicted Party 1 by going up to Seoul and going up to Seoul. According to the details of the use of credit cards and the details of the Habs, Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 1 are in accord with the above statements of Nonindicted Party 2, as the records that were listed on September 5, 2008 at Seoul.

Non-Indicted 1 purchased 10 million won from the international market located in Busan City in accordance with Non-Indicted 2's instruction in 2007. On October 2007, 2007, 50 million won in cash was placed in two roads for the above travel (30 million won, 200 million won) and moved to the between the vehicles of the defendant in the vicinity of the office of the defendant. Around April 2008, 1.1 billion won in cash was moved to the between the vehicles of the defendant, 3.5 billion won in cash for travel (350 million won, 350 million won, 300 million won in Busan City), and 1.3 billion won in cash for travel, 1.5 billion won in Seoul, 3 billion won in the between the vehicle of the defendant, 1.5 billion won in the between the vehicle of the defendant, 3 billion won in the between the two parking lots, 1.6 billion won in Seoul, and 3 billion won in the between the defendant, and 1.5 billion won in Seoul.

In addition, the defendant also recognized the fact that the non-indicted 2 stopped on the road side near his office around October 2007 and moved the bank containing KRW 500 million to the ridge of his own vehicle.

In addition, Nonindicted 3’s driver, Nonindicted 3, around October 2007, around April 2008, and around September 2008, it stated that there was a fact that Nonindicted 1 met the Defendant, a driver of the Defendant, and around April 2008. On the request of the Defendant’s office, there was a article for the transfer of a room from Nonindicted 1 on the parking lot for the Defendant’s office, so that there was a request from Nonindicted 1 for a request to open a set line, so that the space can be loaded up and the space can be loaded up by opening a set line, and that Nonindicted 1 can be loaded in the shopping bags by opening a set line, and around September 2008, Nonindicted 1 stated that at ○○ hotel around September 2008, Nonindicted 1 is memory about what is the Defendant’s vehicle.

Therefore, considering that the testimony of Nonindicted Party 2 on the date and time, place, and method of offering money to Nonindicted Party 1 was consistent with Nonindicted Party 3’s statement, and Nonindicted Party 1’s statement on Nonindicted Party 2’s online parking lot, and Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that it would have been consistent with objective data, such as Nonindicted Party 1’s failure, and Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that it would be difficult to secure credibility of the statement. On the other hand, Nonindicted Party 1 stated that Nonindicted Party 3’s statement was not consistent with Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that it would have been made on October 207, 207, and that Nonindicted Party 1’s statement was not consistent with the Defendant’s statement that it would have been made on the road near the Defendant’s office. On the other hand, Nonindicted Party 2 stated that it was not consistent with Nonindicted Party 3’s statement that it would have been Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that it would have been made on the front page of the vehicle.

(v)the consistency;

Non-Indicted 2 made the pertinent statement four times at the prosecutor’s office, under the cross-examination of the Defendant and the cross-examination at the prosecutor’s office, and through three times in the presence of the Defendant in this court. In light of the fact that Non-Indicted 2 made a consistent statement in the main part of the statement, it is highly reliable in light of the following circumstances: (a) while making a statement in various circumstances, there are consistency in the statement; (b) the circumstances, such as the various cross-examination and leading question of the defense counsel; and (c) the examination that appeals to the appraisal, such as mentioning the relationship between Non-Indicted 2 and the Defendant; and (d) the circumstances where Non-Indicted 2’s testimony among Non-Indicted 2’s testimony, which caused considerable psychological pressure, such as

6) Relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted 2

Around 196 when Nonindicted 2 established and operated Nonindicted Co. 59 and Nonindicted Co. 22, Nonindicted Co. 2 came to know of the Defendant on the introduction of the Defendant around 200, and around 200, the Defendant came to know of the same person who was in Korea and was working for Nonindicted Co. 59 and Nonindicted Co. 22. However, the Defendant appears to have made efforts to protect the Defendant’s belief that he would have to complete payment of the benefits to the Defendant and that he would be well aware of the same person’s life and that he would be equal in good faith to his business. He would not request another person’s life and would not request another person’s business, and if it is difficult to do so, he would be 22). After that, Nonindicted Co. 2 had received various assistance from the Defendant for business, and then, Nonindicted Co. 2 had been trying to do so in order to protect the Defendant’s confidence in the Defendant. In light of the possibility that Nonindicted Co. 24 did not change the Defendant’s attitude in this case.

7) The circumstances leading to the instant statement

Nonindicted 2 was investigated into the suspicion of embezzlement and was asked for the use of money in cash from the trading company through Nonindicted 29, etc., and was initially concealed, and later made a statement related to the instant case. As to the motive of the statement, Nonindicted 2 made the statement as follows: “In fact, there was no way to vindicate the defense, and there was no way to explain that the Defendant was able to feel true due to the human relationship between the Defendant during the fact, and that he did not pay his personal debt, or written for the company. However, there was no way to continuously pursue the cash size created by it at the prosecution, and there was no way to conceal the cash size created by it. It would result in a vindication that the statement would not be made. This would result in a false statement that leads to a false statement, and that the statement would not be made in light of the thickness, but it seems that the statement was made with the intention of Nonindicted 25 that the statement would not be made with the intention of this case.”

8) Whether there was an interest in obtaining the instant statement

At the time, the total amount related to the charge of embezzlement or breach of trust by Nonindicted Party 2 is about KRW 40 billion. Among them, it appears that there was no particular influence on Nonindicted Party 2’s criminal punishment or the degree of punishment, and there seems to be little benefit to be obtained by making a false statement about this part.

9) Other

Nonindicted 2 stated that the circumstances leading up to the offering of KRW 2.6 billion was the name of the share acquisition price. This appears to have not been made if Nonindicted 2 made a false statement by means of money and other valuables that are not generally accepted. Nonindicted 2 made a very detailed statement about the details, date, time, place, method, source of funds, etc. of the offering of the instant money and other valuables, and the motive for offering the money and other valuables is persuasive. The contents of the statement are consistent with objective data, such as the progress of the work at the Industrial Bank of Korea; the process of the offering of shares; details of the account; details of telephone cards; telephone calls; and it is difficult for Nonindicted 2 to view it as a false statement; there is a balance between the contents of the aid received from the Defendant and the cash provided to the Defendant; Nonindicted 2’s statement appears to have been made by Nonindicted 2 as well as the Defendant’s participation in the offering of money and other valuables; and in light of the fact that Nonindicted 2’s participation in the offering of money and other valuables, it is also consistent with the Defendant 2’s participation.

(c) Details of cash payments for stock acquisition funds;

1) Summary of the assertion

In light of the fact that Nonindicted Party 2 made a statement to the Defendant around 207 that the Defendant would open the shares of Nonindicted Party 2, and that Nonindicted Party 2 would have paid KRW 500 million on three occasions under the pretext of funds for acquiring the shares. However, it appears that Nonindicted Party 2 would have started negotiations on the sale of shares at the time of donation of the shares to his children around January 2, 2008 (see, e.g., Nonindicted Party 2’s statement to his children, the time of donation of shares to his children is December 28, 2007), and there was no agreement on the purchase of shares, and there was no reason that Nonindicted Party 2 offered shares to the Defendant at any time on October 30, 207, including that Nonindicted Party 2 would have sold shares for KRW 70 billion, and that it would have been difficult for the Defendant to offer shares at any time for approximately KRW 700,000,000,000 to KRW 270,000.

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, I would like to find out that the Defendant would have been 70 billion won or more because of Non-Indicted 2’s acquisition of shares, and that it would be difficult for the Defendant to pay 70 billion won or more because of Non-Indicted 2’s offering of shares to Non-Indicted 3 for the following reasons: (a) it would be difficult to conclude that Non-Indicted 2 would have been 0 billion won or more for the Defendant to pay 70 billion won or more; (b) it would be difficult to conclude that Non-Indicted 2 would have paid 70 billion won or more for the Defendant to 70 billion won or more; and (c) it would be difficult to conclude that Non-Indicted 2 would have paid 70 billion won or more for the Defendant’s acquisition of shares. However, it would be difficult to conclude that the Defendant would have paid 70 billion won or more for the Defendant’s acquisition of shares at the time of 200 billion won or more.

한편, 피고인은 이와 관련하여 “ 공소외 2가 2007년 말에 주식을 사달라고 해서 그때는 돈이 없어서 나중에 돈이 생기면 사준다고 이야기하였다. 2008년도에 내가 회장으로 월급을 받게 되었는데 회장이 월급을 받으면 주식도 가지는 것이 명실상부한 회장이 되겠다고 생각했고 공소외 2 부탁도 있어서 공소외 2를 도와준다는 생각으로 주식을 매수하게 된 것이다. 공소외 2가 나중에 주식을 되사줄 수 있다고도 했다. 공소외 2를 도와준다는 생각으로 주식을 매수했기 때문에 어느 회사가 저평가인지 고평가인지, 어느 회사 주식을 얼마에 매수해야 할지와 같은 디테일한 부분까지 이야기하지는 않았다. 내가 주식을 산 형식을 취하고 공소외 2가 그 돈을 다시 돌려주었다는 것은 말이 안 된다. 내가 공소외 2를 통해 돈이나 받아먹고 주식을 사주고 다시 돈을 빼먹을 쫄장군은 아니다”는 취지로 진술하고 있다 주31) .

However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined at this court, ① the Defendant prepared funds by selling three times named shares in the name of his children in 207, and ② the Defendant offered 7 billion won shares to Nonindicted Co. 2 during the process of purchasing shares from May 20, 2008 to June 30, 2008, the Defendant did not appear to have paid 2.6 billion won of the purchase price of shares to Nonindicted Co. 3. The Defendant’s statement that he would have refused to purchase shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 in the above 707 because of the lack of funds from the end of the 2007, on the premise that he would not have any interest in the Defendant’s offering of shares at a certain time. ② The Defendant refused to purchase shares of Nonindicted Co. 3 in the process of offering the shares to Nonindicted Co. 3’s non-Indicted Co. 3’s non-Indicted Co. 2 at the time of offering the shares.

(d) Acceptance of KRW 1.1 billion around April 2008;

1) Summary of the assertion

Although Nonindicted Party 2 stated that he delivered KRW 1.1 billion to the Defendant on April 16, 2008, Nonindicted Party 2, however, there was no advance promise to deliver money between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2 on or before April 16, 2008, and there was no cash content between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2 on the day when he delivered the money. The Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2 did not reach a maturity on April 16, 2008, ② Nonindicted Party 2 paid money to deliver the purchase fund to the Defendant. Nonindicted Party 2, around April 16, 2008, was preparing for the conclusion of the share purchase contract, Nonindicted Party 2, as well as Nonindicted Party 2, to prepare and deliver two cash to the Defendant. Accordingly, it was difficult to understand that it was reasonable to transfer all of the said KRW 100 million to the Defendant without any need to keep the money remaining. According to Nonindicted Party 1’s statement, it was difficult to understand that the said KRW 100 million was remaining at night 14.15 billion.

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances: (a) Nonindicted Party 1’s statement and Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 5’s statement were made on April 10, 208; (b) Nonindicted Party 1’s statement and Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 2 were Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 5’s statement that Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 5 were Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 5’s statement that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were Nonindicted Party 4 and that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 5’s statement that Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 5 were Nonindicted Party 1 and that Nonindicted Party 2 were Nonindicted Party 4 and that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were Nonindicted Party 4 and that Nonindicted Party 2 were not aware of the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were Nonindicted Party 3’s statement that it was Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 3 were 4000 billion money.

(e) Acceptance of KRW 1,060,000,000 (in the absence of a site) around September 2008;

1) Summary of the assertion

On September 5, 2008, the Defendant did not have to ○○ hotel located in the small and medium-gu Seoul Central District, and in particular, from 14:00 to 18:00 on the same day, the Defendant was located in the △△ hotel located in the Jung-gu Seoul Central District, and thus, the Defendant cannot receive cash from Nonindicted 2 at the ○○ hotel located in the small and medium-gu small and medium-gu Seoul Central District.

2) Determination

A) Whether the date and time of crime is specified

According to the facts charged in this case, the Defendant stated that Nonindicted 2 was paid KRW 1 billion in cash from Nonindicted 2 around September 2008. According to objective data, such as health stand and Habbs, etc. as to whether the date of the crime was specified on September 5, 2008, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 2 was specified as September 5, 2008 by the criminal day as the date of crime on September 5, 2008. In particular, Nonindicted 2 went through a Seoul Tol, around 15:56 on September 5, 2008, and went through a signtol around 17:54 on September 15, 2008, and the Defendant did not prove that it was not established from September 15, 2008 to September 5, 2008.

B) the facts of recognition

According to the following facts, according to the details of telephone communications between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2, the details of hybrids, the response to the request for speed verification by road section of the Seoul Metropolitan Transport Information Center, the response to the request for speed data on the Seoul Urban Highway, the response to the request for speed data on the expressway traffic data by the Korea Highway Corporation, the response to the request for verification on the details of card use by the Korea Highway Corporation, the response to the request for verification on the

(1) The details of telephone communications between the Defendant and Nonindicted 2 on September 4, 2008 and September 5, 2008 are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 시화일 시화시각 통화시간 발신전화번호 상대전화번호 기지국 비고 2008-09-04 10:35:40 0:00:37 (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) (전화번호 2 생략)(피고인 사무실) 마산시진동면 ？ 2008-09-04 10:57:03 177.1 (전화번호 3 생략)(피고인 사무실) (전화번호 1 생략) (공소외 2) 서울 ？ 2008-09-04 11:02:20 191.5 (전화번호 3 생략)(피고인 사무실) (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) 서울 ？ 2008-09-04 12:19:38 48 (전화번호 3 생략)(피고인 사무실) (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) 서울 ？ 2008-09-05 13:57:59 00:22 (전화번호 4 생략)(피고인) (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) GC11 FFFF 퀵보이스 2008-09-05 13:58:06 0:00:17 (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) (전화번호 4 생략)(피고인) GC11 FFFF ？ 2008-09-05 13:59:26 01:45 (전화번호 4 생략)(피고인) (전화번호 5 생략)(공소외 1) 성동구옥수동 ？ 2008-09-05 15:49:47 01:37 (전화번호 4 생략)(피고인) (전화번호 1 생략)(공소외 2) 중구장충동1가 ？ 2008-09-05 16:27:04 0:00:07 0118585700(공소외 2) 0117239600(피고인) 중구장충동1가 ？

(2) On September 5, 2008, around 16:54, 2008, at the first floor of △△△ hotel located in Jung-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul, the Defendant made a settlement by using the Defendant’s corporate card, and the card description is signed by the Defendant.

(3) On September 5, 2008, the Defendant called the Defendant’s company at around 17:40 on September 5, 2008, and the sending base station indicated the call as one of the Seoul Jung-gu Chungcheong-dong.

(4) On September 5, 2008, Nonindicted Party 2 passed Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical E

(5) The route along which a passenger car moves from △△ hotel to ○○ by using the car generally passes along the route, such as the No. 2, as shown in the table (1) of the annexed sheet, and the route through which a tunnel No. 2, 3, is used as shown in the annexed sheet No. 2, as shown in the annexed sheet No. 2 (2). The distance of the route through which a road passes through the road is about 2.4km, Namsan 2, and 3 is short of the route through the road. However, the passage through the tunnel No. 2, 3 is rarely affected by the traffic situation, while the passage through the road via the road is not almost affected by the traffic situation, in particular, in order to go through the road through the road No. 2, 3, and to go through the road No. 2, and the passage through the road No. 3, the passage through the surrounding department should pass through the road No. 2, and the parking lot at the end of the road.

(6) According to the data of the Seoul Transport Information Center, the average transport hours on September 5, 2008, considering the transport conditions by time zone, are as follows.

(A) From around 16:0 to 17:00, in the case of moving from the charging gymnasiums near 16:00 to the ○○ hotel via the tunnels No. 2 and 3, 11 to 12 minutes are required, and 9 to 10 minutes are required until the ○○ hotel enters the base station within the radio wave range.

(B) around 16:00 to 17:00, at the charging gymnasium near △△△△△, about 10 minutes are required for 2 to gymnasium up to the shooting distance.

(C) At around 16:00 to 17:00, approximately 31 minutes are required from Seoul Tolut to the long distance in front of △△ hotel.

(D) At around 17:00 to 18:00, approximately 34 minutes are required from ○ hotel to ○○ Lbridge.

C) Determination

(1) As to whether the Defendant was proved to have been in a △△ hotel located in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul from September 5, 2008 to 18:00, the following facts were examined. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant was in the Jung-gu, Seoul, and around September 15:49, around 16:54, and the Defendant paid the card at the △△△△ hotel's first floor; around 17:40, the Defendant was in the Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and therefore there is room to view that it continued to existed in the △△△△ hotel from around 15:49 to 17:40.

(2) However, if the defendant moves from △△ hotel to ○○ hotel on the route through which the defendant passed the tunnels Nos. 2 and 3 in Namsan 2 and 12 minutes, the actual route is viewed as a route for the defendant's independent use, and if he makes a payment at the card shop at △△ hotel, around 16:54, if he makes a payment at the card shop at the △△ hotel, he would be deemed as having finished the primary usage at the △△ hotel. Thus, it cannot be deemed that it is impossible for him to go to ○○ hotel from 16:54 to 17:40.

(3) Meanwhile, if the Defendant 16:54 to 17:40 reached the ○○ hotel with the route through which he passes the tunnel No. 2 and 3 in Namsan, the Defendant appears to have arrived at the ○○ hotel at approximately 17:10 if he takes account of the time from which he she was on the first resort from △△ hotel to pay off with a credit card at around 16:54, and then he was on the way from △△ hotel to 17:4, and he was on the ○○ hotel at the latest about 17:25. Thus, even if it is not impossible for the Defendant to bring up the ○○ hotel between 16:54 and 17:40, it is necessary to collect money from Nonindicted 2 and 17:17:25 between 17:10 and 17:25.

(A) First, we examine whether it is possible for the Defendant to collect money from Nonindicted 2 in ○○ hotel between 17:10 and 17:25.

Since the time Nonindicted 2 passed through a boardtol set is about 17:54 hours, and the time required for Nonindicted 2 to move from 000 to c to c toptol set is about 34 minutes (the above time is the expected time at an average rate calculated based on the remaining data, excluding the data of excessive vehicles, and if the traffic situation from c to ctoptol set is smooth, such as Nonindicted 1’s statement, it is likely that Nonindicted 2 might arrive within 30 minutes), it is deemed that Nonindicted 2 started from c to c toptol set on around 17:20-25.

In addition, at around 15:56, Non-Indicted 2 passed through the Seoul Toluart, and around 16:27, it appears that Non-Indicted 2 would go to the ○○ hotel by using the route through which Non-Indicted 2 passes the tunnel of Namsan 2 and 3, not the passage of the tunnel of Namsan 2 and 2, and it appears that Non-Indicted 2 went to the ○○ hotel by using the route through which Non-Indicted 2 passed the land. In view of the fact that September 5, 2008, which was the gold day before the beginning of the next New Year’s Year Year’s Year Year’s Year Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Day, it is also possible to view Non-Indicted 2’s ○ hotel arrival time as around

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to view that Nonindicted 2 met the Defendant at the ○ hotel between 17:10 and 17:25.

(B) Next, we examine whether the Defendant is consistent with other statements or objective data, with the fact that the Defendant received money with Nonindicted 2 from 17:10 to 17:25.

① On September 5, 2008, Nonindicted Party 2: (a) met at the 0th day of the day with a sports string; (b) it was thought that Nonindicted Party 2 would break out to the public bath before entering Seoul; and (c) Seoul would have come to a shower and satch in the public bath before entering Seoul; (d) as soon as possible, Defendant 2 got to a hotel at ○○○ hotel, and was going to a coffee shop at 00,000, and came to the public bath near Gyeonggi-do, and then came to the public bath at 0 hours after the shower. Nonindicted Party 1 told Nonindicted Party 1 to the public hotel at 0,000, and then came to the public hotel at the same time as the Defendant’s hotel at 00,000 after the rest of the shop.

② Nonindicted 1 found ○○ hotel by Nonindicted 2’s ending in a bath, Nonindicted 2 called “the place of promise was changed.” After taking a bath, Nonindicted 1 left the hotel. After taking a bath, Seoul was scambling Nonindicted 2 on the part of Nonindicted 2 on a several occasions on an expressway. Since time was bread, Nonindicted 2 passed through Seoul Tolle, Nonindicted 30 minutes was sent at the highest speed of 30 minutes on the part of Nonindicted 2. Nonindicted 2, a driver of the Defendant, who was an underground parking lot, sent Nonindicted 3, a short time on the part of Nonindicted 3, a short time on the part of Nonindicted 4, a short time on the part of Nonindicted 3, a short time on the part of Nonindicted 3, a short time on the part of Nonindicted 4, a short time on the part of Nonindicted 3, a short time on the part of Nonindicted 3, a short time on the part of Nonindicted 3, a short time on the part of Nonindicted 4.

③ Nonindicted 3, at ○○○ hotel, is memorying Nonindicted 1’s candlelight assembly or dialogue with Seoul Scenic. Nonindicted 3, who talked with Nonindicted 1 at the same time, is memoryed that “The last unit of the money at the same time, is a motherer.” Although Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3, who was asked at ○○ hotel, Nonindicted 1, was in place on the vehicle on the day on which Nonindicted 1 came back to her delivery, was asked as Nonindicted 1, and the Defendant was asked as “ how to take things on the vehicle.”

Although there are some differences in the statements made by Nonindicted 2, 5, and 3 in detail, the main part is ① Nonindicted 2, who was called Seoul, received the phone from the Defendant while going in Seoul, ② the Gyeonggi-do Echeon Tol-Tol-Tol-to-be, ③ the Defendant arrived at the ○○ hotel and sent the money to a driver, ④ the short time of writing at the ○○ hotel, ④ the fact that the statement made by the relevant persons is short of the time of writing at the ○○ hotel, ⑤ the fact that the statement made by the relevant persons is related to the fact that the statement was made to the creative source through a commercialtol-to-bet, without contradiction.

In addition, among the main parts of the above statement, ① The facts correspond to the aforementioned objective data, such as the following: (i) the details of this currency (the defendant and the non-indicted 2 attempted to make a telephone call or made a telephone call around September 5, 2008, around 13:57, 13:58, 13:59; and (ii) the facts correspond to the following objective data: (iii) the fact that the defendant and the non-indicted 2 took place between the defendant and the non-indicted 2, around 17:10:59, around 13:56, around 15:56, around 17:56, around 17:54).

However, the part of Non-Indicted 2’s statement that “I go back to a near Tol, near the Defendant’s phone” does not fit the fact that the Defendant’s telephone was 13:59 hours and that the time passed to Echeon Tol is 13:56 hours, and that “I am going to the Defendant by telephone. I am going to the Defendant “I am going to the Defendant? I am to the Defendant? I am to the ○○ hotel? I am to the ○○ hotel? I am to the ○○ hotel shop? I am to the ○○ hotel shop? I am to the Defendant’s phone (13:59) and the part that “I am to the 30 minutes because I passed to the Seoul Tol, I am to the end, I am to the effect that I am to the extent of 30 minutes” was not consistent with the objective facts of Non-Indicted 2 am in Seoul, and that I am to the end of 31 minutes in Seoul.”

그러나 위 진술들이 사건 이후 2년 이상 지난 시점에서 이루어진 진술이라는 점을 고려하면, 세부적인 부분에서 실제 있었던 사실 또는 실제 이루어졌던 대화와 차이가 있을 수 있고, 특히 전화를 받은 시점과 톨게이트를 빠져나간 시점의 선후 관계( 공소외 2는 애초부터 서울에 진입하기 전 목욕탕에 들러 샤워하고 양복으로 갈아입을 생각을 가지고 있었다), 전화 통화의 내용, ○○호텔 도착까지 걸린 시간(서울톨게이트 통과 후 30분 내에 ○○호텔에 도착한 것 같다는 공소외 1의 진술 부분은 잘못된 것이 분명하다) 등까지 정확하게 기억하여 진술하기는 어려울 것으로 보이는바, 위와 같은 세부적인 부분이 객관적인 자료와 맞지 않는다고 해서 진술의 신빙성이 없다고 하기는 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 공소외 2는 검찰 조사과정에서 “2008. 9. 피고인을 만났을 때 피고인으로부터 ‘오늘 공소외 11이 중국에서 귀국해서 □□대학교 큰 행사가 있는데 참석하지 못했다. 공소외 11 때문에 저녁을 함께 하지 못한다’는 말을 들었다”면서 그 때문에 그 날이 피고인에게 돈을 전달한 날임을 확실하게 기억하고 있다는 취지로 진술하였고, 검찰은 공소외 2의 진술을 청취한 후 공소외 11의 출입국내역을 확인한 결과 2008. 9. 5. 당시 국세청 세무조사를 받던 공소외 11이 귀국하였고, 그 날은 □□대학교와 ◇◇대학교 체육교류전인 □·◇전이 있던 날임을 확인하였는바, 공소외 11 귀국일자에 □·◇전이 있었다는 정보는 공소외 2가 그날 피고인으로부터 듣지 않았다면 알 수 없었을 정보로 보여 그 진술의 신빙성이 높은 점, ② 공소외 2는 경남 지역에 기반을 둔 기업인으로서 서울에 올라오는 일이 흔한 일이 아니고, 공소외 1이 운전하는 차를 타고 서울에 올라오는 일은 더욱 드문 일인데, 2008년 하반기에는 공소외 1과 함께 서울에 올라온 날은 2008. 9. 5. 하루밖에 없는 점에 비추어 공소외 2가 돈을 전달한 날짜가 2008. 9. 5.이 아닌 다른 날일 가능성은 희박한 점, ③ 공소외 2, 1은 변호인이 2008. 9. 5. 피고인과 만난 장소가 △△호텔이 아니냐는 취지로 유도신문을 할 때에도 ○○호텔에서 만났다고 일관되게 진술하였고, 공소외 3도 공소외 1과 만난 장소를 ○○호텔로 기억하고 있으며, 공소외 1은 ○○호텔 지하주차장에서 돈 가방을 옮겼다고 진술하고 있고( △△호텔에는 지하주차장이 없다), 공소외 1과 공소외 3은 ○○호텔 앞에서 서울시청광장을 바라보며 촛불집회 등에 관한 이야기를 하였다고 일치하여 진술하고 있는바( △△호텔에서는 서울시청광장을 바라볼 수 없다), 공소외 2가 2008. 9. 5. 피고인에게 돈을 전달한 장소를 착각하였을 가능성도 희박한 점, ④ 공소외 2와 피고인과의 관계, 진술로 얻게 될 이해관계 등에 비추어 볼 때, 공소외 2가 금품 공여 사실 자체를 허위로 진술하여 피고인을 무고할 가능성 또한 희박해 보이는 점( 공소외 2가 피고인과의 관계에도 불구하고 진실을 밝히기로 하고 진술을 하는 마당에 공여한 금액을 허위로 부풀려서 진술할 이유도 없다 주46) ), ⑤ 특히 공소외 3은 피고인의 운전기사로서 오랫동안 피고인을 위해 일해 왔고 현재도 피고인의 집 사택에 거주하고 있어 피고인을 무고할 이유가 없음에도 오히려 공소외 2, 1의 진술에 부합하는 진술을 하고 있어 그 신빙성이 높은 점, ⑥ 공소외 2는 일상적인 용무로 서울에 올라올 경우 주로 비행기를 타고 이동하는 것으로 보이는바, 공소외 1과 함께 차를 타고 서울에 올라오는 경우는 짐을 운반하는 등의 어떠한 목적이 있는 경우일 가능성이 큰데, 객관적인 자료에 의하면 공소외 2는 2008. 9. 5. 공소외 1이 운전하는 차를 타고 창원에서 서울까지 올라와서 15:56경부터 17:54경까지 잠시 서울에 머물렀다가 바로 창원으로 내려가고 있고, 2008. 9. 4. 피고인과 4차례 전화 통화를 하고, 2008. 9. 5. 13:57경, 13:58경, 13:59경, 15:49경, 16:27경 피고인과 5차례 전화 통화를 시도하거나 전화 통화를 하는 등(그 중 2008. 9. 5. 13:57경과 13:58경 등 2번은 통화가 이루어지지 않은 것으로 보인다)의 사정을 인정할 수 있어, 공소외 2가 공소외 1이 운전하는 차를 타고 서울에 올라온 목적이 피고인을 만나기 위해서라는 점을 인정할 만한 객관적인 정황이 풍부한 점 등을 종합하면, 공소외 2, 1, 3의 진술은 신빙성이 높다고 할 것이다.

(다) 피고인이 △△호텔에 머무르던 중간에 굳이 ○○호텔로 자리를 옮겨 공소외 2를 만날 이유가 있었는지를 정확히 알기는 어려우나, 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① △△호텔 주차장은 실외주차장으로 시야가 가려지지 않으므로 돈을 건네받기가 다소 부담스러운 반면, ○○호텔 지하주차장은 상대적으로 타인의 주목을 덜 받을 수 있는 측면이 있는 점, ② 피고인은 2008. 9. 5. 09:33경, 14:22경 두 차례에 걸쳐서 ○○호텔 중식당 ‘ ◁◁’에 전화를 한 내역이 있는바, 당일 ○○호텔에서 식사를 할 계획을 가지고 있었던 것으로 볼 여지가 있는 점, ③ 당일 공소외 11이 귀국하는 바람에 피고인의 일정이 급박하게 변경된 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인이 다른 이유로 △△호텔에 머무르던 사이에 잠시 자리를 옮겨 ○○호텔에서 공소외 2를 만날 동기가 없다고 할 수 없다.

(4) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, it is recognized that the defendant and non-indicted 2 exchanged money with ○○ hotel on September 5, 2008. Thus, the defendant's assertion of absence in the field is without merit.

F. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's acquisition is only the shares and not cash

1) Summary of the assertion

If Nonindicted 2 provided funds in his own form for the purpose of offering stocks to the Defendant, so that the Defendant acquired stocks, the acquisition of which is not cash, but stocks. Thus, even based on the facts charged itself, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant received KRW 2.61 billion in cash, which Nonindicted 2 provided, cannot be deemed to have been received by the Defendant.

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., the defendant actually paid the share price, the money actually used by the defendant as the share acquisition price is funds raised by the defendant by selling the shares of his children, ② the defendant does not use the cash received from the non-indicted 2 as the share acquisition price, ③ the time when cash was received from the non-indicted 2 is different from the time of the share purchase and the time of the payment of the share purchase price, the defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired the shares itself without compensation, and it is reasonable to deem that the cash equivalent to the share acquisition price is received from the non-indicted 2. Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

4. Consideration and criminal intent.

A. Summary of the assertion

It is extremely difficult to understand that the payment of the consideration for good offices three times for a period of about one year after the lapse of three years from the time when there was a principal request for good offices and good offices. As such, Paragraph (1) of the facts charged of this case is an example that the interval between the good offices and the receipt of money is completely different from that of the receipt of money and valuables in ordinary good offices, and therefore, it is difficult to establish a criminal schedule.

Non-Indicted 2 not only at the request of the defendant on December 6, 2004, but also at the commencement of the workout program against Non-Indicted 10 corporation, there was no specific promise to pay a price, and there was no talking or promising to provide a monetary case in the course of the workout program several times after the commencement of the workout program to the defendant. Therefore, the money that Non-Indicted 2 contributed to the defendant is not paid in return for the arrangement related to the workout program related to Non-Indicted 10 corporation, but it can be deemed that the money that Non-Indicted 2 contributed to the defendant for a long time is not paid in return for the arrangement related to the workout program related to Non-Indicted 10 corporation, but it is difficult to give the defendant a learning and consultation about the management of the company, and it can be deemed that it was purely provided in the mind of the auditor about giving his friendship to him.

In particular, the Defendant did not recognize that the money received from Nonindicted 2 was the consideration for the mediation related to the issue of the workshop for Nonindicted 10 Co., Ltd., and there was no intention to commit a crime of mediation taking place.

B. Determination

First, with respect to the argument that there is a lack of fixed formation of crime in relation to Paragraph (1) of the facts charged in this case, the crime of receiving money and other valuables is established by "taking or receiving money and other valuables," under Article 7 of the Act on Special Cases. The crime of receiving money and other valuables, etc. is established by "in the name of arranging matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions". It is included in the case where the act of arranging money and other valuables is subject to past or legitimate duties, and if the act of arranging money and other valuables, regardless of which act of arranging money and other valuables was actually performed, it is established (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do8117, Jan. 31, 2008; 2010Do6490, Sept. 30, 201). If there was no explicit promise to receive money and other valuables under the pretext of the act of arranging money and other valuables, if there was no time difference between the act of arranging money and other valuables, then the above crime is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do750, Apr. 14, 206).

다음으로 피고인이 수수한 금품이 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃과 관련된 알선행위의 대가가 아니고, 피고인에게 알선수재의 범의도 없다는 주장에 관하여 보건대, 금융기관 임·직원의 직무에 속한 사항의 알선과 수수한 금품 사이에 대가관계가 있는지 여부는 당해 알선의 내용, 알선자와 이익 제공자 사이의 친분관계 여부, 이익의 다과, 이익을 수수한 경위와 시기 등의 제반 사정을 종합하여 결정하되, 알선과 수수한 금품 사이에 전체적, 포괄적으로 대가관계가 있으면 족하고, 나아가 알선자가 수수한 금품에 그 알선행위에 대한 대가로서의 성질과 그 외의 행위에 대한 대가로서의 성질이 불가분적으로 결합되어 있는 경우에는 그 전부가 불가분적으로 알선행위에 대한 대가로서의 성질을 가진다고 봄이 상당하고( 대법원 2005. 9. 28. 선고 2005도4062 판결 , 대법원 2008. 1. 31. 선고 2007도8117 판결 등 참조), 피고인이 '금품 등을 수수'한 사실을 인정하면서도 알선수재의 범의를 부인하는 경우에는, 이러한 주관적 요소로 되는 사실은 사물의 성질상 범의와 상당한 관련성이 있는 간접 사실을 증명하는 방법에 의하여 이를 입증할 수밖에 없고, 무엇이 상당한 관련성이 있는 간접 사실에 해당할 것인가는 정상적인 경험칙에 바탕을 두고 치밀한 관찰력이나 분석력에 의하여 사실의 연결상태를 합리적으로 판단하는 방법에 의하여야 하는바( 대법원 2002. 3. 12. 선고 2001도2064 판결 , 대법원 2005. 6. 24. 선고 2004도8780 판결 등 참조), 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 공소외 2는 2004. 12. 3.부터 2006. 7.경까지 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 문제와 관련해서 수시로 피고인에게 알선을 부탁하였고, 결과적으로 성공적으로 워크아웃을 졸업하게 되어 계열사 전체의 부도 위기에서 벗어나게 된 점, ② 피고인도 공소외 2가 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃과 관련해서 계속해서 부탁을 해서 좀 짜증이 났다고 진술하고 있는바 주47) , 부탁을 하는 공소외 2의 입장에서는 더욱 그 대가를 지급해야 한다는 마음의 부담을 느꼈을 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 공소외 2는 2004. 12. 3.부터 2006. 7.경 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 문제가 잘 해결될 때까지, 그리고 그 이후에도 수시로 피고인에게 “회장님이 큰 도움을 주셨는데 회장님 체면에 손상만 입히고 면목이 없습니다. 제가 할 수 있는 건 좀 하겠습니다”라고 이야기를 한 점 주48) , ④ 공소외 2는 “제가 할 수 있는 건 좀 하겠습니다”라는 말의 의미에 대해 피고인에게 경제적으로 보답하겠다는 취지라고 이야기하고 있고, 피고인도 위 말의 의미를 경제적인 의미로 이해할 수도 있다는 취지로 이야기한 점 주49) , ⑤ 공소외 2는 2006. 7.경 워크아웃 문제가 해결된 이후 1년이 지난 2007년 여름경 피고인에게 주식을 주는 방안에 대해 논의하게 된 이유에 대해, 2006년 워크아웃 문제가 해결된 이후 피고인에게 보답하고 싶은 마음은 있었으나, 2006년에 공소외 2의 형인 공소외 79가 운영하는 공소외 80 회사가 부도가 나서 지역 사회에 ◈◈그룹 부도설이 퍼져 자금사정이 좋지 않았고, 2006. 7.경에 세무조사를 받게 되고, 2006. 5.경부터 2007. 2.경까지 검찰수사까지 받게 되어 보답할 여건이 되지 않았고, 2007년 여름이 지나면서 회사 사정이 나아지고 해서 보답을 할 수 있었다고 진술하고 있는바, 실제로 2006. 5. 22.부터 2007. 2. 20.까지 검찰수사를 받은 사실이 있는 점 주50) , 등에 비추어 볼 때 워크아웃에 대한 대가지급이 늦어진 이유에 관한 합리적인 설명으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 공소외 2는 2007년 여름경 피고인에게 “회장님, 이때까지 저에게 많은 도움을 주셨는데 보답을 하고 싶습니다. 공소외 7 주식회사 주식을 10% 정도 드리겠습니다. 현재 20~30억 원 정도 되는데, 주식취득대금을 현금으로 드리겠습니다”라고 이야기하여 피고인의 승낙을 얻은 점, ⑦ 피고인과 공소외 2가 친형제처럼 친밀한 관계라는 점을 고려하더라도, 피고인이 수수한 현금의 액수는 26억 1,060만 원으로서 아무런 대가관계가 없는 단순한 감사의 표시로 보기에는 지나치게 큰 금액인 점, ⑧ 공소외 10 주식회사 워크아웃 문제의 해결은 ◈◈ 계열사 전체의 부도 위기를 피하게 된 사건으로 공소외 2의 진술에 의하면 30년 동안 이룬 기업이 하루아침에 없어질 상황에서 피고인에게 큰 은혜를 입은 것이고 주51) , 경제적 가치로 따져보아도 수백억 원 이상의 손실을 회피하는 이익을 얻게 된 것인바, 공소외 2가 피고인에게 지급한 26억 1,060만 원은 그에 대한 대가로는 적정한 금액으로 보이는 점, ⑨ 피고인도 공소외 2가 2007년경 “회장님 덕분에 완전히 회사가 다 잘 되고 살게 되었으니까 필요한 데 쓰십시오”라고 하여 한참 실랑이를 하다가 결국 돈을 받았다고 진술하고 있는 주52) 점

(10) Around 2007, the Defendant stated that the money received from Nonindicted Co. 2 was the meaning of “an audit on the help from 1997 to 2007,” and specifically, “the postponement of bills from Nonindicted Co. 86 in 1999, the increase of the purchase volume of the post-market from Nonindicted Co. 86, and assistance in relation to the issue of the post-market from Nonindicted Co. 10, 100, 53) and transactions between Nonindicted Co. 86 and the affiliated companies were sufficiently included in the Defendant’s trade among the above affiliated companies since May 208, 206, which appears to be an indivisible transaction between Nonindicted Co. 206 and the Defendant’s three hundred and sixty-six (54) as consideration for the receipt of money and valuables, but it appears that there was a big nature of the Defendant’s act of assistance from Nonindicted Co. 286 in 19-199 to 207.

5. Conclusion

If so, it is found that the defendant was guilty that he received KRW 2.61 billion from Nonindicted 2 to three times about the solicitation of mediation related to the workout of Nonindicted 10 Co., Ltd., the defendant received KRW 2.6 billion, and the defendant's various arguments are without merit.

[2] Paragraph (2) of this Article]

1. Dismissal of public prosecution;

A. Summary of the assertion

The facts charged of the crime of acceptance of good offices do not necessarily require that the contents of the public official who is the other party to good offices or the duties thereof be specified. However, in order to establish good offices, the matters of good offices are matters belonging to the public official's duties, and the name of good offices is related to good offices, such as money and valuables. Article 2 of the facts charged of the crime of acceptance of good offices does not clearly indicate what the name of good offices is related to good offices, such as money and valuables, etc., and therefore, it cannot be seen that the facts charged are specified since there is no alternative connection between a series of good offices and a series of profits.

In addition, in the case of giving and receiving compensation for the past brokerage act, the existence of brokerage act is an objective constituent element, and Article 2 of the facts charged of this case does not specify at all what kind the defendant has arranged. In this regard, it cannot be said that the facts charged is specified.

Therefore, Article 2(2) of the instant facts charged does not specify the facts charged, and thus, the prosecution should be dismissed.

B. Determination

In order to establish a crime of acceptance of good offices, the number of money and valuables, etc. for mediation of matters belonging to the duties of public officials, executives and employees of financial institutions is not necessarily required to be made once. The request for good offices is not necessarily required to be made once. If a single criminal intent is the name of good offices for various matters belonging to the duties of public officials, executives and employees of financial institutions, and the good offices continuously receive money and valuables, and the nature of consideration for various good offices is indivisible on the money and valuables received by the good offices, and the whole and a comprehensive quid pro quo relationship is recognized between such good offices and the money and valuables received by the good offices, it is reasonable to deem that a crime of acceptance of good offices has been established by combining them. In such a case, there is no need

In addition, it is not necessary to specify the public official who is the other party to the mediation or the content of his duties in the crime of acceptance of good offices, and it should be viewed as the same even if it is the case of acceptance of money and valuables in the past.

In addition, considering the nature of the offense charged, the specification of the facts charged is sufficient to specify the facts causing the prosecution by pointing out the date, time, place, method, purpose, etc. to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts charged. Even if some of the facts charged are unclear, if the facts charged can be specified along with the stated other matters, and if it does not interfere with the exercise of the defendant's right of defense, it does not affect the validity of the indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do1900, Jun. 25, 199; 200Do2968, Oct. 26, 2001).

Article 2(2) of the facts charged of this case does not individually specify a quid pro quo relationship between public officials or executives and employees of financial institutions and money and valuables received in various ways with respect to the duties of public officials or executives and employees of financial institutions. Although there are parts that are not specifically specified in the contents of duties of public officials or executives and employees of financial institutions subject to good offices, the defendant received a request from non-indicted 2 for good offices for tax investigation, good offices for tax investigation, and bank loan brokerage, and received a benefit, merchandise coupon, etc. in return, and therefore, the defendant specified the facts charged as far as it can be distinguished from other facts charged by pointing out the date

2. Determination of a quid pro quo between continuous payment of money and several mediations

In order for a crime of acceptance of good offices to be established, matters to be arranged are matters belonging to the duties of public officials, executives and employees of financial institutions, and the fact that the name of acceptance such as money and other valuables is related to the arrangement of such matters. Therefore, in cases where a money and other valuables provider continues to pay money and other valuables for the purpose of receiving assistance with respect to various and unspecified pending issues, it is difficult to deem that the crime of acceptance of good offices is established immediately on the ground that the money and other valuables are received with knowledge of such circumstances.

However, if a person who provided money or goods has received specific requests from a public official or an executive officer or employee of a financial institution during the continuous receipt of money or goods, there is room to regard the money or goods received thereafter as compensation for the specific pretext of mediation. However, unlike the case of ordinary arrangement or acceptance in which the money or goods are made on a large day, various types of solicitations are highly likely to occur in various ways. In such a case, it is difficult to conclude that a request made by a person who provided money or goods directly has a relation to the duties of a public official or executive officer or employee of a financial institution, and it is difficult to conclude that a request made by a person who provided money or goods has a relation with the duties of a public official or executive officer or employee of a financial institution immediately. It is reasonable to see that a request made by a person who provided money or goods has a relation with the duties of a public official or executive officer or employee of a financial institution by comprehensively taking into account the contents, process of a request made by a request for money or goods, the authenticity of a request made by a public official or executive officer or employee of a financial institution.

3. Request for good offices and acceptance in connection with the duties of public officials, officers and employees of financial institutions;

(a) Disputes related to reclamation of public waters;

1) Summary of the assertion

There is no fact that Nonindicted 2 explicitly asked the relevant public officials such as the Board of Audit and Inspection to mediate the public waters reclamation dispute. In addition, Nonindicted 5’s preparation and report of the documents related to the public waters reclamation dispute to the Defendant was the primary purpose of reporting to the Defendant on major management issues of the same affiliated companies such as Nonindicted 7 Co. 3, etc., and it was not the purpose of requesting the public officials of the Board of Audit and Inspection, etc. to make a solicitation regarding the public waters reclamation dispute.

피고인은 ▷▷과의 개인적인 친분 관계도 있을 뿐 아니라 ▷▷그룹의 해외출장업무 등을 피고인이 경영하는 공소외 21 주식회사에서 전담하는 등 사업상으로도 밀접한 관련이 있었기 때문에 공소외 7 주식회사와 공소외 19 주식회사와의 공유수면매립분쟁에서 기본적으로 공소외 7 주식회사의 편을 들어 줄 수가 없는 상황이어서 사실상 공소외 2의 부탁을 거절하였다.

피고인은 감사원이나 국민권익위원회 등 공유수면매립분쟁 관련 공무원들에게 어떠한 부탁을 한 사실이 없다. 공유수면매립분쟁 관련 업무를 취급하는 공무원도 아닌 국가정보원 ♤♤지부장 공소외 6을 공소외 2에게 소개시켜 준 것을 들어 알선행위라고 볼 수도 없다.

2) Determination

A) The offense of receiving good offices under Article 3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act is not established only where the public official in charge is specifically specified to make a direct solicitation and arrange for the public official in charge, but it is also established where the public official is given or received money or valuables under the pretext of giving or receiving requests or arranging through intermediary material through which the exercise of influence, etc., as well as where the public official to be solicited is not specifically specified. The intermediate person is not necessarily a public official, and even if a public official is not required to be a public official, it does not necessarily have to belong to his/her duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3600, Jun. 28, 2007, etc.).

B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) From July 25, 2006, Nonindicted Co. 7 promoted “the second public water reclamation project in Han-si area” in reclaiming the area of 160,000 square meters in Han-si, Han-si, Han-si. Nonindicted Co. 7, a dispute arose between Nonindicted Co. 7 and Nonindicted Co. 19 by promoting the “the Han-si Agricultural and Industrial Complex Specializing in Han-si, which buried the adjoining public waters in the above business area from October 16, 2006.”

(2) 공소외 2는 2007. 11.경 피고인에게 공소외 19 주식회사 쪽에 힘을 써서 공소외 7 주식회사 부지 옆에서 공유수면 매립을 하지 못하게 해달라는 취지의 부탁을 했는데, 피고인은 자신과 ▷▷과의 관계 때문에 적극적으로 나서지 않았다 주56) .

(3) Around April 4, 2008, Nonindicted Co. 19 commenced the Public Waters Reclamation Corporation on or around the seventh day of the same month with the approval of an agro-industrial complex implementation plan from the Si on or around April 4, 2008. Accordingly, Nonindicted Co. 7 filed a civil petition with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission for the cancellation and change of approval for an agro-industrial complex. A civil petition against the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission on or around July 29, 2008 was filed with the Board of Audit and Inspection against the Si on or around July 2, 2008. A petition was filed against the Board of Audit and Inspection on or around August 18, 2008. A petition was filed for the revocation and suspension of approval for an agro-industrial complex implementation plan with the Changwon District Court on June 15, 2009.

(4) At around July 2008, Nonindicted 2 filed a civil petition with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission in relation to a public waters reclamation dispute and filed a request for review to the Board of Audit and Inspection. On July 23, 2008, Nonindicted 2 prepared and reported to the Defendant the document that “the current state of a dispute over the reclamation of public waters in the Han-gu area” containing Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 19 companies through Nonindicted 5. On August 11, 2008, “the current state of a dispute over the reclamation of public waters in the Han-gu area”, “the current state of a dispute over the reclamation of public waters in the Han-gu area” on August 20, 2008, and “the details of the request for review and inspection by the Board of Audit and Inspection and the request for review by the Board of Audit and Inspection” on October 11, 2008.

(5) 피고인은 공소외 2의 부탁을 받고 2008. 7. 18. 국가정보원 ♤♤지부장으로 있던 공소외 6에게 전화하여 “친동생처럼 생각하는 공소외 2가 거제지역에서 공소외 7 주식회사를 운영하고 있는데, 공유수면매립과 관련해서 공소외 19 주식회사, 거제시와 분쟁이 있고, 거제시가 공소외 19 주식회사 편만 들어 억울하다고 하니, 만나서 직접 이야기를 들어보고, 도와줄 일이 있으면 내 일처럼 생각하고 도와주라 주58) ” 고 이야기를 하였고, 이후에도 수시로 공소외 6에게 전화하여 공소외 7 주식회사의 공유수면매립분쟁과 관련하여 공소외 2를 잘 도와주라는 취지로 이야기하였다 주59) .

(6) 공소외 6은 2008. 7. 18. 공소외 2, 5를 만나 공유수면매립분쟁에 관한 이야기를 들은 다음 거제시청 담당 국정원 직원을 통해 거제시의 상황을 알아보았고, 감사원 담당 국정원 직원에게 전화를 하여 공소외 5의 휴대폰 번호를 알려주면서 “이 사람들이 억울한 일이 있어서 감사원에 소청을 한다고 하니 통화를 해 보고 도와줄 수 있으면 잘 좀 도와주라”고 하였으며, 2008. 7. 23. 공소외 2, 5에게 감사원 담당 국정원 직원에게 연락해보라고 하면서 감사원 담당 국정원 직원의 휴대폰 번호를 알려주었고, 피고인에게 전화하여 감사원 담당 국정원 직원을 소개시켜주었다고 보고하였다 주60) . 공소외 5는 2008. 8. 7. 감사원 담당 국정원 직원을 만나 공유수면매립분쟁 상황을 이야기하며 감사원 심사청구 진행상황을 알아봐달라고 부탁했다. 감사원 담당 국정원 직원은 심사청구 진행상황을 알아본 후 공소외 5에게 ▷▷그룹 차원으로 움직이고 있어 공소외 7 주식회사에 불리하게 진행되고 있다고 이야기해주었다.

(7) Nonindicted Co. 7’s request for inspection was dismissed on October 9, 2008, and the request for inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection was dismissed on March 17, 2009. Nonindicted Co. 7 withdrawn administrative litigation filed with the Changwon District Court on September 21, 2009.

C) The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court upon the request of the defendant, namely, ① requested the defendant to assist in the reclamation of public waters continuously for three months or longer from July 2008 to October 208; ② The documents reported by the defendant are written in detail to the institution in charge of the above dispute (the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, the Board of Audit and Inspection). The real name of the department in charge of the Board of Audit and Inspection and the person in charge of the affairs at the Board of Audit and Inspection and the Board of Audit and Inspection is not considered as documents because they are written in the real name of the non-indicted 2, and ③ the defendant was passive upon the request of the non-indicted 6, which was made by the non-indicted 19 with respect to the reclamation of public waters by the non-indicted 6, but it was also proved that the non-indicted 2 provided assistance to the defendant through the non-indicted 6's request by the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 6's request.

B. Regarding special tax investigations

1) Summary of the assertion

The Defendant heard Nonindicted 2’s talk that the account tracking is continuing several times, and the preparation was made well for Nonindicted 11’s example, and thereafter, he listened to Nonindicted 2’s speech that the investigation was conducted with Nonindicted 4’s investigation, and the place was conducted with Nonindicted 2’s investigation in the fourth country of investigation, and there was no consent to the request for good offices. At that time, the Defendant was under trial in relation to tax issues, but it is difficult to think that the Defendant was under way to make another person’s tax evasion-related expenses in such circumstances.

The Defendant obtained in advance information from investigation4 of the Seoul Regional Tax Office that Nonindicted Co. 59 will conduct a special tax investigation, and did not inform Nonindicted Co. 2 of it. A tax investigation on Nonindicted Co. 59, etc. was conducted in accordance with normal procedures.

2) Determination

A) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) The Busan Regional Tax Office, from September 14, 2009 to October 14, 2009, performed in-depth analysis on Nonindicted Co. 59, and prepared a report on analysis by deeming the suspected tax problems of Nonindicted Co. 59, including Nonindicted Co. 59, to be KRW 30.4 billion. On October 18, 2009, the Busan Regional Tax Office approved the cross-tax investigation of Nonindicted Co. 59, etc. as the investigation planning by the National Tax Service.

On October 22, 2009, the National Tax Service’s investigation planning division sent a letter to conduct an cross-audit of Nonindicted Co. 59 to the Seoul Regional Tax Office. On October 23, 2009, the Seoul Regional Tax Office established an implementation plan to conduct an cross-audit of Nonindicted Co. 59 and an investigation four teams of Nonindicted Co. 59. The investigation 4 and the investigation4 teams of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a special tax investigation of Nonindicted Co. 59, Nonindicted Co. 10, and Nonindicted Co. 7, etc. from October 29 to January 22, 2010.

(2) Around October 2009, Non-Indicted 2 was subject to a tax investigation conducted with Non-Indicted 11’s investigation and Non-Indicted 4’s inter-indicted 11’s inter-indicted 2, who was in the Defendant’s telephone conversations, but the same affiliated company as the same affiliated company was told to prepare for it, and Non-Indicted 5’s tax investigation may be conducted with Non-Indicted 4’s four countries and four countries and thus, ordered Non-Indicted 2 to thoroughly prepare for all books, documents, and PC files and put them up for all books, documents, and PC files.

(3) After the commencement of the tax investigation, Nonindicted Party 2 called the Defendant to “4 countries have been subject to search and seizure. Do Do Do Do 3. Around December 2009, Nonindicted Party 2 asked the Defendant to “I am Do Do Do 300”, and the Defendant expressed that “I am Do 300” was “I am Do 300,000 so that I am Do 30,000 so that I would 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 d

(4) The Seoul Regional Tax Office terminated the special tax investigation of affiliated companies of the same kind without extending the investigation period, and notified seven companies including Nonindicted 59 Company and Nonindicted 2 of the collection of taxes worth approximately KRW 7.3 billion.

B) The aforementioned facts and the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court as follows: ① Nonindicted 2 had a telephone call of 4 countries around October 2009 and had a talk about the tax investigation with the Defendant; ② Nonindicted 5 had a special tax investigation of 4 countries in Seoul regional tax office only for about a week; ② Nonindicted 4 had a talk about the special tax investigation from Nonindicted 4 countries and prepared various books, documents, and PC files with Nonindicted 2; ③ was anticipated to have a tax amount of 30 billion won in Busan regional tax office as a result of the special tax investigation with Nonindicted 4 countries in Seoul regional tax office; ④ was not extended the period of tax investigation with Nonindicted 40 billion won; ⑤ Nonindicted 26 team leader at the time of initial tax investigation with Nonindicted 44 countries in Seoul and 400 million won, and it was not clear that the Defendant had a special tax investigation of 44 countries in charge of the above internal investigation without any influence on the Defendant’s internal tax investigation.

However, if the crime of good offices taking place money or other valuables under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the duties of public officials or officers and employees of financial institutions, such crime is established regardless of which good offices are actually committed (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6490, Sept. 30, 2010, etc.). Since there is no requirement that the performance of duties of public officials should be denied as a result of good offices, there is no problem in establishing a crime of good offices taking place even if a tax investigation was conducted through normal procedures. ① As seen earlier, the Defendant first asked Nonindicted 2 to prepare for a tax investigation; ② Nonindicted 2 asked the Defendant to the effect that it would be adequate to pay taxes to the extent possible after the commencement of the tax investigation; ③ Nonindicted 2 asked the Defendant to specifically arrange for a tax investigation to the effect that the period of tax investigation would not be extended; ③ Nonindicted 66 made the Defendant’s consent on telephone conversations with the Defendant from 200 to 10.25.16.21.209.

(c) Banking loans;

1) Summary of the assertion

The Defendant’s call, as an advisor of Nonindicted Co. 7’s chairperson treatment, to which Nonindicted Co. 2 had an affiliated company of the same kind similar to that of the same affiliated company operated by us, is the Defendant’s own business who is in charge of adviser’s role. Therefore, the Defendant did not commit the crime of taking office and taking office because of the lack of the other party nature of business

In the case of one bank, although the defendant made a phone call once, the defendant was in the business trip of non-indicted 61, the defendant was actually in the business trip of a foreign country, and the defendant was not able to make a call for the loans of affiliated companies

2) Determination

A) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) Around June 2008, Nonindicted 2 received a loan of KRW 60 billion from the Nonghyup Co., Ltd. and completed the factory of Nonindicted Co. 8 around October 2008. Around March 2009, Nonindicted Co. 2 intended to obtain an additional loan of KRW 20 billion from the Nonghyup due to the shortage of facilities and operating funds of Nonindicted Co. 8 Co., Ltd., but the loan did not disappear.

(2) 공소외 2는 2009. 12.경 피고인에게 농협으로부터 200억 원을 대출받을 수 있도록 도와달라고 부탁하였는데, 피고인은 농협에는 아는 사람이 없으니 우리은행과 하나은행에서 대출을 받을 수 있도록 도와주겠다고 이야기하였다. 이에 공소외 2는 우리은행 350억 원, 하나은행 150억 원의 대출을 추진하였고, 2009. 12. 29. 공소외 5를 통해 ◈◈ 계열사의 기업현황, 자산부채현황, 차입금현황, 미담보물건 현황 등의 내용이 담긴 ‘계열사 현황’이라는 문건을 피고인에게 보내기도 하였으며, 2010. 1. 15.경 피고인의 요청에 따라 공소외 2가 창원에서 면담한 하나은행 창원 ▣▣▣▣지점장 및 우리은행 창원 ▽▽지점장의 이름 등이 기재된 주67) 문건 을 피고인에게 보내기도 하였고, 2010. 3.경 우리은행 대출 추진 상황 등이 기재된 ‘중장비 부품 제조사업 현황 주68) ’ 이라는 문건을 피고인에게 보내기도 하면서 피고인에게 우리은행과 하나은행의 대출이 성사될 수 있도록 부탁하였다.

(3) On March 2010, the Defendant called Nonindicted 54, the president of Nonindicted 96 Co., Ltd., and asked Nonindicted 61, the president of Nonindicted 56, to make a positive review of the loan at the location located in the Changwon. The Defendant requested the same purport twice thereafter. The Defendant made approximately 30 calls between December 23, 2009 and March 22, 2010 to Nonindicted 61, the president of Nonindicted 95 Co., Ltd., the president of Nonindicted 61.

(4) At around April 2010, Nonindicted 2 first expressed in advance that the Defendant should not grant a bank loan or grant a bank loan.

B) It is reasonable to interpret that matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of a financial institution under Article 7 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the case or affairs of all persons other than the person himself/herself refer to the case or affairs of the company where the director received money from the representative director of the company and received a request for solicitation from the representative director of the company and where the above director appears to have managed the affairs as the representative director of the company on behalf of the representative director of the company, he/she shall not be deemed to have made a request for the case or affairs of another person. However, if the defendant was engaged in the business of the company on behalf of the representative director of the company on the pretext of solicitation while he/she received the money from the representative director of the company on behalf of the representative director of the company, he/she shall not be deemed to have been a defendant's own affairs if he/she received the money on the pretext of solicitation by using the company's ordinary affairs for convenience (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do357, Jun. 1

Therefore, in full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the defendant as being aware of the loan of the non-indicted 8 corporation, the above facts and evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, i.e., ① the defendant is not the chairperson or employee of the non-indicted 8 corporation, ② the defendant merely thought the defendant as the chairperson of the non-indicted 21 corporation, and stated that the defendant could not be deemed the chairperson of the non-indicted 7 corporation, ③ although the defendant was recorded in the column for the position on the salary ledger of the non-indicted 7 corporation as the "chairperson", this is merely a fact that the employee in charge of the payment of the defendant's salary is stated in the non-indicted 7 corporation's salary ledger. Considering the detailed contents of the payment of the defendant's salary on the non-indicted 7 corporation salary ledger, there is no basic salary, extension allowance, efficiency allowance, weekly allowance, parking allowance, family allowances, transportation expenses, etc., the defendant did not know that the non-indicted 7 corporation was an executive officer of the non-indicted corporation, and there is no reason for the defendant to be any other defendant company's.

Although the Defendant asserts that there was no act of arranging the loan of Han Bank, the actual act of arranging the loan is not a constituent element of the crime of arranging and taking over the loan, as seen above, the Defendant, upon the request of Han Bank from Nonindicted 2, 209 to March 22, 2010, called approximately 30 calls from Nonindicted 61, the Chairperson of Han Bank, the Chairperson of Han Bank, and ② Nonindicted 2, the Defendant, upon taking account of the fact that Nonindicted 2, at the request of Han Bank, talked about 30 times between December 23, 2009 and March 22, 2010, he can be sufficiently recognized that there was an act of arranging the Defendant for Han Bank.

4. Consideration and criminal intent.

A. Summary of the assertion

The monthly salary and gift certificates that the Defendant received from Nonindicted 2, upon Nonindicted 2’s request, taken office as the Chairperson of Nonindicted 7 Stock Company around January 2008, and gave advice and advice to Nonindicted 2 on the basis of the Defendant’s long experience and know-how as a manager, thereby contributing to the judgment of major management. This is only a legitimate remuneration for giving substantial learning and benefits to Nonindicted 7 Stock Company.

The Supreme Court has established precedents that money and valuables paid in a remote expected sense cannot be the consideration for good offices, and even if it was received, it cannot be the crime of good offices taking office. In this case, when Nonindicted Party 2 wants to give monthly salary to the defendant, and there was a vague expectation that it would not be possible to receive any help in the future at the time of providing a monthly salary or merchandise coupon, and it is not the crime of good offices taking office since there was no request for good offices of public officials or executive officers and employees of financial institutions.

The monthly pay and gift certificates of this case are not money for the arrangement of duties of public officials or executives and employees of financial institutions. In addition, the defendant did not recognize that the above monthly pay and gift certificates are money and valuables for the arrangement of duties of public officials or executives and employees of financial institutions, and the defendant has no intention to commit an act of good offices.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) Around January 2008, Nonindicted Party 2 talked to the Defendant a monthly salary, and paid KRW 30 million per month from February 15, 2008 to January 15, 2009 (Provided, That around April 2008, Nonindicted Party 2 additionally paid KRW 30 million as bonus) and KRW 10 million per month from February 16, 2009 to August 16, 2010.

B) Nonindicted 2, around January 2008, ordered the Defendant to pay KRW 100 million to the department store merchandise coupons, KRW 100 million to the department store merchandise coupons around November 2008, and KRW 100 million to the department store merchandise coupons around January 2009.

2) Determination as to the assertion that monthly wage and gift certificates are payment for management consulting

In light of the following circumstances and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court: ① the defendant gave advice to the non-indicted 2 regarding the issue of entry into the ship of China, the issue of establishment of shipbuilding, and the issue of borrowed stocks; the defendant himself stated that "the non-indicted 2 gave immediate answers to the non-indicted 7 with respect to the management officer"; the defendant did not have any expert analysis or prepared a report. This is because the non-indicted 2 and the defendant had been friendly around 200 and it is difficult to view that the defendant's advice was paid KRW 10 million to the non-indicted 7's general income and KRW 70,000 (the non-indicted 10,000,000,000) for each of the non-indicted 8's salary for the non-indicted 6's total income and KRW 70,000,000,000,000 for the non-indicted 6's salary for the non-indicted 6 corporation.

3) Determination as to the assertion that money or valuables was paid in a remote expectation room

If a person who gives money and valuables seems well to be a recipient of money and valuables, the money and valuables may be provided to him/her at a remote expectation to the extent that there is no possibility that he/she may receive any help or incur any loss, and the recipient of the money and valuables may not be established solely on the basis that the donor received money and valuables with such expectation with the delivery of the money and valuables (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5655 delivered on Nov. 12, 2004, etc.).

However, in the case of this case, since there was a specific request and consent of the Board of Audit and Inspection and the presentation related to the reclamation dispute of public waters around July 2008, the benefits and merchandise coupons paid by Nonindicted 2 after July 2008 shall not be deemed money and valuables given in a remote expectation and are money and valuables given in regard to the mediation of specific public officials’ duties. In addition, since there was a specific request and consent related to the loan of Han Bank and Han Bank around December 2009, the benefits paid after December 2009 cannot be deemed as money and valuables given by Nonindicted 2, as it is money and valuables given in a vague expectation in relation to the mediation of duties of executives and employees of specific financial institutions.

4) Determination as to the assertion that there is no intention to commit a crime of quid pro quo and good offices.

이 사건 알선과 금품수수 사이의 대가관계 및 피고인의 범의에 관하여 보건대, ① 공소외 2는 피고인에게 월급과 상품권을 주게 된 경위에 대하여 “2007. 12.에 대통령 선거가 있었는데 피고인과 대통령은 아주 가까운 사이로 알려져 있었고, 언론에서 권력 실세라는 이야기도 자주 등장하였습니다. 그리고 제가 산업은행 문제 해결 과정에서 피고인이 사회적으로 엄청난 영향력이 있음을 실감한 바 있고, 또한 매우 가까운 분이 대통령으로 당선까지 되게 되어, 대통령 선거(2007. 12. 19.)가 끝나고 나서 제 생각에 피고인에게 월급을 드리면 여러모로 좋을 것이라고 생각되었습니다”, “그 동안 산업은행이라든지 형사사건 등에 도움을 주신 것에 대한 보답도 되고, 저희 회사에서 항상 문제가 되었던 금융기관 대출문제나 세무조사, 그 외 회사운영 과정에서 발생할 수 있는 여러 문제에 대해 많은 도움이 되고, 저의 방어막도 되어 줄 수 있을 것이라는 의미입니다”, “피고인에게 급여를 드림으로써 피고인이 저희 회사의 큰 울타리가 된다는 것입니다. 피고인이 저희 회사에서 월급을 받아갔다는 사실만으로도 나중에 회사에 문제가 생겼을 때 큰 도움이 되지 않겠습니까”, “제 회사는 관계사가 10개이고 신규 투자가 많다 보니 항상 금융권 대출 문제가 발생하였고, 그 동안 회계처리에 있어서도 문제가 있었습니다. 피고인은 인맥도 넓고 영향력도 있으시니까 문제가 생기면 도움을 받을 수 있을 것이라 기대했습니다”, “피고인이 만나는 분들도 많을 것이고 피고인 스스로가 신세진 분들도 많을 텐데 그런 분들께도 사용하라는 의미에서 1억 원씩 상품권을 드리게 된 것입니다. 피고인 스스로가 신세진 분들을 딱히 누구라고 특정하기는 힘들지만 두루두루 쓰시라고 상품권을 드린 것입니다. 그리고 향후 세무조사라든지 형사사건, 금융권 대출 및 회사 운영 과정에서 발생할 수 있는 문제점에 대해 잘 부탁드린다는 의미도 있었습니다”라고 진술하여 회사의 현안 중 피고인의 인맥으로 도움을 받을 수 있는 부분들에 대한 대가임을 밝히고 있는 점, ② 피고인은 공소외 2로부터 월급과 상품권을 받는 의미에 대해 “내가 자기를 도와준 반대급부로 가져왔다기보다는, 형님같은 분이고 자기 회사를 성심껏 도와주고 하니까 마음으로 신세를 갚는다는 생각으로 준 것이지 청탁의 대가로 준 것은 아니라고 생각합니다. 도움의 대가로 받는다는 생각은 한 번도 안했습니다”, “자기는 마음의 진 빚을 갚는 것이겠지만 저는 한 번도 부탁의 대가로 받는다는 생각이 추호도 없었습니다 주79) ”, “그동안에 여러 가지로 자기를 도와준 것하고 앞으로 도움을 기대하고 준 것 아니겠습니까. 반대급부를 준다는 것을 떠나서 내가 도와줬으니까 도와준 마음을 갚으려고 했겠죠 주80) ” 라고 진술하여 진술 자체로 다소 모순되기는 하나 피고인이 공소외 2에게 도움을 줬던 것들에 대한 감사의 의미가 포함되어 있음은 분명히 한 점, ③ 피고인이 공소외 2에게 도움을 줬던 일들의 많은 부분이 공소외 2 스스로 해결할 수 없는 문제, 즉 공무원이나 금융기관의 임직원의 직무에 관한 것인 점, ④ 이 사건 알선의 내용, 즉 공유수면매립분쟁의 해결, 특별세무조사의 무마, 500억 원의 은행 대출은 모두 적지 않은 경제적 이해관계가 달린 문제들인 점, ⑤ 단순히 인간적인 친분관계 때문에 호의로 명절마다 1억 원의 상품권을 주고, 매월 3,000만 원(나중에는 1,000만 원)씩 지급한다는 것은 상식에 부합하지 않는 점, ⑥ 피고인이 공소외 2 외에 다른 사람으로부터 명절 선물 등으로 받은 상품권 중 가장 큰 액수가 100만 원 정도인 점 주81) , ⑦ 피고인은 공소외 2로부터 2008. 7.경부터 2009. 3.경까지 진행된 공유수면매립 관련 국민권익위원회 민원 및 감사원 감사·심사청구, 2009. 10.경부터 2010. 1.경까지 진행된 국세청 세무조사, 2009. 12.경부터 2010. 4.경까지 진행된 공소외 8 주식회사의 우리·하나은행 신용 대출 추진 등과 관련한 알선의 부탁을 받았는데, 2008. 7.~2010. 8.경 월급 명목으로 수수한 4억 원, 2008. 11.경 상품권 1억 원 및 2009. 1.경 상품권 1억 원은 위와 같은 부탁이 실제 이루어지고 있거나 이루어진 후 상당한 기간 내에 수수한 금품인 점 등 당해 알선의 내용, 알선자와 이익 제공자 사이의 친분관계 여부, 이익의 다과, 이익을 수수한 경위와 시기 등의 제반 사정을 종합하면, 이 사건 각 알선청탁과 수수한 금품 사이에 전체적, 포괄적으로 대가관계가 있다고 할 것이다(특히 2009. 12.부터 2010. 8.까지 수수한 월급 명목의 9,000만 원은 공무원의 직무에 관한 알선 대가로서의 성질과 금융기관 임직원의 직무에 관한 알선 대가로서의 성질이 불가분적으로 결합되어 있다).

5. Conclusion

Therefore, it is found that all of the defendants are guilty of violation of special law by giving and receiving KRW 400 million as monthly salary from July 2008 to August 2010, merchandise coupon 200 million from November 2008, and from January 2009 as to financial loan brokerage, and violation of special law by giving and receiving KRW 90 million as monthly salary from December 2009 to August 2010. There are no grounds for all the defendants' various arguments.

1. The instant crime is a case in which the Defendant received KRW 2.61 billion in cash in return for the arrangement related to the workout program for Nonindicted Co. 10, an executive officer or employee of a financial institution, and received KRW 400 million in monthly salary in return for the resolution of public waters reclamation disputes, the resolution of special tax investigation and the mediation of loans by financial institutions, which are duties of public officials or executive officers or employees of a financial institution, and KRW 20 million in gift certificates.

2. According to the records of this case, the Defendant’s social influence is expected to be an enterprise, public office, financial institution, etc., and a considerable number of senior executives and employees of the former and incumbent high-ranking public officials and the former and incumbent financial institutions are likely to be included in the connection of the Defendant. The Defendant received money and valuables by using their status as such in relation to various duties of the public officials or officers and employees of financial institutions. The amount of money and valuables given and received was a large amount of KRW 3.21 billion in total, and the amount of money and valuables given and received was a large amount of KRW 3.21 billion in total; the former Industrial Bank Vice-Governor, Nonindicted 96 Co., Ltd.; and National Intelligence Service staff, etc. were mobilized to exert influence over the duties of public officials

Therefore, it is necessary to eradicate activities of solicitation to public officials or executive officers and employees of financial institutions by using a chain of blood, delay, academic research, etc. like the instant crime, thereby creating a sound social climate and securing fairness and reliability in the performance of duties.

3. However, according to the records of this case, it appears that the defendant was not involved in the issue of the workout program for Nonindicted Co. 10, which was the economic compensation from the beginning, and even when Nonindicted Co. 2 intends to pay the price for the case of the workout program thereafter, the defendant first refused it, and even if he did not request the continuation of Nonindicted Co. 2's request, he can also be recognized that he received it. In addition, the monthly salary is that Nonindicted Co. 2 would be paid by himself, and the gift certificate for the name saving was provided by Nonindicted Co. 2 himself, and it seems that the defendant was not the first demand.

No evidence exists to prove that the aforementioned good offices and the motive and circumstances leading up to the receipt of money and valuables, and various cases have been dealt with normally by the impact of the defendant, the fact relevance of the defendant's provision of money and valuables is recognized and reflected, the defendant's age is 67 years old and the current health conditions are significantly deteriorated, and the defendant's punishment is determined as per Disposition by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as character, behavior, career, and circumstances after the crime.

【Partial Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Mediation)】

1. Parts related to amnesty

A. Summary of the facts charged

In return for solicitation and good offices related to the special amnesty from Nonindicted Party 2 from January 1, 2008, the special amnesty from August 15, 2009, and the special amnesty from February 31, 2009 to August 201, 2010, the Defendant accepted KRW 580 million under the monthly salary, ② around January 2008, ② KRW 300 million in total, around November 2008, around January 2008, ③ from June 2009 to July 2010, KRW 30 million in total, and ③ from June 2009 to July 2010.

B. Determination

1) Article 7 of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Acceptance of Money and Valuables concerning the referral of matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of a financial institution shall be the case where the person who requested the referral of matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of the financial institution and the person who requested the referral of matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of the financial institution receive money and valuables or other benefits under the pretext of the brokerage between the officers and employees of the financial institution (the other party to the referral) who may become the other party to the referral. It is not premised on this, but merely provides the client with the convenience in relation to matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of the financial institution and receives money and valuables in consideration thereof, it shall not be deemed to receive money and valuables concerning the referral of matters belonging to the duties of the officers and employees of the financial institution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005; 2007Do8117, Jan. 31, 2008).

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) On February 3, 2006, Nonindicted Party 2 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (forest) and 3 years in Changwon District Court’s branch branch on February 3, 2006, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 11, 200 of the same month. On February 20, 2007, Nonindicted Party 2 was charged with a violation of

B) While Nonindicted Party 2 was apprehended to be sentenced to a sentence in the above case under a trial in the Changwon District Court in the above suspended sentence judgment, Nonindicted Party 2 heard that there was a large amnesty on the economic person, political person, etc. around November 2007, and made phone calls to the Defendant, “I have come to know that there was a large amnesty at a time,” and the Defendant responded to the Defendant “I have known.” Meanwhile, Nonindicted Party 2, separately from the above, took a specific procedure for amnesty, such as preparing a written petition for amnesty through Nonindicted Party 5 and 93 attorneys-at-law.

On November 2007, Non-Indicted 5 asked the defendant to find out whether Non-Indicted 2 becomes a subject of amnesty, and sent the above contents to the defendant upon the defendant's request that the original district court sent by facsimile the personal information of Non-Indicted 2, the contents of the final decision of suspension of execution, and the case number of the case being tried at the original district court.

After examining whether Nonindicted Party 2 was subject to amnesty, the Defendant made a phone call to Nonindicted Party 2, and talked with Nonindicted Party 2 that “if a case is pending in a trial, he should not have a amnesty.” Accordingly, Nonindicted Party 2 asked Nonindicted Party 2 to help the frith upon the conclusion of the trial, and asked Nonindicted Party 2 to have the frith upon the completion of the trial.”

C) On March 27, 2009, the instant case against Nonindicted Party 2, including the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Embezzlement) was finalized by one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution. Nonindicted Party 2 asked for the help of the Defendant when the trial was completed on April 2009 to May 5, 2009, when the trial was completed on the face of the Defendant, and the Defendant asked for a change in the face of amnesty.

D) In 2009, Nonindicted Party 2 heard that there was an economic amnesty at the end of the year of 2009, Nonindicted Party 2 asked the Defendant to “dominate to make the economic amnesty at the end of this year, so that it may become a amnesty,” and the Defendant responded to “I am aware.”

E) At the end of 2009, only one economic person is a special amnesty, and the remaining economic persons, including Nonindicted Party 2, were not amnesty.

3) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence lawfully adopted and examined by the court: ① there was a large amnesty on the economy at once around November 207; ② there was a need for Nonindicted 5 to look at the specific amnesty procedures; ② Nonindicted 5 called Nonindicted 2’s request to find out the Defendant’s specific amnesty procedures through Nonindicted 93 attorneys, and ③ the Defendant did not have any other way to find that there was a need to know that Nonindicted 2 would not have been subject to amnesty; ② Nonindicted 2 did not have any other way to ask the President of the chamber of commerce and industry to find it difficult for him to find that there was a specific amnesty on the part of Nonindicted 5’s request; ② Nonindicted 2 did not have any other way to request the President to examine the facts of the judgment, the contents of the final judgment on the suspension of execution, and the number of cases on which the Defendant was under trial, and ④ it was difficult to find that there was no other way to ask the Defendant to know whether the Defendant was subject to amnesty or not.

4) Therefore, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that there was a request and consent for the referral of amnesty, it cannot be deemed that the money and valuables received by the defendant are about the intermediation of amnesty. This part of the facts charged is without proof of criminal facts, and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is related to

2. Part receiving KRW 180,000,000 for monthly salary, KRW 100,000 for merchandise coupons, KRW 122,00,00 for steel bars, and KRW 1220,000 for steel bars, in connection with good offices other than amnestys;

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant received money and valuables from Nonindicted 2 in return for a civil petition related to the reclamation of public waters, the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection (hereinafter “Corruption and Civil Rights Commission”) related to the public waters conducted from April 2008 to March 2009, and ② solicitation and good offices related to the tax investigation conducted from October 2009 to January 201, as follows.

(1) From February 2008 to June 2008, KRW 180 million under the pretext of monthly salary.

around January 208, Non-Indicted 2 offered money and valuables to the Defendant at the office of the Defendant located in Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter omitted) along with a solicitation to the effect that “Non-Indicted 2 offered money and valuables to the Defendant with an interest in not only in the dispute of public waters with Non-Indicted 19 Co., Ltd. currently in progress but also in the tax investigation, financial institutions loans, etc. that may occur in the future,” and the Defendant accepted this.

From February 15, 2008 to June 16, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 180 million in total on six occasions in return for solicitation and good offices in disputes over reclamation of public waters, tax investigations, etc., along with cases on which an industrial bank problem was resolved smoothly from Nonindicted 2.

(2) 100 million won for merchandise coupons around January 2008

On January 208, the Defendant received KRW 100,000,00 from Nonindicted 2 in the Defendant’s office, to the effect that the above industrial bank problem was resolved smoothly by Nonindicted 2, and that various pending issues, such as future tax investigation, etc., are well aided.

(3) Amounting to KRW 1220 million for steel bars and steel bars around June 2009 to July 2010.

From June 2009 to July 2010, the Defendant borrowed the form of Nonindicted Co. 2’s operation to donate Nonindicted Co. 2 to Nonindicted Co. 15 incorporated foundation in the operation of the Defendant to Nonindicted Co. 2 in return for solicitation and mediation of public waters reclamation disputes, and received KRW 1.22 billion from Nonindicted Co. 2.

B. Determination

1) Part of KRW 180,000,000 for monthly salary, merchandise coupons 100,000 for merchandise coupons

A) In order to establish the crime of acceptance of good offices, matters to be arranged are matters belonging to the public official’s duties, and the fact that the name of acceptance of money, goods, etc. is related to the intermediation of such matters should be specified to a certain extent. The mere fact that the donor of money, goods, etc. provides money, etc. to a remote expected sense to the extent that it is not likely that the donor would receive any assistance or incur any loss if he appears well to the recipient of money, etc., and the recipient of money, etc. also delivers the money, goods, etc. with such expectation, etc., the crime of acceptance of good offices cannot be established (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5655, Nov. 12, 2004, etc.).

B) At the time of Non-Indicted 2’s proposal of monthly salary and gift certificates to the Defendant around January 2008, the prosecutor asserts that “Non-Indicted 2 made a solicitation to the effect that “Non-Indicted 2 would well solve the problem of industrial banks” and “Non-Indicted 2 would be subject to amnesty upon the completion of the trial. In addition, the public waters dispute with Non-Indicted 19 Co., Ltd. currently in progress, as well as the tax investigation that may occur in the future, financial institutions loans, etc., are actively interested, and even according to Non-Indicted 2’s statement, Non-Indicted 2 would have been able to receive monthly salary from 008 to 00, and there is no other evidence that Non-Indicted 2 would have received or would have received from 0.0 to 200, the public waters loan of Non-Indicted 3 at the time of the request of Non-Indicted 2.0 to 300,000,000 won.”

As to the motive for the payment of monthly salary, Nonindicted 2 stated that the Defendant considered such monthly salary as “for the reason that the nearest person to the Defendant was the president, it is good for the Defendant.” If so, the monthly salary paid from February 2008 to June 2008, and gift certificates paid around January 2008, if the Defendant appears well, it cannot be said that there was a crime of mediation or acceptance of good offices, since it is merely a money and valuables provided at a vague expectation to the extent that it would be possible to help or would be likely to cause damage. Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that there was a crime retroactively to this part of the Defendant’s initial crime on the ground that there was a request for specific mediation from around July 2008, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was aware of the fact that there was an industrial assistance in criminal cases, etc., from the point of view of the Defendant’s request for the payment of the above monthly salary, it is difficult to find that there was no specific evidence that it was an industrial assistance from the point of view that it was in the first 6th of view of view that there was an industrial financing issue.

2) The portion equivalent to KRW 1.22 billion in steel bars and steel frameds

The offense of acceptance of good offices under Article 3 of the Act is established only in cases where a person receives, demands, or promises money, goods, or benefits in connection with the arrangement of matters belonging to the duties of a public official under the law, and where a person other than himself/herself receives, demands, or promises money, goods, or benefits, the crime is not established. However, in the legal doctrine of acceptance of bribe, in cases where a third person allows another person to receive money, goods, or benefits without acquiring directly the money, goods, or benefits, and where the third person acquires money, goods, or benefits as a broker or representative of the third person, or where the third person bears another person's living expenses, etc., or bears another person's obligation to the third person, such as where the third person receives money, goods, or benefits, and where the third person has a relation to the third person's direct receipt of money, goods, or benefits, the above offense may be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8077, Mar. 26, 2004).

검사는, 피고인의 경우 비록 자신이 운영하는 공소외 15 재단법인 명의로 철근·철골을 수수하였으나 ① 위 철근·철골은 피고인이 새로 신축하는 ◐◐◐◐◐ 신축을 위한 것인 점, ② 위 공소외 15 재단법인은 실질적으로 피고인이 단독으로 운영하고 있고 피고인에게만 대표권이 있는 점, ③ 공사계약 상 이미 피고인이 철근·철골을 공급키로 한 특약이 있었던 점, ④ 이 사건 철근·철골을 공급받음으로 인해 피고인이 그 시가에 해당하는 금전상 이익을 직접적으로 취득한 점, ⑤ 이 사건 철근·철골 수수는 부정한 청탁의 대가인 점 등에 비추어 보면 비록 피고인이 공소외 15 재단법인 명의로 기부받았다 하더라도 그 금품수수 행위는 피고인이 직접 수수한 것으로 평가할 수밖에 없다고 주장한다.

그러나 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 공소외 15 재단법인은 2006. 10. 13.경 ◐◐◐◐◐의 설립 및 운영, 해외유출 문화재의 환수, 민속자료 수집 및 전시장 제공, 민속문화 진흥을 위한 문헌의 간행 등을 목적으로 설립된 법인인 점(자산의 총액 1,414,475,000원), ② 피고인은 2009. 6.경 공소외 2에게 “ ◐◐◐◐◐을 새로 지으려고 한다. 철골 공사는 네가 해라”고 하여 공소외 2가 철근·철골을 기부하겠다고 하자, “그건 아니다. 너 말고도 기부할 사람들이 있다”고 하였는데, 공소외 2가 “아닙니다. 제가 철골 공장도 있고 한데 제가 다 알아서 하겠습니다. ◐◐◐◐◐에 영원히 남는 건데 저도 의미 있지 않겠습니까”라고 이야기함에 따라 철근·철골을 기부받게 된 점, ③ ◐◐◐◐◐ 신축공사에 관한 2008. 7. 11.자 1차 주83) 도급계약서 에 의하면, 도급인은 ‘ 공소외 15 재단법인’으로, 수급인은 공소외 94 주식회사로 되어 있는데, 주84) 특약사항 으로 “공사에 필요한 자재 중 이형철근은 전량 도급인의 지급자재로서 공사계약금액에 포함되지 않는다. 철골공사는 계약금액에 포함되지 않으며 모든 시공비용은 도급인이 지급하고 수급인은 시공에 대하여 관리 감독을 책임진다”고 규정되어 있는 점(이러한 점에서 피고인이 철근·철골을 공급키로 하는 특약이 있었다는 검사의 주장은 이유 없다), ④ ◐◐◐◐◐ 공사장소인 서울 성북구 성북동 (지번 3 생략)는 공소외 15 재단법인 앞으로 등기된 공소외 15 재단법인 소유의 토지이고, 그 위에 신축될 ◐◐◐◐◐의 소유권도 공소외 15 재단법인에게 있는 점, ⑤ 재단법인 설립과정에서 그 출연자들이 장래 설립될 재단법인의 기본재산으로 귀속될 부동산에 관하여 소유명의만을 신탁하는 약정을 하였다고 하더라도, 관할 관청의 설립허가 및 법인설립등기를 통하여 새로이 설립된 재단법인에게 아무 조건 없이 기본재산 증여를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마친 이후에까지 이러한 명의신탁계약이 설립된 재단법인에 효력이 미친다고 보면 재단법인의 기본재산이 상실되어 재단법인의 존립 자체에 영향을 줄 것이므로, 위와 같은 명의신탁계약은 새로 설립된 재단법인에 대해서는 효력을 미칠 수 없는 점( 대법원 2011. 2. 10. 선고 2006다65774 판결 등 참조)에 비추어 볼 때 피고인이 공소외 15 재단법인의 유일한 대표라고 하더라도 공소외 15 재단법인의 재산을 실질적인 피고인의 재산이라고 보기는 어려운 점, ⑥ 공소외 2가 철근·철골을 기부하지 아니하였다면 피고인이 자신의 재산으로 철근·철골을 공급해야만 하는 상황이라는 점에 관한 증거가 없는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 이 사건 철근·철골을 공급받음으로 인해 공소외 15 재단법인이 아닌 피고인이 그 시가에 해당하는 금전상 이익을 직접적으로 취득하였다고 보기는 어렵고, 달리 사회통념상 공소외 15 재단법인이 이익을 받은 것을 피고인이 직접 받은 것과 동일하게 평가할 수 있는 관계가 있음을 인정할 증거가 없다.

3) Conclusion

Therefore, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that money and valuables received by Nonindicted 2 prior to July 2008 by specifically requesting the mediation of matters belonging to the public official's duties are money and valuables, the crime of acceptance of good offices cannot be deemed established unless it is established. In the case of iron bars and steel framed, it cannot be deemed that the defendant received such money and valuables, and thus, the crime of acceptance of good offices cannot be established. This part of the facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act without proof of the facts charged. However, inasmuch as it is found that the defendant is guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Acceptance of good Offices) in which

【Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Mediation)】

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant received money and valuables from Nonindicted 2 to April 2010 in return for solicitation and good offices in relation to the promotion of credit loans from Nonindicted 8 corporation, which was proceeding from around December 2009 to around April 201, as follows:

(1) From February 2008 to November 2009, KRW 490 million under the pretext of monthly salary.

From February 15, 2008 to November 16, 2008, the Defendant received the total amount of KRW 490 million over 23 times in return for soliciting and arranging loans from financial institutions, along with the case that the industrial bank problem was resolved smoothly by Nonindicted 2 from Nonindicted 2.

(2) At around January 2008, around November 2008, around January 2008, and around January 2009, each merchandise coupon of KRW 100 million.

Around January 2008, around November 2008, around January 2008, and around January 2009, the Defendant received total of KRW 300 million, including KRW 100,000,00,000, from the Defendant’s office, to the effect that Nonindicted Party 2 assist well in future loans and other pending issues such as financial institutions.

(3) Amounting to KRW 1220 million for steel bars and steel bars around June 2009 to July 2010.

From June 2009 to July 2010, the Defendant borrowed the form of Nonindicted Co. 20, which donated Nonindicted Co. 2’s operation to Nonindicted Co. 15 to Nonindicted Co. 2’s incorporated foundation in return for the solicitation and intermediation in connection with the bank loans, and received KRW 1220 million from Nonindicted Co. 2.

2. Determination

A. Part of the monthly wage of KRW 490 million, merchandise coupon of KRW 300 million

As seen earlier, Nonindicted Party 2 paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant for gift certificates of KRW 100 million and began to pay monthly wages from February 2008 on or around January 2008. At the time of the payment of gift certificates, Nonindicted Party 2 did not seem to have any specific solicitation, i.e., “the head of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council of the local council.”

B. The portion equivalent to KRW 1.220 billion for steel bars and steel bars

공소외 2는 2009. 6.경 철근·철골을 기부하게 된 경위에 관하여, “피고인이 ‘ ◐◐◐◐◐을 새로 지으려고 한다. 철골 공사는 네가 해라’고 하여 ‘제가 알아서 하겠습니다’하고 철근·철골을 기부하겠다는 의사를 표시하자, 피고인이 ‘그건 아니다. 너 말고도 기부할 사람들이 있다’고 하여 ‘아닙니다. 제가 철골 공장도 있고 한데 제가 다 알아서 하겠습니다. ◐◐◐◐◐에 영원히 남는 건데 저도 의미 있지 않겠습니까’라고 이야기한 다음, 철근·철골을 기부하기로 하였다”고 진술하고 있다. 또한 철근·철골을 기부하기로 한 동기에 관하여 “제일 큰 목적은 피고인에게 항상 은혜를 입었기 때문에, 피고인에게 그 동안 많은 부탁을 드렸기 때문에 그에 대해 항상 고마운 마음이 있어 그 은혜를 갚아야 된다고 생각했고, 또 ◐◐◐◐◐이 일반적인 것과 다르니까 기부를 해야 된다는 순수한 마음도 복합적으로 있었다 주85) ” 고 진술하고 있는바, 철근·철골의 기부를 결정한 시점은 2009. 6.경이고(그 이후 2010. 7.경까지의 경과는 위 결정에 따른 이행과정일 뿐이다), 공소외 2가 은행 대출과 관련하여 피고인에게 알선을 부탁한 시점은 2009. 12.경이므로 철근·철골의 기부를 결정할 당시 공소외 2가 감사의 대상으로 보는 것 중에 은행 대출 청탁 부분이 들어있을 수는 없다. 달리 기부 당시 금융기관 대출과 관련된 청탁이 있었음을 인정할 증거가 없다.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge that money and valuables received by Nonindicted 2 prior to December 2009 by specifically requesting the defendant to mediate matters belonging to the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions, the crime of acceptance of good offices cannot be established unless it is recognized that the money and valuables received prior to the above good offices are money and valuables. This part of the facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act without proof of criminal facts. However, inasmuch as it is found that the facts charged in relation to such a single comprehensive crime are guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

[Attachment]

Justices Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Justice)

1) Loans against Nonindicted Company 59’s Industrial Bank that merged with Nonindicted Company 10 on July 1, 2006 are equivalent to KRW 34.3 billion as of December 31, 2008; KRW 26.6 billion as of October 7, 2010; and KRW 13 billion as of October 7, 2010 as of KRW 11 billion as of October 7, 2010.

2) On May 20, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that, after consultation with Nonindicted 2, KRW 140,00 of the shares of Nonindicted Company 7 (1.6% of the total shares issued), KRW 23,100 of the shares of Nonindicted Company 59 (5% of the total shares issued) and KRW 2.61,00 of the shares of Nonindicted Company 23 (10% of the total shares issued) were received from Nonindicted 2.

3) The indictment states that “ Nonindicted Company 19 started with the approval of the show of show, Nonindicted Company 2, around April 2008, stated that “The Defendant explained the situation of dispute with Nonindicted Company 19 and requested the suspension of the reclamation work of Nonindicted Company 19 in response to the request by the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, etc.” However, considering that the Defendant’s statements were comprehensively taken into account, it appears that he made specific solicitation for good offices to the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, etc. after the request for examination by the Board of Audit and Inspection on July 2008, it was insufficient to recognize that he made such solicitation from April 208 only with the telephone content (the investigation record 6995 pages).

4) The indictment is written in the letter of indictment “as of April 2008.”

Note 5) The indictment contains a request or arrangement related to the special amnesty as of January 1, 2008, the special amnesty as of August 15, 2009, and the special amnesty as of December 31, 2009.

Note 6) The written indictment states that, in addition to KRW 20 million, KRW 400 million, the monthly salary of KRW 180 million, from February to June 2008, KRW 2008, KRW 100 million, ② merchandise coupon KRW 100 million around January 2008, ③ KRW 1220 million from June 2009 to July 201.

Note 7) Investigation Records 4021

Note 8) Investigation Records 2233 pages

9) around 2004, Nonindicted 4, who was an adviser for Nonindicted 71 corporation, had 10 floors of the said building.

Note 10) Investigative records 4247 pages

Note 11) Investigation Records 2244 pages

Note 12) Investigation Records 2248 pages

Note 13) Investigation Records 2252 pages

Note 14) Investigation Records 1853 pages

주15) 공소외 2는 검찰조사 당시, “당시 상황에서 피고인이 어느 정도나 도움이 되었다고 느껴졌나요”라는 질문에 “어느 정도 도움이 되고 하는 차원의 문제가 아니었습니다. 검사님이 당시 상황을 잘 모르시는 듯한데, 저희들은 몇 번이나 산업은행 ▤▤▤으로 찾아가서 부탁을 했었고, 제대로 상담도 못해본 채 거절을 당하였던 상황이었습니다. 저희가 보증서 연장을 요청해도 받아들일 수 없다면서 아예 대화가 되지 않았습니다. 보증서 연장을 안 해준다는 것은 곧 공소외 10 회사의 부도를 의미합니다. 그리고 아시다시피 공소외 10 회사나 제가 운영하고 있는 관계사들은 서로 상호보증으로 얽혀 있어 공소외 10 회사 부도 후 3개월 내에 지급보증한 관계사들이 이를 갚지 못하면 관계사들도 다 적색이 떠 버리고(연체로 되어 버리고), 적색이 떠 버리면 금융거래가 중단이 되어 버립니다. 즉 연쇄부도를 피할 수 없는 것입니다. 그런 상황에서 피고인에게 부탁을 하였던 것이고 피고인의 도움으로 산업은행 문제가 어음 문제부터 시작해서 공소외 10 회사 워크아웃 졸업, 흡수합병까지 원활히 해결이 되었던 것입니다. 지금 생각해도 만약 당시 피고인의 도움이 없었다면 관계사 전체의 부도를 피하지 못하였을 것입니다”라고 답변하였다(수사기록 1863, 1864쪽).

(16) Since the end of 2004, Nonindicted Party 2 stated that “I am a great help, I will only damage the body of the president. I will do so? I will do so? I will do so? I will do so? I will do so? I will do so? I will do so? I will do so?” I explain that I would give an economic answer(1867, 1868 pages of investigation record). While I do not know at any time, I would like to see when I want to do so, I would like to see it by this request, and I am my body (665 pages of investigation record).”

Note 17) The Defendant recognized that Nonindicted Party 2 received KRW 500 million from Nonindicted Party 2 on October 2007, and stated that Nonindicted Party 2 paid money by saying, “I think, even if I would like to make it necessary that the president would have been able to fully and have been able to live, I would like to make it possible to see that I would have been able to normalize the company due to this request.” (The Investigation Record 6622 pages).

Note 18) 5360 pages of investigation records

Note 19) Investigative records 5367 pages

Note 20) 5371, 5372 pages of investigation records

Note 21) Investigation Records 6770 pages

Note 22) Investigative Records 1842

Note 23) Investigative records 2098

Note 24) Investigative records 1847

Note 25) Investigative records 1847 pages

Note 26) Nonindicted Co. 80, which was operated by Nonindicted Co. 1 on April 2006 by Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 1, 79, began to talk that Nonindicted Co. 82, who had been seated before Nonindicted Co. 1, 81, would bring about 45% of the shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 81, which was in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2 before Non-Indicted. 1, 2006, “The shares of Nonindicted Co. 81, which were in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2, 80, were put in the name of employees, including Nonindicted Co. 82. It would be natural that the shares will be returned to Nonindicted Co. 1, 70, and the shares will be transferred to Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., which was in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, 706, and it would not be subject to tax assessment if the shares were acquired under the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, but will not be subject to tax assessment.

Note 27) Investigation Records 187, 188 pages

Note 28) 32,33 pages of the Investigation Record No. 1882, 1883, and No. 4 Protocol of Examination of Witnesses against Non-Indicted 2

Note 29) Investigative records 860 pages

Note 30) Investigation Records 1871 to 1873

Note 31) Investigation Records 6618~6620, 6636, 6647

Note 32) On April 2, 2007, the Defendant raised a fund of KRW 6.4 billion with the first sale on May 22, 2007, KRW 7.087 billion with the second sale on May 22, 2007, and KRW 23.49 billion with the third sale on November 6, 2007 (Investigation Record 1347-1352 pages).

Note 33) Investigation Records 131, 441-443

Note 34) Part 25 pages of the 12th trial records

35) In the process of giving up shares to the Defendant, Nonindicted Party 2 tried to have 120,000 won per share out of Nonindicted Party 7’s shares. Nonindicted Party 2 tried to have 120,000 won per share of Nonindicted Party 5’s shares. Nonindicted Party 3,000 won to have 20 to 300,000 won per share of Nonindicted Party 4, which was first 750,000 won in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 to 4,000 won, and 120,000 won in the name of Nonindicted Party 5’s shares, which was first 70,000 won in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 to 350,000 won in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 to 350,000 won in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 to 40,000 won in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 to 300,000 won in the name of Nonindicted Party 2.

36) At the end of the share transfer process, the Defendant dispatched Nonindicted 27, a person in charge of funds of the Defendant, to the Changwon to conduct a practical work. However, Nonindicted 27 did not hold any substantial negotiations related to the purchase of shares, and only delivered the bills determined by Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 28 Accounting Company to the Defendant.

Note 37) The Defendant also recognized that the above 10% was his body at the time of the prosecutorial investigation (the investigative record 6643 pages).

Note 38) Investigative records 4475 pages

Note 39) 91 pages of the second trial record for the examination of Nonindicted Party 1

Note 40) 31 pages of the second trial record for the examination of non-indicted 1

Note 41) 51,52 pages of the fifth trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 2

Note 42) Among the second trial records, the 28-35 pages of the examination of Nonindicted Party 1, and the 1-2 pages of the examination of Nonindicted Party 3 among the third trial records.

Note 43) Part 41 of the 11th trial records

Note 44) 67 pages of the second trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 1

Note 45) 69 pages of the second trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 1

Note 46) Since the amount recognized by the Defendant is sufficient solely for cash KRW 50 million, salary KRW 580 million, gift certificates KRW 300 million, steel bars KRW 1220 million, and steel bars KRW 1220 million, which is the amount recognized by the Defendant, Nonindicted 2 has no reason to pay a false amount.

Note 47) Investigative records 662 pages

Note 48) Investigation Records 1867, 1868, 1871

Note 49) Investigative records 667 pages

Note 50) Investigative records 1949

Note 51) 22 pages of the fourth trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 2

Note 52) Investigation Record 6622 pages

Note 53) Investigation Records 668 pages

Note 54) Investigation Record 7220 pages

Note 55) 29 pages of the fourth trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 2

Note 56) Investigative records 2428 pages

While the facts charged were asked from April 2008, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the request was made prior to July 2008, even if the statements made by Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 5, Defendant and Nonindicted Party 6 were integrated, and it is insufficient to recognize the monetary records (not more than 695 criminal investigation records) alone.

Note 58) Investigative records 6971

Note 59) Investigation Records 6977 pages

Note 60) Investigative records 6984

Note 61) Investigation Records 6971

Note 62) 36 pages of the 6th trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 2

Note 63) 35 pages of the Investigation Record 2447, 10th trial record with respect to Nonindicted 26

Note 64) Investigation Records 2126, 2127 pages

Note 65) Investigative records 6424

Note 66) 6424, 6425 pages of investigation records

Note 67) Investigative records 5613

Note 68) Investigative records 270 pages

Note 69) Investigative records 4170 pages

Note 70) 6212, 6213 of investigation records

Note 71) 80 pages of the fifth trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 2

Note 72) Investigation Records 2158 pages

Note 73) 6212, 6213 pages of investigation records

Note 74) 5, 6 pages of the sixth trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 2

Note 75) Investigative records 4404

Note 76) Investigative records 4426 pages

Note 77) Investigative records 4661

Note 78) Investigative records 4424

Note 79) Investigative records 6687

Note 80) Investigation Records 6696 pages

Note 81) Investigation Records 6690 pages

Note 82) 30 pages of the 7th trial record on the examination of Nonindicted 5

Note 83) Investigative records 4798

Note 84) Investigative records 4812

Note 85) 30 pages of the 6th trial record on the examination of Nonindicted Party 2