2012No2056

A

Defendant and Prosecutor

Lee Jae-seok (Public Prosecution), Park Jong-dae (Public Trial)

Attorney BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Gohap560 Decided June 22, 2012

November 8, 2012

Of the judgment of the court below, the guilty part against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

A penalty of KRW 300 million shall be collected from the Defendant. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of taking property in breach of trust due to 200 million police officers during March 2009 shall be acquitted.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the charge of taking property in breach of trust due to visual waterways among the facts charged in the instant case. However, the Prosecutor appealed only the Defendant’s guilty portion among the lower judgment, and the part of the Defendant’s acquittal was finalized as it is. Therefore, the aforementioned acquittal portion is not included in the subject of the lower court’

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the above facts charged, on the grounds that, among the facts charged in the instant case, it directly admitted the credibility of Co-defendant B’s statement, which is consistent with the point of taking property in breach of trust due to KRW 300 million in police officers during August 2008 and the point of taking property in breach of trust due to KRW 200 million in police officers during March 209, and on the other hand, the Defendant’s statement cannot be trusted.

B. The judgment of this Court

(1) Relevant legal principles

In the instant case, the Defendant and B had several times of money and some of the money was omitted, while the flow of money was considerably complicated, such as several accounts, etc. while the above two parties did not secure data such as the date and time, amount, name, etc. of the money, etc. specifically and objectively adjusted among the above two parties, the above two parties and those who were directly or indirectly involved in the process of entering and leaving money are not consistent with the detailed contents of the statement or are in conflict with some statements among the persons who made the statement. Furthermore, some of the statements made by the Defendant and B are likely to contain false, exaggerated, or misunderstanding. Accordingly, a judge in charge of criminal trials should find out the truth that excludes false, exaggerated, distorted, or clerical errors from among the statements that are contradictory and contradictory based on sound arguments, and identify the substance of the instant case by combining the truth of the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4187, Apr. 28, 2018).

Meanwhile, the establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have such convictions as to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that such convictions may lead to such convictions, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is doubt of guilts, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, June 28, 2012).

(2) The part on property in breach of trust due to the waterways of KRW 300 million in August 2008.

In addition to the following circumstances, the court below's decision that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on this part, which was duly adopted and investigated by the evidence, was just received from B on September 2, 2008 as the principal of investment in stocks and the return of profits from the stocks, and rejected the Defendant's defense suit that did not receive KRW 300 million in compensation for an unlawful solicitation, and that there was no error as alleged by the Defendant. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on this part of the charges.

① We cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion that he paid KRW 100 million in cash to B from April 25, 2007 to April 27, 2007 under the pretext of stock investment.

On the other hand, in the case of a corporation for convenience, the fact that the sum of KRW 100 million was withdrawn from April 25, 2007, KRW 40 million on April 26, 2007, KRW 40 million, and KRW 27,20 million on April 27, 2007, and KRW 100 million on the account (the account number: BO) opened in the name of the corporation is recognized.

그러나 ㉮ 피고인은, 변호인의 조력 하에 검찰 조사를 받으면서 2011. 4. 13.3)에는 'B으로부터 2008년 8월경 내지 9월경과 2009년 3월경 주식 투자 원금과 수익금 반환 명목으로 합계 4억 5,000만 원 내지 5억 원을 받았다. 위 금전을 반환받은 때로부터 3~6개월 전에 B에게 주식 투자금으로 합계 4억 원 내지 4억 5,000만 원을 주었다'고 진술하였고,4) 나아가 2011. 4. 15.에는 '피고인 명의 계좌의 거래내역을 확인하였는데 2008년 8월경부터 9월경 사이에 하나은행에 개설된 계좌(계좌번호 : AL, 이하 '이 사건 2계좌'라 한다)에서 수표로 인출한 합계 2억 7,000만 원을 주식 투자금으로 B에게 교부하였다'고 진술하면서도5) 2008년 8월 이전에 지급된 주식 투자금의 출처에 대하여는 밝히지 못하다가 2011. 4. 19. 변호인을 통하여 검사에게 제출한 주식 투자금의 출처에 관한 소명서를 통하여 비로소 2007년 4월 하순경 이 사건 1계좌에서 인출된 위 1억 원이 최초 주식 투자금의 출처일 수 있다고 주장한 점,6) 나 피고인의 진술대로라면 위 1억 원은 B에게 최초로 지급된 주식 투자금인데도 피고인이 자신 명의의 계좌까지 확인하고서도 이를 쉽게 기억해내지 못하였다는 것도 그렇고,7) 1억 원에 이르는 거액의 현금을 B에게 전달한 방법에 대하여 전혀 기억하지 못하고 있는 것이나8) 첫 거래의 상대방인 B으로부터 1억 원 수수에 관한 영수증 등 증빙자료를 전혀 받지 않은 것 역시 상당히 이례적인 점, 다 피고인은 2007년 4월 하순경 B에게 주식 투자금으로 1억 원을 지급한 후 투자 성과가 좋다는 B의 말을 믿고 2008. 9. 2. B으로부터 2억 6,000만 원을 받을 때까지 약 1년 4개월 동안 위 1억 원을 그대로 맡겨 두었다고 주장 하는데, 피고인 스스로도 G가 2006. 7. 3. 상장될 당시 주식워런트를 행사하기 위해서 약 20억 원을 대출받아 그 이자를 부담하여야 하는 등 경제적으로 그다지 여유가 없었다고 진술하였으므로9) 투자 성과가 검증되지 않은 B에게 지급한 주식 투자금을 장기 간 회수하지 않은 이유를 쉽게 이해하기 어렵고, 나아가 그와 같이 장기간 주식 투자금을 회수하지 않았던 피고인이 2008. 8. 18. B에게 주식 투자금으로 1억 원을 추가 지급하였다가 불과 보름이 지난 2008. 9. 2. 주식 투자금 원금 합계 2억 원(2007년 4월 하순경 투자금 1억 원 + 2008. 8. 18. 투자금 1억 원)과 이에 대한 수익금 명목으로 2억 6,000만 원을 반환받았다는 것도 경험칙상 쉽게 믿기 어려운 점,10) 라 피고인은 2011. 4. 13. 최초로 검찰 조사를 받으면서 '2007. 2. 23.경 있었던 I의 창립 발대식에서 B을 소개받은 후 게임 개발의 진행 상황을 보고 받기 위하여 2~3개월에 한 번 정도 B을 만난 것에 불과하다'고 진술하였는데,11) 위 진술은 2007년 4월 하순경 B에게 주식 투자금 명목으로 1억 원을 주었다는 피고인의 주장과 양립하기 어려운 점 12) 등을 종합할 때, 피고인의 이 부분 주장은 받아들일 수 없다.

(2) The defendant's credibility of B statements on the timing and amount of cash payment is recognized.

Z, which was involved in the preparation of cash delivered by T to the defendant on April 1, 201, stated that the period for which the defendant was prepared to deliver cash from G to AG under the direction of the prosecutor on April 1, 2011 was approximately one month. At the time of (a) the prosecutor did not understand that the defendant paid 100 million won of check to B on August 18, 2008. Thus, without any purpose, the Z appears to have relied on his memory and stated it as above. 6 billion won at the time of investigation by the prosecutor on April 8, 2011. 6 The Z recognized that it was 14 billion won of cash transferred from G to B from 208 to 200 billion won, and that it was not consistent with the objective statement made by the defendant on July 17, 2008 at the time when it was made to the prosecutor on July 15, 2015.

Of course, it is possible for Z to cause mistake for the period in which the cash delivered to the Defendant was prepared. However, as seen below, the Defendant’s assertion that the sum of the amounts withdrawn from the account 18,4360,000 won at the time of August 19, 2008, which was merely 190,000 won, was received in cash from B, is no longer acceptable.

[Attachment 1]

A person shall be appointed.

B. With respect to the amount of cash delivered to the Defendant, B, X and Z do not make a statement with the assent of all the parties.

(a) However, since the investigation agency, B consistently stated that the amount of cash paid to the Defendant during August 2008 to police officers is KRW 300 million, and it is in a position to know the most accurately the amount of cash delivered to the Defendant as the subject of evidence evidence, while X and Z made cash in a bank or used a car at the time when B met the Defendant under the direction of B, it is more likely that the amount of cash delivered to the Defendant will be accurately memory until after the lapse of two years, 22), 6) X and Z statements, it is clear that the amount of cash created by the above two persons at the time exceeds KRW 250 million,00,000,000,000,000 won at the time, and it is also acceptable to consider the credibility of B’s account when it was delivered to the Defendant.

㉰ 검사가, B의 주거지 등에서 발견한 서류 중 'AJ 매출 매입 내역서 '25)에는 "Ten 8月 H 3억"이라는 문구가 기재되어 있다. 한편 B은 '본인이 위 문구를 기재하였는데 그중 "☆Ten"은 매우 중요하다는 의미로서 2008년경에는 피고인에게 돈을 건넨 경우에만 사용하였다'고 진술하였고,26) X는 '위 문구는 B의 글씨이다. 그중 "Ten"은 표가 10개라는 뜻으로 중요하다는 의미이다'고 진술하여 27) 위와 같은 B 진술의 신빙성을 뒷받침하여 주고 있다. 그런데 위 문구의 내용과 B, X의 위 각 진술에 의하면, 위 문구는 '8월경 피고인에게 3억 원을 전달하였다'는 것으로 이해되므로 현금의 지급 시기와 액수에 관한 B 진술의 신빙성을 뒷받침하여 주는 유력한 증거로 평가된 다.28)라 피고인은 당초 검찰에서 '2008년 8월 또는 9월경 B으로부터 2억 5,000만 원을 받았다'고 진술하였다.29) 그런데 이 사건 2계좌에서 2008. 8. 18. 수표로 1억 원이 인출되어 B에게 지급되고 2008. 9. 2. 이 사건 2계좌로 5,000만 원이 입금된 사실이 확인되자 그 때부터 비로소 B으로부터 현금을 받은 날짜를 특정하여 '2008. 9. 2.'이라고 진술하였다.30) 또 B으로부터 받은 현금의 액수에 대하여도 2011. 5. 3. 검찰 조사시에는 'B이 돈을 건네주면서 2억 5,000만 원이라고 하였고 본인이 직접 세어 보지는 않았다'고 진술하였다가31) G의 재경팀 팀장이었던 AU가 아래와 같이 진술한 이후인 2011. 6. 9. 검찰 조사를 받으면서는 'B으로부터 받은 돈의 액수는 2억 6,000만 원이고, 당시 AU를 시켜서 얼마인지 확인해 보라고 하였다'고 진술하였다.32) 한편 AU는 2011. 5. 12. 검찰 조사 시 '피고인의 연락을 받고 2008. 9. 2. G 사무실 이 있는 건물의 1층 주차장으로 갔는데 피고인이 검은색 나이키 스포츠가방을 주면서 현금 2억 6,000만 원이라고 말하였다'고 진술하였고, 33) 원심 법정에서는 '피고인이 위 가방을 주면서 금액을 확인하라고 하여 확인해 보니 그 액수가 2억 6,000만 원이었다'고 진술하였다.34) 그런데 ② 피고인이 마치 B으로부터 현금의 액수를 직접 들었던 것처럼 진술하였다.가 AU를 통하여 현금의 액수를 확인하였다고 진술을 번복한 경위나 AU가 피고인으로부터 현금의 액수를 직접 들었던 것처럼 진술하였다가 피고인의 지시로 현금의 액수를 직접 확인하였다고 진술을 번복한 경위가 모두 석연치 않은 점, ⑥ 피고인은 거래업체 직원인 B과 금전 거래를 한다는 사실이 꺼림칙했기 때문에 B에게 주식 투자 원금 및 수익금 합계 2억 6,000만 원을 현금으로 달라고 요구하였다는 것인데,35) 이와 같이 조심스럽게 B과 금전 거래를 하였던 피고인이 B으로부터 현금이 들어 있는 가방을 받게 되자 자신이 근무하는 G로 돌아와 AU를 위 주차장으로 굳이 불러낸 후 위 가방을 맡기면서 그 안에 현금이 들어 있다는 사실을 알려 주고 나아가 그 액수까지 확인하도록 하였다는 것은 쉽게 이해하기 어려운 점, Ⓒ 피고인과 AU의 관계에 비추어 볼 때 AU가 피고인에게 유리하도록 당시 상황을 왜곡하여 진술할 개연성이 충분히 있는 점 등을 종합할 때, B으로부터 현금을 받은 시기와 그 액수에 관한 피고인과 AU의 진술은 믿을 수 없다.

(3) The part on property in breach of trust due to the waterways of KRW 200 million on March 2009

(A) Presumption (Determination of the flow of funds between the Defendant and B)

1) The following [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2]] :

A person shall be appointed.

However, the flow of funds between the above two persons constitutes a key fact in determining the character of KRW 200,000,000,000 received from a police officer B in March 2009, and thus, it is determined first in the below.

(ii) recognized flow of funds;

A) Part 2 of [Attachment 2]

The reasons referred to in the above (2) are as follows.

B) Of [Attachment 2] 3, 5 (limited to 70 million won check), 7 to 10 parts of [Attachment 2]

In addition, the defendant's statement is consistent with the defendant's statement, and its credibility is recognized as not inconsistent with other evidence.

(iii)the unauthorized flow of capital;

A) Of [Attachment 2] section 1 and 4 (limited to KRW 260 million in the defendant's assertion)

The reasons referred to in the above (2) are as follows.

B) Of [Attachment 2], part B of the [Attachment 2] No. 4 (limited to KRW 120 million of the B’s assertion) stated that the Defendant returned KRW 120 million to the Defendant through X on August 18, 2008 after receiving KRW 100 million of the check from the Defendant in order to pretend the transaction with the Defendant.”

그런데 ① X의 2008년도 다이어리37)에 B이 기재한 것으로 보이는 "G(1억 2천) AS 9月 2日(현금)"이라는 문구가 있기는 하나38) 위 문구 자체에 의하더라도 이는 "G"에서 "AS"로 1억 2,000만 원이 이동하였음을 의미하는 것으로 보는 것이 더 자연스러울 뿐 아니라 앞서 본 것처럼 B은 2008년도에 피고인을 매우 중요하다는 의미로 "☆ Ten"으로 표시하였다는 것이므로 "G"이 피고인을 의미하는 것이라고 단정할 수도 없는 점,39) ② X는 2011. 5. 17. '2008. 8. 29.부터 2008. 9. 2.까지 AJ 계좌에서 현금과 수표를 찾았고 B의 지시로 1억 2,000만 원을 누군가에게 전달하였지만 장소와 인물은 정확하게 기억나지 않는다'는 취지의 진술서 40)를 작성하여 검사에게 제출하였고, 원심 법정에서도 '2008. 8. 29.부터 2008. 9. 2.까지 AJ 계좌에서 1억 9,000만 원을 현금화하기 위하여 인출한 것 같지만 그 용도에 대하여는 알지 못한다'고 진술하는데 그쳐41) 그 증명력이 낮을 뿐 아니라 만약 X가 B의 진술처럼 피고인에게 1억 2,000만 원을 직접 전달한 것이 사실이라면 이를 기억하지 못할 개연성은 매우 낮은데, 2008년 8월 중

It is difficult to find a reasonable ground for B’s false statement on this part while actively stating the facts regarding B’s delivery of cash to the Defendant. ③ Since August 18, 2008, B is not consistent with B’s statement on capital flows between the Defendant and the Defendant, and as seen earlier, B stated that “the above G (120 million) ? 9 billion won was delivered to the Defendant through X on September 2, 2008,” and that it is difficult to find that B’s statement on September 2, 2008, 300 million won was delivered to the Defendant on September 2, 2008; ④ If B’s statement was made, the Defendant paid KRW 120 million to the Defendant during August 2008, 208, 300 million in cash and KRW 95 billion in cash, and it is difficult to find that B’s statement on September 2, 2008, 208, 300 million in cash was 9.5 billion won in cash purchase.

C) Of [Attachment 2] 5 (limited to 30 million won in cash claimed by the Defendant) parts in [Attachment 2]

The defendant asserts that on September 11, 2008, the defendant paid 30 million won of the current check with the stock investment amount of KRW 70 million.

① On May 3, 2011, the Defendant asserted the above assertion only when the prosecutor’s investigation was conducted on May 3, 201, and there is no objective material to support this assertion; ② as if the Defendant asserted, he again paid KRW 30 million out of cash 260 million from B as stock investment money to B on September 2, 2008, the Defendant, who received KRW 260 million in cash with the awareness of a third party, has a large amount of cash, cannot understand the reasons why the Defendant paid KRW 70 million in cash, not in cash, as a check. This part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

D) On September 11, 2008, the [Attachment 2] section B stated that the order was returned by means of remitting KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s borrowed account in September 2008 after receiving KRW 70 million from the Defendant in order to pretend the transaction with the Defendant.”

① In light of the following: (a) a prosecutor widely examined not only the account in the name of the Defendant, but also the details of the borrowed account used by the Defendant; (b) there was no evidence from around September 2008 to the Defendant that could be deemed that KRW 100 million was remitted from the Defendant’s side; and (c) as seen earlier, there was no consistency in the B’s statement on the flow of funds between the Defendant and the Defendant since August 18, 2008; and (d) the above “AJ purchase specifications” contents are also inconsistent with the statements in this part, and there was no other evidence that can be otherwise acknowledged.

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, this paper examines the credibility of B’s statement in line with this part of the facts charged on the premise that the flow of the gold between the Defendant and B, which is strictly proven by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, is as shown below (attached Table 3).

[Attachment 3]

A person shall be appointed.

(B) Determination of the credibility of the B’s statement

B stated to the effect that, upon the Defendant’s request, a relatively consistent fund needs to be provided from the prosecutor’s investigation to the court of the trial, B paid KRW 200 million to the Defendant in return for an illegal solicitation related to the collection of claims against Gman G in March 2009. The above statement made by B, which is directly admitted as evidence that conforms to this part of the facts charged, is insufficient.

However, as seen in the above (a) above, since the credibility of B’s statement on cash flow between the Defendant and B, which is a key premise in identifying the character of KRW 200 million, is considerably weak, it should be more careful in recognizing the credibility of B’s statement. On such premise, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court and the lower court, it is difficult to readily recognize the probative value of B’s statement.

① The Defendants lack consistency in B’s statements concerning the background leading up to the receipt of KRW 270 million in total as a check by the Defendant, and it is difficult to believe the details of the statement in light of the empirical rule.

B은 피고인으로부터 수표로 합계 2억 7,000만 원을 받은 이유에 대하여, ㉮ 2011. 5. 1. 검찰 조사 시에는 '피고인에게 로비자금을 전달하게 위해서 피고인이 주식투자를 한 것처럼 꾸몄다'고 진술하였고,44) ① 2011. 5. 3. 검찰 조사 시에는 수사관이 입회한 상태에서 피고인과 잠시 면담을 한 후 '3억 원을 전달하고 나서 피고인에게 잘 보여야 했고, 그래서 피고인에게 연락하여 주식 거래를 하여 원금보다 많은 돈을 줄 수 있으니 돈을 맡겨 보라고 하자 피고인이 저에게 돈을 보냈다. 피고인에게 돈을 돌려줄 때 자금 추적이 어려운 현금을 사용하거나 차명 계좌를 이용하였던 이유는 피고인이 다칠 수도 있을 것 같아서 본인이 피고인에게 제안을 하였다'고 진술하였으며, 45)다 2011. 6. 9. 검찰 조사 시에는 '피고인에게 3억 원을 전달한 후 J에게 보고하였더니 문제없게 하라고 하여 피고인에게 전화를 하여 "거래의 흔적을 남기자."고 제안하였더니 피고인이 돈을 보내준 것이다'고 진술하였고, 46) 라 원심 법정에서는 '3억 원을 전달한 날 피고인이 문제가 있을 것 같다고 하여 J에게 보고하였더니 J가 자신과 피고인사이에 개인 거래관계를 만들자고 하여 피고인에게 현금 받는 것이 부담스러우면 J에게 수표를 전달하는 방식으로 정확하게 근거를 남기면 되지 않겠느냐고 하니까 피고인이 기사를 통하여 수표 1억 원을 보냈다'고 진술하였으며,47) 아 당심 법정에서는 'J가 자신에게 돈48)을 전달할 때 "문제가 되면 돈을 안 주느니보다 못하니 차라리 이 부분에 대해서 정리하고 넘어 가는 것이 좋지 않겠느냐. 나중에 문제가 되었을 때를 대비하여 정상적인 거래인 것처럼 근거를 남기는 것이 좋지 않겠느냐"고 말하여 주식 거래 형태로 흔적을 남겼다. 3억 원을 전달하는 것이 전부라고 생각하지 않았고 상황에 따라서는 돈을 더 전달해야 되지 않겠느냐는 생각을 가지고 있어서 추가적인 돈의 흐름이 필요하였다'고 진술하였다.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that B had to pay 300 million won in the future while delivering B/L to the Defendant during August 2008. However, it is difficult for the Defendant to easily understand that B/L was 300 million won in cash and that B/L was made with the intent to pay additional money to the Defendant. However, if B/L paid 80 million won in December 2008, it is hard to view that B/L was 80 million won in cash and that it was difficult for the Defendant to receive additional money from the Defendant to receive 10 billion won in cash, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to receive additional money from the Defendant to receive 20 billion won in light of the empirical rule. Furthermore, it is also difficult to view that B/L was 80 billion won in cash, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to receive additional money from the Defendant to receive 10 billion won in advance, and that it was also difficult for the Defendant to receive 200 billion won in cash due to the lack of money from the Defendant.

② It is difficult to readily conclude that the sum of the checks paid by the Defendant was KRW 270 million reverted to I or J.

피고인이 교부한 수표 합계 2억 7,000만 원 중 (가) 2008. 8. 18.자 수표 1억 원의 경우 Z에 의하여 1,000만 원 권 수표 10장으로 재발행된 후 2008. 8. 19. I의 계좌로 입금되었고, (나) 2008. 9. 11.자 수표 7,000만 원의 경우 Z이 5,000만 원 권 수표 1장, 1,000만 원 권 수표 1장 및 100만 원 권 수표 10장으로 교환하였는데, 그중 5,000만 원 권 수표 1장은 2008. 9. 18. I 직원인 V이 X의 지시에 따라 현금으로 교환한 후 B을 위하여 X가 관리 중이었던 국민은행에 개설된 X 명의의 계좌(계좌번호 : BU)로 입금되었고, 1,000만 원 권 수표 1장은 재발행된 후 그중 800만 원은 부동산 공인중개사인 BV에게, 200만 원은 BW51)에게 각 지급되었으며, 100만 원 권 수표 10장은 BX52)(400만 원), V(300만 원), BR(100만 원)에 의하여 사용되었고, 53) (다) 2008. 12, 1.자 수표 1억 원의 경우 V이 액면 5,000만 원 권 수표 1장과 현금 5,000만 원으로 교환하여 2008. 12. 4. 그중 5,000만 원 권 수표 1장을 BY54) 명의 계좌로 송금하였다. 그런데 ㉮ B은 2012. 7. 16, J 등을 상대로 하여 인천지방법원 부천지원 2012가합 5147호로 대여금의 지급 등을 구하는 소송을 제기하였는데 그 청구원인으로 J의 부탁을 받고 2008. 8. 19.경부터 2010. 1. 26.경까지 사이에 수표로 합계 25억 8,684만 원을, 계좌 입금의 방법으로 2009. 2. 5.부터 2009. 2. 13.까지 합계 5억 1,000만 원을 J에게 대여하였다고 주장하면서 J에 대한 대여 내역에 피고인이 B에게 교부한 2억 7,000만 원의 사용처 중 일부인 2008. 8. 19. I 명의 계좌로 입금된 1억 원과 2008. 12. 4. BY 명의 계좌로 입금된 5,000만 원을 포함시킨 점,55) O X, Z, V은 모두 B의 지시에 따라 비자금을 조성하는 역할을 담당하였고 그와 같이 조성된 비자금 중 상당 부분의 사용처가 불분명한 점 등을 고려할 때, 피고인이 교부한 수표 합계 2억 7,000만 원이 I나 J에게 귀속되었다고 단정할 수 없고, 오히려 B에게 귀속된 것이 아닌가 하는 의심이 든다.

③ It is difficult to readily conclude that KRW 200,000 delivered to the Defendant during March 2, 2009 as I’s funds.

The Defendant’s check KRW 200,000,000, which was issued on March 9, 2009, is composed of five of five (5) copies of the six (30,000 won check from AP operated on March 9, 200, which was issued on March 9, 200, by W, a technical director in the name of the Company Bank, which was opened on March 9, 200.

그런데 간 B은 원심 법정에서 2억 원을 마련한 방법에 대하여 '피고인에게 2억 원을 지급할 당시 J에게 보고하자 J가 "자금은 내가 알아서 준비해 볼 테니까 전달할 방법을 찾아서 전달하라."고 하였다. J가 일부는 가지급금으로 뽑았고, 일부는 외부업체를 통하여 회사에 결제되는 돈으로 마련하였다'고 진술하였으나,56) 위 1억 5,000만 원은 2009.3.6. 'AQ→AG→AR→AO'로 자금이 순차 이동하여 마련된 것으로서 AQ가 또는 J와 어떠한 관계인지 전혀 확인되지 않을 뿐 아니라 X는 허위의 세금계산서를 받을 수 있는 업체를 찾아보라는 B의 지시에 따라 AP을 소개받아 AR와 AO 사이에 2008. 10. 5.자 웹사이트 개발 용역 계약을 이미 체결하여 두었다가 이를 이용하여 위 1억 5,000만 원의 비자금을 조성하였던 것이고, 이 외에도 B의 지시에 따라 2~3회 가공거래를 통하여 합계 4억 1,000만 원 정도의 비자금을 조성한 사실이 있다는 것이 므로57) 적어도 X에 의하여 마련된 1억 5,000만 원에 대하여 J가 관여하였다고 단정할 수 없는 점, W 명의 계좌에서 발행된 1,000만 원 권 수표 5장의 경우 W은 원심 법정에서 '자신이 설립한 BZ와 관련하여 투자를 받아 I에 자금을 빌려 달라는 J의 요청에 따라 BZ 발행 주식 10%를 매도하여 그 매매대금 10억 원을 받아 그중 7억 3,000만 원은 에 입금하였고, 나머지 2억 7,000만 원은 J 개인에게 빌려주었는데 그중 일부가 위 거래를 성사시킨 B에게 브로커 피(broker fee) 형식으로 전달된 것으로 알고 있다'고 진술하였고 58), J 역시 당심 법정에서 W으로부터 2억 7,000만 원을 빌려 이를 수수료 등 명목으로 B에게 교부하였다고 진술한 점 등을 고려할 때, 위 2억 원이 I의 자금이라고 확신할 수 없다.

Even if all or part of the above KRW 200 million is funds I, in light of frequent monetary transactions between B and J, it cannot be readily concluded that J used the funds B to pay KRW 200 million in return for illegal solicitation to the defendant.

④ It is also true that the Defendant, who received KRW 300 million in cash, received KRW 20 million as a check and used it as it was in March 2009.

As seen earlier, the Defendant received KRW 300 million in cash from a policeman B in August 2008, and if the Defendant’s statement was made in B, the Defendant would have prepared to commit a crime closely with I in order to prevent his criminal act of breach of trust.

However, it is difficult to easily understand that such a defendant received a check from B without demanding cash from a policeman in March 2009 without making it difficult to trace funds by depositing the check 200 million won from B into the Defendant’s borrowed account.

⑤ The Defendant’s remittance of KRW 32 million to B on April 2, 2009 is not received, and the above remittance is difficult to be compatible with this part of the facts charged.

On February 16, 209, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with BB building B 380,000 won for the above 30 billion won, and on March 27, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 763 million from the instant one account and deposited KRW 32 million in the Defendant’s account on April 2, 2009, 200 won for the reasons that it was difficult for B to receive money from B 30,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the above 30,000 won, and the Defendant did not receive money from B 30,000 won for the reasons that it was difficult for B to receive money from B 30,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the Defendant to return money from B 30,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the reasons that it was difficult for B to receive money from the Defendant 16,000 won for the investigation.

(6) It is probable that KRW 200,000 received from a policeman B in March 2009, as in the defendant's office, shall be money returned after the investment of stocks.

㉮ 피고인은 2005. 11. 2.경부터 AM 명의 증권계좌를 이용하여 주식 거래 64)를 하였고, 2007. 8. 6.경부터 BQ 명의 증권계좌를 이용하여 주식 거래 65)를 하는 등 비교적 활발하게 주식 거래를 하였고, 특히 피고인이 2008. 8. 18. B에게 지급한 1억 원의 경우 그 직전인 2008. 8. 13, BQ 명의 증권계좌에서 회수한 1억 원이 그 자금 출처인 것으로 보이는 점, G B은 BR이나 X 명의로 거액의 주식 거래를 하여 왔고, J, W, BA 등 B 주변 다수의 사람들이 B으로부터 주식 투자금을 맡기라는 제안을 받은 사실이 있다고 진술하고 있는 점, 다 피고인이 2억 7,000만 원에 이르는 거액의 돈을 B에게 투자하면서 거래 내역이나 수익 발생 여부 등을 제대로 확인하지 않은 것이 다소 이례적이기는 하나 피고인으로서는 2008년 8월 중순경 B으로부터 3억 원을 받아 사실상 그 3억 원이 주식 투자에 활용된 셈이고, 2008년 8월 중순경에는 피고인과 B 사이에 매우 두터운 신뢰 관계가 형성된 것으로 보이므로 투자 결과에 대하여 일반적인 주식 투자자와 비교하여 상대적으로 적은 관심을 가졌던 것이 반드시 경험칙에 반한다.고 볼 수는 없는 점, 라 피고인은 당심에 이르기까지 납득하기 어려운 자금 흐름에 기초한 주식 투자를 주장하면서 2009년 3월 중순경 받은 2억 원이 주식 투자금의 반환 명목으로 교부된 것이라고 주장하고 있으나, 이는 2008년 8월 중순경 받은 3억 원을 의식하여 B으로부터 받은 5억 원 전액이 마치 주식 투자와 관련된 것이라고 변명하기 위한 의도에서 비롯된 것으로 보이는 점, 마 당심이 확정한 피고인과 B 사이의 자금흐름에 의하면, 피고인은 B에게 2008, 8. 18. 1억 원, 2008. 9. 11. 7,000만 원, 2008. 12. 1. 1억 원, 합계 2억 7,000만 원을 지급하였다가 2008년 12월경 8,000만 원, 2009년 3월 중순경 2억 원, 합계 2억 8,000만 원을 돌려받은 셈이므로 피고인의 변소와 같이 위 2억 원을 주식 투자에 따른 반환금이라고 보는 것이 경험칙에 현저히 반한다고 단정할 수 없는 점, 아 물론 피고인이 2008. 12. 1. B에게 수표로 1억 원을 교부하면서 당일 피고인의 비서인 AK으로 하여금 국민은행에 AK 명의의 계좌(계좌번호 : CC)를 개설하도록 한 후 2008. 12. 5. AR 명의로 3,000만 원, 2008. 12. 17. Z 명의로 2,000만 원, 2008. 12. 30, Z 명의로 3,000만 원 등 합계 8,000만 원을 AK 명의의 위 계좌로 입금 받는 방법으로 B으로부터 8,000만 원을 받은 것은 주식 투자에 따른 금전 이동으로 보기에 다소 이례적인 정황에 해당하기는 하나, 다른 한편 피고인은 2008. 12. 2. 미래에셋에도 AK 명의의 차명 계좌(계좌번호 : CD)를 개설하여 AM 명의 증권계좌를 통하여 운용 중이던 주식 거래를 위한 자산에서 20,404,160원이 미래에셋에 개설된 위 AK 명의 계좌로 입금되도록 하였고, 또 당심이 확정한 피고인과 B 사이의 자금 흐름에 의하면 피고인은 2008. 12. 1.까지 B으로부터 주식 투자금을 전혀 반환받지 못한 상태였으며, 주식의 경우 현금과 달리 조금이라도 더 많은 이익을 내기 위해서 처분시기를 미리 확정하기 어려운 특성이 있으므로 2008. 12. 1. 1억 원을 새로 투자하면서 그 전에 이미 투자하였던 돈 중 일부를 돌려받은 것이라는 피고인의 설명이 반드시. 불합리하다고 단정할 수 없는 점, B이 피고인으로부터 받은 합계 2억 7,000만 원을 실제로 주식 투자에 사용한 것으로는 보이지 않으나, 피고인은 투자 종목 등을 구체적으로 정하지는 않았다고 진술하고 있고, 이미 상당한 규모로 개인적인 주식 거래를 하고 있었던 B의 입장에서는 피고인으로부터 받은 돈을 일단 필요한 용도에 사용하고 피고인에게 적절한 수익금 명목의 돈과 함께 투자 원금을 반환하면 그만이므로 B이 위 2억 7,000만 원으로 주식 투자를 하였다고 볼 수 없는 사정이 피고인과 B 사이에 주식 투자 약정이 없었다고 단정할 수 있는 유력한 정황이라고 보기는 어려운 점 등을 고려할 때, 피고인의 변소와 같이 위 2억 원이 주식 투자에 따른 반환금일 개연성을 쉽게 배제할 수 없다.

(C) Sub-decisions

In the case of this part of the facts charged, even if based on the flow of self-reliance between the defendant and B recognized differently from the judgment of the court below, there are some exceptional circumstances to conclude that the reason between the defendant and B was pure stock investment since August 18, 2008. At the time of March 2009, I was under considerable pressure from G due to the repayment of unclaimed bonds. At the time of March 2009, I was under a situation where I was under considerable pressure from G due to the repayment of unclaimed bonds, and at least KRW 50 million out of the check received from B was revealed to J as the representative director of the I. In light of the above, it is doubtful that the defendant was not under suspicion that he received KRW 200 million from B in response to an unlawful solicitation that he did not take measures to recover claims from B during March 2009.

However, as seen in the above (b), it is difficult to readily acknowledge the credibility of the statement B, which is a direct evidence that conforms to this part of the facts charged, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, as long as it is difficult to deem that the above KRW 200 million has been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that it may have been paid according to the personal stock investment agreement between the defendant and the B, it is difficult to determine the defendant’s benefit as the defendant’s benefit even

Ultimately, since this part of the facts charged is insufficient to prove the crime, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Of the judgment of the court below, there is reason to reverse the judgment of the court below regarding taking property in breach of trust due to the number of 200 million police officers in March 2009. However, since the crime of taking property in breach of trust and taking property in breach of trust due to the number of 300 million police officers in August 2008 constituted concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of taking property in breach of trust due to the number of 300 million police officers in August 208, the court below

The conviction part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed without examining the defendant's and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

From February 2002 to February 201, the Defendant served as an affiliate of the F Group, as the representative director of the software development and cable broadcasting business chain G, and from February 2006, B served as marketing director and vice president in I, which is an online game development and distribution business entity, from around 2006.

around February 2007, the Defendant entered into a memorandum of understanding that G would invest in I to develop online games using K, etc., which had been holding a domestic copyright at the time, from around 2007 to around 200 billion won, and from around 200, from around 2007 to March 2009, the Defendant paid KRW 3.5 billion to around 200,000,000 won for the total amount of advertising expenses from around 200,000 to around 200,000,000 won under the name of investment expenses for the development of "L" games, and from around 200,000 to around 200,000,000 won for the total amount of KRW 3.5 billion from around 207, 200,000,000,000 from around 20,000,000 from around 20,000.

Therefore, the defendant, the representative director of G, should carefully determine the possibility of the recovery of claims from I and determine whether to make a continuous investment, as well as to take measures such as securing sufficient collateral for the recovery of claims even in the case of continuous maintenance of investment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take any necessary measures to determine whether the Defendant has to make continuous investment in the I and to recover the claim, and did not take any appropriate measures to make an investment in the B Ha in July 2008, and received an illegal solicitation from B Ha to the effect that it does not take any measures to recover the claim against B Ha and did not take any measures to recover the claim against B , and received a bank including KRW 10,000 won in cash at the U coffee shop parking lot located in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, 2008. Accordingly, the Defendant received a delivery of KRW 300 million in receipt of an illegal solicitation with respect to G’s duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. The trial of the defendant and each legal statement in the original judgment;

1. A witness B’s legal statement in the original judgment

1. Each of the original judgments rendered by the witness X, Z and W;

1. Each statement written by the prosecutor about X, Z, AA, AB, and AC of the preparation of the inspection;

1. In the investigation report (main F organization limit and (ju), the appendix of the certified copy of the corporate registry of the Bank of Korea (including the tax invoice, account transaction details, contract, etc. to be submitted to AD), investigation report (see, e.g., attached) (see, e., Table 22), printed out of the account under the name of the Republic of Korea Bank AF (AG) (42), printed out of the account under the name of the Republic of Korea under the name of the AH (AJ) (see, e.g., No. 43), the printed out of the account under the name of the AH (AJ) (see, e.g., No. 74), a copy of the documents stated in the above report, attached to the account transaction details of the IB bank (IJ bank), a copy of the I(

Application of Statutes

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

Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

The defendant's crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under the proviso of Article 357 (3) of the Criminal Code is a relatively high crime that has a relatively high level of social harm and harm to the integrity of transaction in the private economic area, as well as the case amounting to 300 million won. The defendant has a high possibility of criticism in terms of receiving the above 300 million won from I in return for illegal solicitation while he was employed as the representative director of G who can exercise ultimate authority over the recovery of claims from I or investment to I. The above 300 million won seems to have been used for the personal interest of the defendant. In light of the fact that most of the above 300 million won are used for the personal interest of the defendant, the defendant is urgent to conceal the crime, and the defendant does not have an attitude to seriously reflect his mistake, the criminal liability of the defendant is very heavy and strict.

However, the fact that the defendant seems not to have neglected until the illegal act causing property damage to G is committed, that there is no criminal power against the defendant, that the defendant has contributed significantly to the development of G, and that H (G was merged with H around February 23, 2011)'s officers and employees submitted a written application stating that the defendant's prior action was committed, should be taken into account as factors for sentencing favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, occupation and experience, personality and conduct, family relation, etc., all kinds of sentencing shown in the arguments, including the defendant's age, occupation and experience, shall be determined as ordered.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

Around February 2009, the Defendant contacted B with the Defendant and caused a director for the first time, and demanded to change the amount of KRW 200 million as the fund for the preceding time is required. Since then, the Defendant demanded to recover the claim from B to I.

The check was received KRW 200 million under the pretext of the honorarium in a place on which a police officer was not held in March 2009 in receipt of an illegal solicitation to request the horses.

As a result, the Defendant received 200 million won from the illegal solicitation in relation to G’s duties.

2. Determination

As seen in the above 2. B. (3) (27 pages of the judgment), this part of the facts charged constitutes a time when there is no proof of the crime, and thus, is acquitted.

Maximum Judge of the presiding judge

Judges Nown Korea

Judges Dok-woo

1) On June 28, 2012, the Prosecutor’s petition of appeal stating that “the entire remainder of the charges other than those partially acquitted” regarding the scope of appeal shall be indicated as “the whole.”

In addition, on July 13, 2012, "no appeal shall be filed against the acquittal portion" is stated in the first written statement of grounds of appeal on July 13, 2012.

2) This part of the Defendant’s assertion is, in determining the character of cash received from B, whether the amount (whether the cause of KRW 300,000 was 260,000,000) was

B. Prior to the time of payment (as of August 2008, whether it is a policeman or on September 2, 2008), the legitimacy of the decision constitutes a preliminary issue that needs to be confirmed.

3) A statement that at the time the prosecutor paid approximately KRW 250 million in cash to the defendant around August 2008 from Z or X, Z or X, the I employee of the prosecutor.

BA, before being investigated by the prosecution, had the contact with B, who was the head of the G and BP project headquarters, was in flight abroad.

In light of the fact that the defendant divided a conversation on the money transaction between the defendant and the B, the number of cash receipts from the defendant also.

It seems that the investigation was conducted under the recognition that it was included in the investigation subject.

4) Two copies of evidence records 763-764 pages

5) Two copies of evidence recording 821 pages

6) In addition, the Defendant may pay KRW 200 million to the instant account with incentives received from G around January 2007, as incentives.

I argued that there is a claim.

7) The instant one account is one of the main trading accounts in which the Defendant’s benefits are deposited, and the Defendant was investigating with the Defendant’s assistance of counsel.

It does not seem that the details of the account of this case were not verified properly.

8) Three copies of evidence records 2,070 pages.

9) Evidence records 2 764 pages, 3 1,507 pages

10) The Defendant confirmed that the words “B” on the stock investment performance are true, and that the Defendant left a large amount of money worth KRW 200 million to an individual.

Because of uncertainty, it was stated that the return was demanded. However, even based on the defendant's argument, it invested KRW 250 million in the name of B Q by investing in the amount of KRW 250 million.

Before trading shares with securities account on August 13, 2008, the position was found to have suffered approximately KRW 90 million while recovering KRW 100 million finally around August 13, 2008.

Around August 18, 2008, the latter one paid KRW 100 million to B as a share investment deposit, and according to the above argument, the defendant made an investment in B’s shares.

It can only be seen that there was very trust in the ability to make a return of the investment amount immediately after such defendant made an additional investment to B.

It is too rare to say that it was too rare.

11) Two copies of evidence records 761-762 pages

12) Meanwhile, on April 24, 2011, B was investigated for the first time by the prosecution and became aware of the Defendant in the process of establishing a new new prosecution, and on February 2007, B was the first representative director.

J et al., together with the defendant drinks or drinks, and with the invitation of the defendant on April to May 2007, and on almost one month after the golf.

The defendant and B 2, 2007 stated that he met the defendant(3rd 1,324 pages of evidence records), and even based on the above statement, the defendant and B 2

Along to three times is merely a fact.

13) One set of evidence records 88 pages.

14) B Upon the cooperation of the Z, the private business chain is established under the name of the Z, and the private business chain is established under the name of the Z, and on December 12, 2007, the account in the name of the AE in the Bank (the account).

The number: AF and hereinafter referred to as "AG account") was opened, and around March 2008, the mother of the Z establishes an AI which is an individual entrepreneur under the name of AH and is an individual entrepreneur.

AH account (Account Number: AI, “AJ account”) was opened in the National Bank, and each of the above accounts was conducted by Z and X according to B’s instructions.

It was used to raise funds.

15) Evidence records 2 575~ 576 pages

16) Two pages 582 of evidence records, two pages 506 of trial records.

17) The defendant's request on August 18, 2008 to leave 100 million won of stock investment to B, and return the principal and profits of the investment again on that day.

It is very exceptional that the defendant himself/herself has to leave KRW 100 million in a trial, and there is no long time to demand the return of the investment amount to B.

Since it was stated that it was the most favorable to the defendant, the demand for return of the defendant was made on August 19, 2008.

It can only be seen as having existed.

18) On September 22, 2008, B established AR with the representative director as the BS in a de facto marital relationship with it. On September 24, 2008, B established AR with the National Bank.

The AR name account (BT) opened also was used to raise the non-financial resources of B, but at the time is irrelevant to this part of the facts charged.

19) It was excluded where the recipient of the money appears to be irrelevant to the raising of non-funds because of the specified nature of the recipient.

20) Three copies of evidence records 1,594 pages

21) One copy of evidence recording, 370 pages.

22) In fact, with respect to the amount of cash actually paid by B to the Defendant, X has stated that it exceeds KRW 20 million (Evidence 1:76 pages).

D. The degree of KRW 250,000,000 to KRW 30,000,000 to KRW 40,000 to KRW 20,00,000 to KRW 30,00 to 40,00,00 to be directly commercialized

The statement "(2), 576, 585 of evidence records), Z means 200 million won, i.e., e., e., e. 200 million won, i.e., e., e. 50 million won, X.

The statement that he had been given that he had golded (Evidence 1, 88 pages, 2, 574 pages), 25,000 won is the same that he has commercialized.

was (2) No. 585 pages of evidence, however, upon being examined on May 1, 201 with B, the amount of cash would be KRW 300,000,000.

The Z has been 270,000 million won, and there have been a few million won shortage. Whether or not 300 million won has been accurate memory.

I stated that the Z is not "(3rd page 1,411 of evidence records)" (3rd page 1,411 of evidence records), and X is only 250,000,000 won and the horses of the Z are considered appropriate.

and stated that the statement would be correct (3rd page 1,411 of evidence records) and that X also in the court of original instance would be 20 million won.

I stated that the money was raised above, and that the money was insufficient to bring about a withdrawal of money from a certain account. (Public trial period)

Part 1, 462 pages), Z means the money encashed by 'J', 250 million won, and the amount is not memory, but cash by doing X-do emeration work.

I stated that it has been "(2)" (2) trial records, 508, 517.

23) Three copies of evidence records 1,410-1,411 pages.

24) According to the entry of the evidence No. 31-1 (AJ's settlement account book in August 2008), the defense counsel was withdrawn for the purpose of acquiring shares, and was withdrawn on August 2008.

16. Recognizing that the return is recognized and thus, it is irrelevant to the cash delivered to the defendant, but in the case of the above settlement account book, the details of the AJ account;

It is difficult to recognize credibility because it is inconsistent (in fact, 4 million won was deposited at the AJ account on August 16, 2008).

It is only a different thing).

25) Three copies of evidence records 1,578 pages

26) 증거기록 3권 1,410쪽, 즉 "☆Ten이 피고인을 의미한다는 취지이다.

27) One vote 465 pages of the trial records.

28) The defense counsel is likely to ex post facto manipulation since the above statement of purchase and sale of AI appears to have been prepared on the basis of " May 26, 2009".

This assertion, however, argues that there is a description of the 'AJ purchase statement' as shown in the record, and the form and content of the description (in particular, 'N').

The statement of purchase and sale is also written, “12 S. S. S. 8,00 and “3.20 million,” which is then examined by the following:

80 million won deposited in the name of the account and 200 million won delivered to the Defendant during March 2009, etc. shall be deemed to mean 200 million won in check, etc.

In other words, this is merely a vague doubt.

29) Furthermore, at the time, the Defendant had already confirmed the details of his account in his name (Evidence No. 2, 765 pages).

30) Three copies of evidence records 1,478 pages.

31) Three books of evidence 1,484 Above 1,485 pages of evidence records.

32) Three books of evidence records 2,066-2,069 pages.

33) Three copies of evidence records 1,706 pages

34) Two copies of trial records 526~ 527 pages

35) Two books of evidence records 768 pages 768. On the other hand, it is accurate as to whether the Defendant requested B to pay in cash at the court of original instance and the court of a party.

The Defendant stated to the effect that he is not memory. However, at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant received KRW 250 million from the prosecutor in cash.

It has maintained the statement that B requested cash payments while being asked that it is a method used for crime normally, and that B requested cash payments.

In light of the circumstances stated by the Defendant during March 2009, on the ground that the Defendant received KRW 200 million by a check which is not cashed from B, the Defendant

It is difficult to believe that the original statement is reversed.

36) Part which does not coincide with the statements of the above two persons (other than the statements about the character of money, the mere fact that the money was erroneous is about the fact itself.

The sound marking was made in referring to whether or not to be kept.

37) Three copies of evidence records 1,970 pages.

38) B) During the trial, “AS” portion of the above phrase “AS” portion was written in the court, but the entire phrase appears to be written in X-X.

The above statement is difficult to believe when it is based on the direction that the part of the homicide in the court of the lower judgment’s statement (No. 46465 of the trial record) or the above phrase is key.

39) In this respect, the lower court recognized that the Defendant paid KRW 2008, 9, 2.120 million to B through X and recognized that the lower court paid KRW 200,000 to the Defendant.

The court's decision of probative value is erroneous in its main evidence.

40) Three copies of evidence records 1,784 pages

41) One right to trial records 463-4 pages 464

42) B In the investigation by the prosecution on May 1, 201, the KRW 100 million received from the Defendant on August 18, 2008 shall be KRW 80 million in cash as early September 2008, and September 200.

Police Check 55 million won, total of KRW 135 million, was withdrawn from the AJ account and transferred 70 million won received from the Defendant on September 11, 2008.

Won commercialized KRW 90 million through X and remitted it to the account of a person designated by the Defendant. On December 1, 2008, 1.

billion won is KRW 30 million on December 5, 2008, KRW 20 million on December 17, 2008, KRW 200 million on December 17, 2008, KRW 12,300,000 on the account under the name of AK, and KRW 80 million on the aggregate.

(B) the remittance of the remittance of the above 80 million won by reporting this remittance data to the prosecution at that time, and B

The Defendant stated that he further stated that he stated the trial record (as 1st right 426 pages), approximately KRW 84 million (as 3rd right 1,416~1,417 pages of evidence);

43) On September 2, 2008, the Defendant had received cash of KRW 260 million from B on September 2, 2008, but it was from Party B during August 2008.

(1) On September 2, 2008, Sep. 2, 2008, the date and amount of the cash received are merely a false assertion that B made a false statement.

There is no connection with KRW 20 million.

44) Three copies of evidence records 1,415 pages

45) Three copies of evidence records 1,495-1,497 pages.

46) Three books of evidence records 2,072-2,073 pages.

47) One vote 425 pages of the trial records.

48) It seems that it means KRW 300 million paid to the Defendant during August 2008.

49) Since Party B stated in the trial court that there was no clear statement between J and the Defendant that the Defendant will pay additional money, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would not have made a clear statement.

I seem to have never committed such an undertaking.

50) Even after the interview with the Defendant, B still maintained the statement that B provided the Defendant a total of KRW 500 million for an illegal solicitation.

In light of the above, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant made a false statement favorable to the Defendant, taking into account the relationship with the Defendant.

51) It is unclear whether there is any relationship with I or J on records.

52) It is unclear whether there is any relationship with the J on the records.

53) It is unclear that the remaining 2 million won is used.

54) BY is an I-related company with a business objective of developing games.

55) Evidence 30 No. 30 No. 1 submitted by the defendant, while Eul does not arrange a list of the loans of the above-mentioned in the trial, but it is not directly arranged by the defendant.

A check issued to J stated that it was “a lawsuit was brought with the stipulation “loan” as to the cross-loan, and that the above statement was made.

According to I and BY, in the case of a total of KRW 150,000,00,000, it is probable that the "loan" has already been presumed at the time of deposit.

56) One copy of the trial record 423 pages

57) Three copies of evidence records 1,861~1,862 pages.

58) Three pages 1,207 to 1,210 of the trial records.

59) Three copies of evidence records 1,224 pages, 1,263 pages.

60) Three copies of evidence recording 1,330-1,331 pages.

61) Three books of evidence records 1,418-1,419 pages.

62) One right to trial records 425-426 pages

63) One copy of the trial record from 476 to 177 pages.

64) On November 2, 2005, the Defendant deposited KRW 100 million, KRW 60,000,000,000, and KRW 11,000,00 in the name of AM.

65) The Defendant deposited KRW 250 million on August 6, 2007.

66) By the end of the first half of 2008, the amount of debts under the online game online game game game software service contract was approximately KRW 3.5 billion, but the amount of 1 payment was 850 million,00 million.

had been.