Defendant 1 and two others

E.C. et al.

Law Firm Inn Law Firm, Attorneys Yang In-man et al.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three and a half years, and by imprisonment for two years, respectively.

However, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 1 shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A penalty of KRW 70 million shall be additionally collected from Defendant 2.

Of the facts charged in this case, Defendant 1's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and Defendant 3 is acquitted.

피고인 2는 2002. 6. 13. 제3회 전국 동시지방선거에서 여주군의회 의원으로 당선되어 2002. 7. 8.부터 2006. 7. 3.경까지 여주군의원으로 활동하였고, 2006. 5. 31. 제4회 동시지방선거에서 여주군의원으로 재선된 이후, 2006. 7. 4.경 여주군의회 의장으로 선출된 사람으로서, 알미늄샷시 등을 납품하는 공소외 4 주식회사와 자동차번호판을 제작하는 ◁◁자동차번호판제작소를 실질적으로 경영하고 있다.

Defendant 1 is the chairman of Nonindicted Co. 1, and the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 24 and Nonindicted Co. 23, an affiliate.

Nonindicted 2 is the representative director of Nonindicted Company 10 and the partner of said Nonindicted Company 1.

Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2, a golf group in 2000, were first friendly as a member of the “Magsung”. At around 2004, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 gathered that “○○○○○○○” (name “○○○○○”) joint promotion of the new golf course construction project in the middle-west-gun of Gyeonggi-gun, Newnam-ri, and the Lao rate, and determined the Si event as Nonindicted Co. 1 on November 2005.

On January 2, 2006, Nonindicted Co. 1 submitted a draft of an urban management plan to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy for the construction project of ○○○ Golf Course (hereinafter “○○○○ Project”). From that time to January 25, 2006, female Co. 1 presented its opinion through consultation with the relevant departments by January 25, 2006, and Defendant 1 prepared a plan to take measures against female Co., Ltd’s opinion on January 27, 2006. After undergoing the procedures for public inspection for hearing the opinions of female Co. 1’s opinion, the procedures for hearing opinions were held on March 17, 2006, under which the procedures for hearing opinions of the military were carried out well-being, and on March 22, 2006, there is concern that excessive use of groundwater and groundwater may be damage caused by the existing other golf courses. Accordingly, it was prepared to devise measures to reflect the opinions of residents through dialogue with local residents, and to prepare a plan to utilize the opinions with South Korea’s jurisdiction.

In the process of the process of the administrative procedure related to authorization and permission as above, Nonindicted Co. 1: (a) changed the business plan of ○○○○ from a public golf course to a membership golf course; (b) extended the site of a golf course from 921,526 square meters to 998,179 square meters; and (c) received a draft of an amendment to an urban management plan, which reflects such a amendment plan, to the Si/Gun on April 24, 2006. Accordingly, all the procedures that were in progress until the time were null and void; and (d) new procedures for consultation with the relevant department were to proceed from April 25, 2006 to May 30, 2006. Accordingly, the Si/Gun completed consultation with the relevant department on the draft of amendment, completed public inspection and announcement procedures to hear opinions from June 8, 2006 to June 22, 2006.

Defendant 2 received KRW 70 million in the name of Nonindicted 15 (Account Number 3 omitted) from Defendant 1’s account (hereinafter “Nonindicted 14”) in the name of Nonindicted 3, an employee in charge of accounting of Nonindicted 4 Co. 2 in the name of Nonindicted 3, an employee of Nonindicted 14, who was an employee of Nonindicted 14, in the same household of Defendant 1, to withdraw KRW 200 million from the account in the name of Nonindicted 15 (Radon (No. 3 omitted), and then, to transfer KRW 70 million from the account in the name of Nonindicted 3 in the name of Nonindicted 4 Co. 2, Defendant 2, through a substitution transaction with Nonindicted 3, a remitter of KRW 70 million among them, who was in charge of accounting in the name of Nonindicted 5 (No. 4 omitted).

Accordingly, Defendant 2 received 70 million won as a bribe in connection with his duties, and Defendant 1 transferred 70 million won to Defendant 2 on the same date and place as above, and granted a bribe in connection with the public official’s duties.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2 and 1

1. The witness Nonindicted 26 and 27’s legal statement, and the witness Nonindicted 7’s legal statement

1. On March 23, 2010, Defendant 2’s interrogation protocol of the prosecution, Defendant 1’s prosecutor’s interrogation protocol of the prosecution as of March 15, 2010; Defendant 3’s interrogation protocol of the prosecution as of March 2, 2010 as to Defendant 3

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 2

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 28, 29, 3, 5, 30, and 31

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 9 (to send it by facsimile to the Yongsan Police Station on September 24, 2009)

1. Each investigation report (report on the attachment of the certified transcript of corporate register of the relevant companies, including Nonindicted Co. 1, etc., the major shareholders status of the relevant companies, including Nonindicted Co. 1, etc., search and seizure of the accounts in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5, the necessity for search and seizure of the accounts, press reports against the construction of the golf course, the filing of copies of the press reports, and the binding of the written judgment, and the filing of articles with which the establishment of the golf course is prohibited in the Innju group, the confirmation of accompanying Nonindicted Co. 1 and 2, and the confirmation of the usage of KRW 70,000,000 from the accounts in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5 on July 6, 2006.- Final copy of the statement, the details of imposition of national taxes

1. 법무법인 ♤♤의 2010. 3. 25.자 의견서에 첨부된 신용보증조건변경 통지서, 영수증서

1. Prosecutions filed by Defendant 1 and 2

Defendant 1 and 2 acknowledged the fact that Defendant 2 received KRW 70 million on the above date and time from Defendant 1, but they merely borrowed KRW 70 million from Defendant 1, who was close to the usual meeting in a situation where the money is urgently needed to pay the tax of Nonindicted Co. 4, and that Defendant 2 did not receive the said money in relation to Defendant 2’s duties as the chairman of the Military Council.

2. Facts recognized;

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

A. Defendant 1 invested a KRW 00 billion in order to purchase the ○○○○ site until April 2006, and Defendant 1 failed to recover the said investment from the PF funds even until July 2006.

B. Nonindicted 13, on July 1, 2006, assumed office with the head of Si/Gun on July 1, 2006, where Nonindicted 13, which had expressed an opposing position on the construction of a golf course to the effect that “the golf course is too many in women’s territory, and should be utilized efficiently and rationally,” while the drafting of an urban management plan that reflects the ○○○○○ amendment plan, was submitted to the brigade and re-undertakes administrative procedures.

C. Meanwhile, from June 13, 2002 to June 13, 2002, Defendant 2, who had been friendly with Defendant 1 and for a long time, was active as members of the female council, and was going to the fourth simultaneous local election again on May 31, 2006, and was elected as the chairman of the female council on July 4, 2006.

D. On July 1, 2006, the non-indicted 4 corporation operated by Defendant 2, in competition with other companies, entered into a contract with the non-indicted 6 corporation for a contract for the construction of the △△△△△△△△D's construction of the goods, which was contracted from the non-indicted 6 corporation, and the non-indicted 6 corporation demanded the non-indicted 4 corporation to submit a certificate of full payment of national taxes and local taxes. Meanwhile, the credit guarantee term maturity of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund for the loans to the non-indicted 4 corporation was expected to arrive at July 9, 2006, and the certificate of full payment of national taxes was required to extend the credit guarantee term.

E. On July 6, 2006, Nonindicted 3 withdrawn KRW 200 million from Nonindicted 15’s account, and deposited KRW 70 million among them into the account of Nonindicted 5, which is an employee in charge of the accounting of Nonindicted 4 corporation actually operated by Defendant 2, by means of a substitute transaction. The said KRW 70 million was withdrawn as one copy of the check of KRW 6,63,850,530 on July 6, 2006, and the said KRW 63,850,530 on KRW 63,850 on KRW 430 on the same day.

F. Meanwhile, around July 22, 2006, Defendant 2 entered the casino located in Gangwon-do, along with Defendant 1 and his branch on July 7, 2006. At that place, Defendant 2 endorsed his name on one of the six copies of the above one million Won Check and used it. Defendant 5)

G. On July 12, 2006, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea completed the procedure for hearing opinions on the ○○○ Project, and completed the procedure on July 14, 2006.

3. Determination

A. Whether the money received by a public official constitutes a bribe with a quid pro quo relationship should be determined by considering all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official’s duties, the relationship between the provider of the duties and the benefit, whether there exists a special relationship between the parties, the degree of interest, the circumstances and timing of receiving the benefit, etc. In light of the fact that the crime of bribery is the legal interest protected by the legal interest of the fairness of performing the duties and the trust of the society, the issue of whether the public official’s receiving the benefit is doubtful of the fairness of performing his duties from the general society is also the basis for determining the sexual nature of the crime of bribery (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1911 delivered on July 23, 199, etc.).

B. Based on the above facts, the following circumstances can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence again presented in the above facts.

1) At the time of delivery of the above KRW 70 million, Defendant 1, who invested KRW 00,000,000,000 for the purchase price of the site for the ○○○○○ project, had a significant interest in the smooth progress of the said golf course business. If the said golf course project is in progress, it could not recover the funds invested with the purchase price of the site, and it could have caused enormous damages, and even if the progress rate of the said golf course is delayed, it could have a considerable amount of financial costs.

2) Therefore, the smooth progress of Defendant 1’s ○○○ business was most important, and Nonindicted 13, who expressed a negative position on the golf course business, took office as the head of the female Gun. Accordingly, even if Defendant 1 is harsh, it seems that there was no possibility that the golf course business might not be disturbed or delayed, etc.

Defendant 1 and 2 asserted that even if Defendant 1 had a negative position on the golf course’s business, it is limited to a newly established golf course. Where the head of Si/Gun already submitted a draft of an urban management plan, such as ○○○○, and considerable progress of administrative procedures, such as public inspection procedures to hear residents’ opinions, Defendant 1’s implementation of administrative procedures is the same as the existing administrative procedures. Thus, Defendant 1’s assertion to the effect that it was not likely that the progress of the ○○○○○ business would have been uneasy. However, even if Defendant 1 had already started the administrative procedure, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 had been aware of the fact, even if Defendant 1 had already been aware of the fact, even if Defendant 1 had already been frighted through Defendant 2, etc., and even if Defendant 1 had not been aware of such a direction, Defendant 1 had a significant influence on the commencement of the administrative procedure of the ○○○○ project, and it does not seem to have been sufficiently affected by the ○○○○ project.

3) On July 4, 2006, Defendant 2 was appointed as the chairman of the Women’s Council. Defendant 1 was well aware of the fact that he had been well aware of the fact that he had been working for a long time with Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 was well aware of the actual operation of the business, including for a long time, and Defendant 2 was well aware of the actual operation of the business. As such, Nonindicted 13, who was negative for the construction of the ○○○○ Project, took office in the head of the Gun, was taking office at the time of the ○○○○○ Project, namely, Nonindicted 13, who was negative for the construction of the golf course, was taking the procedure for hearing the opinions of the Gun, and Defendant 1 had a very large interest in the process of proceeding in the future, including the procedure, was taking part

4) Meanwhile, Defendant 1 and 2 asserts to the effect that the procedures for hearing the opinions of the Gun Council do not have a big impact on the progress of the ○○○○○○ project, and that Defendant 2 did not have a position to have a substantial influence on the above procedures for hearing the opinions. However, even if the resolution of the Gun Council is not legally binding on the decision-making process of the Gun Council, it is highly likely to reflect the opinions of the residents who expressed the intention of the Gun Council in light of the interests of the local community in the construction of the golf course. Therefore, even if the portion of the residents’ opinion itself cannot be determined from the standpoint of the Gun, since it is not possible for the head of the Gun to completely ignore it, it is difficult for the head of the Gun to decide on how to hear the opinions of the Gun Council on the ○○○○○ project, separate from how the extraordinary meetings of the Gun Council on the ○○○ project are actually convened and carried out, Defendant 1, who is the chairperson of the Gun Council, and did not have any influence on the decision-making process.

5) 피고인 1· 2의 주장대로, 위 피고인들이 오래 전부터 친하게 지냈던 사정, 이 사건 7,000만 원이 수수된 2006. 7. 6. 무렵 피고인 2는 자신이 운영하는 공소외 4 주식회사의 세금을 낼 필요가 있었던 사정은 인정된다. 그러나 앞서 든 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음의 사정, 즉 ① 이미 공소외 4 주식회사의 세금은 2006. 4. 초순부터 고지되어 있었고 주9) , 피고인은 공소외 6 주식회사로부터 공사를 수주하려고 견적서를 낼 무렵 이미 공소외 6 주식회사가 하도급 업체에게 국세·지방세 완납증명서를 요구한다는 사실을 알았을 것으로 보이며, 신용보증기간의 만기가 2006. 7. 9.이라는 사정은 이미 신용보증계약체결 당시 정해진 사항인데다가 피고인은 공소외 4 주식회사를 이미 오랫동안 운영하여 왔으므로 일정 기간이 지나면 신용보증기간을 연장해야 한다는 사정을 당연히 예상하였을 것이므로, 2006. 7. 9.까지 공소외 4 주식회사의 세금을 내야만 한다는 것은 이미 상당한 기간 전에 알 수 있었다고 보이는 점, ② 피고인 2는 2006. 4. 25. 공소외 33에게 액면금 7,500만 원의 어음을 6,600만 원에 할인하여 주었고 주10) , 이에 대하여 피고인 2는 장모 공소외 16의 재산을 불려주기 위하여 공소외 16의 자금으로 할인해 준 것이라고 주장하는데, 그 당시 다른 사람의 재산을 불려줄 정도의 관심을 가지고 있었던 피고인 2가 정작 자신이 운영하는 공소외 4 주식회사에 부과된 세금의 사정에 대하여 전혀 무관심하다가 이를 지급해야 하는 급박한 지경에 이르러서야 부랴부랴 돈을 마련하려고 하였다는 점도 쉽사리 수긍이 가지 않는 점, ③ 소송기록에 편철된 공소외 7 작성의 수첩 사본[ 피고인 2가 제출한 증거 제4호]의 2006. 7. 6. 부분에는 “상 : 70,――”이라는 기재가 있는데, 위 피고인들은 위 기재가 피고인 1로부터 7,000만 원을 빌렸다는 취지를 나타내는 것이라고 주장하나, 위 기재가 차용금을 나타내는 것이라고 볼 근거가 없을 뿐만 아니라, 설령 위 기재가 차용금으로서 앞으로 갚아야 하는 돈을 나타낸다고 하더라도 이는 위 수첩을 작성한 공소외 7의 주관적인 의사로 보일 뿐 피고인 2의 의사라고 볼 수도 없는 점, ④ 더구나 피고인 2는 위 7,000만 원을 받은 시점 전후로 피고인 1· 3으로부터 수회 돈을 빌렸다가 대부분 수개월 내에 갚았는데 주11) , 위 7,000만 원만은 송금받은 후 4년 가까이 갚지 않은 주12) 점 에 비추어 보면, 이미 오랫동안 공소외 4 주식회사라는 사업체를 운영하였고 4년간 군의원으로서 정치를 한 경험이 있는 피고인 2가, 자신이 군의회 의장으로 취임한 이틀 뒤에, 장모 등의 자력이 있는 다른 사람을 모두 제쳐두고, 당시 군의회의 의견청취 절차를 앞두고 있던 ○○○○ 사업의 투자자인 피고인 1로부터 돈을 송금받으면서, 그것이 누가 보더라도 부정한 것으로 의심받을 수 있음을 도외시 한 채 오로지 개인적인 친분에만 기대어 피고인 1에게 돈을 빌려달라고 부탁하였으리라는 가정은 매우 비현실적인 것으로서 도저히 받아들일 수 없다.

6) In light of the fact that Defendant 1 and 2 selected a method of giving money to Defendant 2, such as in cash, and kept a financial record by using alternative transaction, etc. without eliminating any concern about undergoing investigation after the next, Defendant 1 and 2, and Defendant 2 withdrawn the above KRW 1 million out of the KRW 70 million as a check and used for endorsement and use of their names, Defendant 1 and 2 asserts to the effect that the said money is not the money for unjust purposes, but the said money is not the money for unjust purposes, and that Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 expressed that Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 did not recognize the said money as a bribe.

However, even according to the defendant 1 and 2's statement, the above KRW 70 million was first requested by the defendant 2 to the defendant 1, and it was not provided to the defendant 2 after the defendant 1 planned the method of preparing and delivering the funds in advance. If the defendant 1 and 2's assertion is made, the defendant 1 should transfer the cash until July 7, 2006, so it was not easy for the defendant 1 to prepare and deliver the cash amount of KRW 70 million in cash, and it appears that it was not easy for the defendant 1 to prepare and deliver the cash amount of KRW 70 million in cash to the defendant 2 and the non-indicted 4 to the defendant 2 or the non-indicted 5 to deliver the cash amount of KRW 70 million to the defendant 3 et al., because it might be a suspicion of the delivery of the defendant 2 or the non-indicted 5 et al., it cannot be viewed as a ground for the bribe delivery of the money in the above way.

In addition, Defendant 1 and 2 had a long-term relationship with each other. At the time of receipt, it was not a situation to know to the investigative agency, etc. that the number of such money would be illegal, and thus, it was not a matter. The instant case was a first time for Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 to file a complaint with Nonindicted 12 who acquired Nonindicted 2’s equity interest in Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted 2, to be investigated by the prosecution. In the absence of such a complaint, it was possible for Defendant 1 to ask for an investigation without undergoing an investigation, such as tracking the account, etc. In the absence of such a complaint. Defendant 1 sent KRW 70 million to Defendant 2 by the remaining method of financial records, and the circumstance that Defendant 2 withdrawn and endorsed KRW 1 million among them at the time of receipt and receipt of KRW 770 million,000,000,000, which can not be denied solely on the basis that there is no concern that it might be a bribe after receipt of the said money.

C. Sub-decision

Examining the above evidence in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is determined that Defendant 1 and 2 gave the above KRW 70 million in relation to the duties of the chairman of the Military Council held that Defendant 1 and 2 had been proven without reasonable doubt. The above assertion by Defendant 1 and 2 is rejected.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant 1: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act.

B. Defendant 2: Article 2(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9169 of Dec. 26, 2008); Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant 2);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the relationship between Defendant 2 and Defendant 1; the circumstances in which Defendant 2 received a bribe; and the circumstances after receiving it)

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 1);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the relationship between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, the circumstances in which Defendant 1 offered a bribe, etc.)

1. Additional collection (Defendant 2);

The proviso of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant 2

【Scope of Penalty in Law】

From June to June of 3 years and six months of imprisonment;

【Application of Sentencing Criteria】

- Criminal Type: Bribery, acceptance of bribe, type 4 (not less than 50 million won but less than 100 million won)

- Special sentencing factors: None of the special sentencing factors;

- The scope of recommended sentence: 5 years to 7 years (basic areas)

【Determination of Sentence】

Defendant 2 accepted a bribe in relation to the duties of the chairman of the military conference on the golf course business in the brigade-gun, and the amount is larger than KRW 70 million, and Defendant 2’s duty as the chairman of the military council in charge of Defendant 2, as well as the general social confidence in the fairness of the overall military administration, and the nature of the crime is very heavy.

However, in the process of accepting the above bribe by Defendant 2, the perception that Defendant 2 would have been supported by Defendant 1 on a close basis, who maintained a close relationship with Defendant 1, appears to have functioned in a certain part. This is reasonable compared with the typical form of management searching and managing a bribe. Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant 2, in relation to the administrative procedure of ○○○○○ business, committed an unlawful act on behalf of Defendant 1 on behalf of Defendant 2, and there is no evidence to deem that Defendant 2 had been punished in relation to the performance of public office before the instant case.

In addition to all all the circumstances, including Defendant 2’s age, character, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment of Defendant 2 for not less than five years but not more than seven years recommended by the sentencing guidelines is harsh, and the punishment of Defendant 2 for Defendant 2 shall be determined by three years and six months.

2. Defendant 1

【Scope of Penalty in Law】

Imprisonment for not more than five years;

【Application of Sentencing Criteria】

- Criminal Type: Bribery, Bribery, Type 3 (not less than 50 million won but less than 100 million won)

- Special sentencing factors: None of the special sentencing factors;

- Scope of Recommendations: Imprisonment of up to six months to two years (basic areas)

【Determination of Sentence】

Defendant 1’s line of duty and the amount of the bribe is the larger amount of KRW 70 million. However, Defendant 1 had already been punished for the crime of offering a bribe on December 6, 1993, but again committed the crime of offering a bribe of this case, the possibility of criticism is not weak in that the crime of offering a bribe of this case was committed.

However, Defendant 1’s offering of the above bribe was based on Defendant 2’s request that had been close to the long time, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant 1 received special unfair treatment in administrative procedure in relation to ○○○○○ business, and Defendant 1 did not have any record of criminal punishment more than a suspended execution until now, and Defendant 1 is to suspend the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 1, taking into account all the circumstances such as the relationship between Defendant 1 and the upper party 2, Defendant 1’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime.

1. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant 2 on January 27, 2006 and the offering of bribe on January 27, 2006 to Defendant 1 and 3-3

A. Summary of the facts charged

On January 2, 2006, Nonindicted Co. 1 submitted a draft of an urban management plan to the female-gun Office for the ○○○○ project. At that time, the female-gun presented its opinion through consultation with the relevant departments by January 25, 2006, and Defendant 1 prepared a plan to take measures against the opinions of the female-gun on January 27, 2006. Accordingly, Nonindicted Co. 1 was waiting for the procedures for public perusal of opinions conducted by the female-gun in relation to the ○○○ Construction project, the procedures for hearing opinions and adopting opinions according to the determination of urban planning facilities.

Defendant 1 entered at a place where the place is unknown on or around January 27, 2006, and in the details of the execution of the funds of Nonindicted Co. 1, the execution of the funds amounting to KRW 100 million at the consulting cost with Defendant 3, who is an employee in charge of the purchase of land, and entered at the account books of Nonindicted Co. 1, the payment of a total of KRW 96.7 million to 10 persons, including Nonindicted Co. 35, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 32, and 42, Defendant 3 remitted KRW 96.7 million to the account books of Nonindicted Co. 3, 34, 38, 32, 40, and 36 on the same day, and Defendant 3 received money from Nonindicted Co. 34, 38, 32, 40, and 36 on the same day.

피고인 3은 2006. 1. 27. 경기 여주군 여주읍 하리 (지번 1 생략)에 있는 ◁◁자동차번호판제작소에서 여주군의회 의원인 피고인 2에게, 향후 예정된 ○○○○ 군계획시설 결정에 따른 여주군의회의 의견청취 절차가 신속히 처리되고 그 절차에서 ○○○○ 골프장 신축사업에 우호적인 의견이 채택될 수 있도록 도와줄 것과 아울러, 향후에도 위 인·허가 절차가 문제없이 진행될 수 있도록 군의회 의원으로 영향력을 행사하여 달라는 명목으로, 위 9,670만 원 중 4,500만 원 상당의 수표를 교부하였다.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 3 conspired to give a bribe in connection with the official duties of the public official, Defendant 2, who is the cause of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, received KRW 45 million from Defendant 3 on the said date and place, and received a bribe in relation to his duties.

B. Defendants’ legal actions

As to this, the Defendants paid KRW 96.7 million to Defendant 3, such as the course of funds transfer as stated in this part of the facts charged, and acknowledged that Defendant 3 paid KRW 45 million to Defendant 2, but Defendant 1 paid fees for the purchase of ○○ site to Defendant 3. Defendant 3 borrowed KRW 50 million from Defendant 2 around 2001, while Defendant 3 was unable to pay it, he was paid KRW 96.7 million on January 27, 2006 and paid KRW 48 million to Defendant 2. The amount of KRW 48 million out of the check was withdrawn from the borrowed account of five persons, and it did not change to the purport that “the bribe was paid to Defendant 2”.

C. Determination

1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) around January 27, 2006, when Defendant 1, who promoted the ○○○○ Project, transferred money of KRW 45 million out of KRW 96.7 million transferred to Defendant 3 to Defendant 2, who is the constituent member of the Female Group; and (b) the fact that the said KRW 96.7 million was used in the remittance process of KRW 10,00 in the said KRW 96.7 million.

2) However, according to the evidence submitted by this court, the following circumstances are recognized.

A) From 2000, Defendant 3 operated “Non-Indicted 18 Stock Company.” Since 2002, there was no particular income due to difficulties in operation, and thereafter, Defendant 3 filed an application for personal bankruptcy with the Credit Counseling and Recovery Commission on July 5, 2004, and completed the implementation of the repayment plan by the debt settlement on January 23, 2008 (Evidence No. 91), Defendant 3’s written statement against Defendant 3 (Evidence No. 91), investigation report (Binding of Defendant 3’s labor contract, wage expenditure, consulting service contract, etc.), and confirmation of the completion of the repayment plan attached to the defense counsel’s written opinion (Evidence No. 135)).

나) 피고인 3은 공소외 1 주식회사와 사이에 ○○○○ 사업 부지 30만 평 정도의 매입 업무를 하되 그 대가로 평당 2,000원씩 합계 6억 원을 지급받기로 약정하였고, 그에 따라 2003년 말경부터 ○○○○ 사업의 부지매입 업무를 수행하여, 2005년 말경까지 공소외 43· 44 부부의 주15) 토지 를 비롯한 대부분의 토지에 관하여 매입을 완료하였다[증인 공소외 2· 28의 각 법정진술, 수사보고( 피고인 3 근로계약서, 임금지출내역, 컨설팅 용역계약서 등 편철)에 첨부된 컨설팅계약서 주16) , 법무법인 ◈◈◈ 작성의 의견서(증거목록 순번 제165번)]. 그리고 2005. 8.경 공소외 1 주식회사에 정식으로 입사하여, 2008. 8. 1. 상무이사가 되었다.

다) 피고인 3은 2006. 1. 27. 피고인 1로부터 공소사실 기재와 같이 9,670만 원을 받았는데, 당시 소득이 1,000만 원 이하인 경우 종합소득세율이 8%이지만 8,000만 원을 초과하는 경우에는 종합소득세율이 35%이었으므로[ 법무법인 ◈◈◈ 작성의 의견서(증거목록 순번 제165번)에 첨부된 세율표], 당시 형편이 어렵고 신용불량상태에 있던 피고인 3의 입장에서는 1억 원의 돈을 한꺼번에 받는 것보다, 1,000만 원 이하의 돈으로 분할하여 차명계좌로 분산 송금받을 동기가 충분히 있었고, 피고인 3과 친한 사이인 피고인 1이 피고인 3을 위하여 그러한 방식으로 송금하여 주었을 가능성이 충분하다.

라) 또한 이 사건 4,500만 원이 포함된 9,670만 원을 송금받은 경우 외에 2006. 2. 1.에도 피고인 1은 피고인 3에게 부지매입 수수료 명목으로 똑같은 금액인 9,670만 원을 피고인 3의 차명계좌인 공소외 40· 39· 38· 37· 41· 32· 36· 34· 35의 계좌로 분산 입금하여 주었는데 주17) , 위 두 번째의 9,670만원은 이를 모두 피고인 3이 개인적인 용도로 사용하였다[ 법무법인 ◈◈◈ 작성의 의견서(증거목록 순번 제165번)에 첨부된 참고자료 5, 6번]. 또한 위 두 번의 송금은 모두 피고인 1과 피고인 3 사이에서 각 1억 원이 지급된 것으로 정리되었고, 공소외 1 주식회사의 회계장부에는 2회에 걸쳐 합계 2억 원을 부동산중개 수수료로 지급한 것으로 회계처리 되었으며, 330만 원이 공제된 이유는 공소외 1 주식회사가 소득세 원천징수 의무자로서 1억 원을 사업소득으로 지급하게 되면 3.3%의 소득세 및 주민세를 원천징수해야 했기 때문인 것으로 보인다[ 공소외 9에 대한 검찰 진술조서(증거목록 순번 제134번), 수사보고( 공소외 9 제출 자료 첨부 보고, 증거목록 순번 제141번)].

마) 피고인 3은 2010. 3. 2. 검찰에서 최초로 조사를 받을 당시 피고인 1로부터 받은 돈 중 3,920만 주18) 원 을 피고인 2에게 뇌물로 준 것이 아닌지 추궁받자, ‘ 공소외 17 주식회사’의 세금을 납부하기 위하여 피고인 2로부터 2002년경 5,000만 원을 빌렸고 그 일부 변제를 위하여 피고인 2에게 4,500만 원을 변제한 것이라고 진술하였는데 주19) , 이는 2001. 6. 29. 피고인 2가 신협계좌에서 1,000만 원을, 피고인 2의 장모인 공소외 16이 국민은행 계좌에서 4,000만 원을 각 인출하였고, 피고인 3이 운영하던 ‘ 공소외 18 주식회사’가 2001. 6. 29. 부가가치세 3,200여 만원을 납부한 사실[ 법무법인 ♤♤의 2010. 3. 25.자 의견서에 첨부된, 의견서·요구불거래내역의뢰 조회표·납세사실 증명원]과 부합한다. 여기에 피고인 3과 피고인 2는 같은 고등학교를 다녔고, 집안 형편도 비슷하였으며, 피고인 3의 형편이 매우 어려웠을 때는 피고인 2가 피고인 3에게 중국집을 운영할 자금을 주기도 하는 등[증인 공소외 7의 일부 법정진술] 친형제에 가까운 매우 막역한 사이였다는 사정을 함께 감안해 보면, 피고인 2가 2001. 6. 29.경 자신의 신협계좌에서 인출한 1,000만 원과 장모인 공소외 16으로부터 받은 4,000만 원을 합한 5,000만 원을 피고인 3에게 이자 및 변제기의 약정 없이 그리고 별도의 차용증 등을 작성하지 않은 채 빌려주었고, 피고인 3이 그 원금의 액수나 이자를 그리 신경쓰지 않다가 비교적 큰 돈이 생기자 그 일부를 갚았을 가능성도 충분히 인정할 수 있다.

F) Defendant 3’s KRW 9,67 million transferred to Nonindicted 32, 40, 36, 38, and 34 accounts among Defendant 1’s KRW 9,67 million, issued a check on January 27, 2006 through 12:16 to 12:26 and delivered all or part of the check to Defendant 2. Of the money transferred to the remaining five accounts, one copy of the check was issued at around 14:56 on the same day, and KRW 1,92 million transferred to the account in the name of Nonindicted 35,42 was transferred to Defendant 3 [the above KRW 40,45,38, and 34 were transferred to Nonindicted 400,000, KRW 500,000, KRW 484 was transferred to Nonindicted 34, and Defendant 260,000 was delivered to Defendant 3 at the time of delivery of the check in the name of Nonindicted 40:360,000 won.

G) Although Defendant 3 and Defendant 2 were very remote, Defendant 1 had a considerable close relationship with Defendant 2. However, if Defendant 1 had attempted to give a bribe to Defendant 2, there is doubt as to whether it was necessary to deliver it through Defendant 3. In the account book of Nonindicted Company 1, such as the facts charged, the amount of KRW 96.7 million to Defendant 3 was indicated as a site purchase fee. However, if Defendant 1 had attempted to give a bribe to Defendant 2 through Defendant 3, there is also doubt as to why it had been left in the record of the circumstance that the funds were disbursed to Defendant 3, and there was no question as to why Defendant 1 had to give a bribe from Nonindicted Company 1 to Defendant 3 twice during the period of five days, and there was no reason for Defendant 1 to why the remaining amount of KRW 200 million was offered to Defendant 2,500,000,0000,000,000 won, excluding KRW 19,340,000).

3) If so, in light of the circumstances described in the above-mentioned 2, the facts acknowledged in the above-mentioned 1 are insufficient to readily conclude that the above-mentioned 45 million won is a bribe received in connection with the duties of Defendant 2, and there is no reasonable doubt that there may be a change in the Defendants’ claim that the site purchase fee and the payment for the payment of existing obligations may be true. Therefore, this part of the facts charged is not proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judges.

D. Sub-determination

Thus, since this part of the facts charged falls under the case where there is no proof, the defendant 3 is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On the other hand, the facts charged against Defendant 1 and 2 should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that Defendant 1 and 2 was guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the offering of a bribe in the judgment that was charged with

2. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) on March 23, 2006 and the offering of bribe on March 23, 2006 to Defendant 2

A. Summary of the facts charged

Around January 2, 2006, Non-Indicted Company 1 submitted a draft of an urban management plan to the Office of Female-gun for the ○○○○ project. At that time, female-gun presented its opinion through consultation with the relevant departments by January 25, 2006, Defendant 1 prepared a plan to take measures against the opinions of female-gun on January 27, 2006, followed the procedures for public inspection of the opinions of female-guns, and then, the procedures for hearing the opinions of the Gun were held on March 17, 2006, and the procedures for hearing the opinions of the Gun are carried out as soon as damage is likely to be caused by excessive use of groundwater and agricultural chemicals on March 22, 2006, and the opinions were adopted to the effect that it can be reflected in the opinions of residents through dialogue with local residents, and to prepare a plan to utilize the South Korean river water in consultation with the golf course in preparation for the problems of groundwater.

Defendant 1, at a place where it is difficult to know the place on March 23, 2006, proposed the money created by Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 to create the claim against Nonindicted Company 1 in the form of Defendant 2’s investment in Nonindicted Company 1 by Defendant 2 in the form of making an investment in Nonindicted Company 1, on the following grounds: (a) the procedures for hearing the opinions of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea are handled promptly as seen above; and (b) the response to the adoption of the opinion that does not impede the business of building a golf course in the said procedures; and (c) the response to the adoption of the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s procedure in the future.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 deposited the amount of KRW 450 million that he created in Defendant 2’s account in the name of Nonindicted 7’s wife Nonindicted 8’s account (Account No. 6 omitted). Nonindicted 8 deposited the said money in the account of Nonindicted 1 Company in the name of Nonindicted 7 (No. 2 omitted). Defendant 1 deposited the said money in the account of Nonindicted 1 Company in the name of Nonindicted 7, and Defendant 1 deposited the amount of KRW 450 million in the account of Nonindicted 7, which was deposited in the account of Nonindicted 7.

As a result, Defendant 1 provided Defendant 2 with a claim equivalent to KRW 450 million in relation to the public official’s duties as a bribe. Defendant 2 received a claim equivalent to KRW 450 million in relation to his duties as a bribe.

B. Defenses and issues of Defendant 1 and 2

Defendant 1 and 2 acknowledged the course of financial transactions as stated in this part of the facts charged, but in order for Defendant 1, who operated Nonindicted Co. 1 in partnership with Nonindicted Co. 2, to secure more shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, Defendant 2, who transferred KRW 450 million to Defendant 2, and again deposited it into Nonindicted Co. 1, thereby making the same appearance that Defendant 2 made an investment in Nonindicted Co. 1, and Defendant 2, other than Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, attempted to show to Nonindicted Co. 2 as if he had a right to 5% of shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, and did not provide Defendant 2 with a claim amounting to KRW 450 million against Nonindicted Co. 1.

In other words, with respect to the financial transaction channel stated in this part of the facts charged, the prosecutor asserts that Defendant 1 was a bribe against Defendant 2, while Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 stated that it was merely a mere creation of the appearance of the financial transaction and did not have a substantial claim against Defendant 2.

Therefore, in order to find Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the facts charged, all of the following must be proven without reasonable doubt: (a) Defendant 2 obtained a substantial claim through the aforementioned financial transaction; (b) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s intent at the time of the said financial transaction was to have Defendant 2 obtain a substantial claim against Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1; and (c) further, it should be proven that the number of such claims ought to be related to Defendant 2’s duties as a member of the Women’s Council.

C. Facts recognized

According to the evidence submitted to this court, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) Around 2004, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 gathered that they jointly carry out ○○○○○ Project from Japan-ri-ri-ri, Newnam-ri-ri, and that they would jointly carry out ○○○○○ Project. On November 2005, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 set the Si event as Nonindicted Company 1 Company.

2) From March 2006, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 invested the funds of KRW 1 billion in each of them to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1.

3) On March 23, 2006, Defendant 1 remitted KRW 450 million to Defendant 2, and the specific route for which KRW 450 million was transferred to the account of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 in the name of Defendant 2’s wife Nonindicted 7 is as follows: around March 23, 2006, Nonindicted 3 transferred KRW 410 million to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 8’s account (Account Number 6 omitted) by means of alternative transaction (Account Number 3 omitted) by means of transfer from Nonindicted 15’s account (Account Number 3 omitted), Nonindicted 46 transferred KRW 50 million to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 150 million (Account Number 23 omitted), Nonindicted 46’s account number (Account Number 750 million omitted) by means of substitution transaction from Nonindicted Incorporated Bank 144,500,000 won (Account Number 23 omitted), and Nonindicted 460 million to the said new account by means of replacement transaction from Nonindicted Bank 2479’s account number (7 omitted).

4) On December 14, 2006, Nonindicted Party 2 completed the change of title on the shares of Nonindicted Party 1 corporation in the name of 42.5%, and 5% in total in the name of Nonindicted Party 48, which is the branch, 47.5% (Evidence List No. 12), and each copy of each register of shareholders (Evidence List No. 45, 46).

5) On January 3, 2008, as Defendant 1’s partner, Nonindicted 9, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, in the name of Nonindicted Company 1 at the time, sent the details of the execution of the fund to Nonindicted Company 11’s director Nonindicted Company 10, operated by Nonindicted Company 2, along with e-mail. The details of the execution of the fund include: (a) Defendant 1’s 2,473,571,06 won; (b) Defendant 2’s 250 million won; and (c) Nonindicted 2,10 million won (Evidence No. 134 of the evidence list); (d) Nonindicted 9’s 2,11’s e-mail; and (e) Defendant 1’s e-mail’s e-mail; and (e) Defendant 1’s 2,500,000 won (Evidence No. 134 of the evidence list; No. 17); and (e) Nonindicted 2,500,750 million won.

6) On April 20, 209, Nonindicted Co. 1’s register of shareholders entered that 52.5% shares were distributed in the name of Defendant 1 and its related persons (No. 44,45) and 29% shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 and its related persons (No. 20. 5% of the evidence list). However, on April 20, 209, Nonindicted Co. 2 and 5% of the shares in the name of Defendant 1 and their related persons were in title trust with Defendant 1, and Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 3 were in fact in possession of 47.5% shares and 47.5% of the shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 and their related persons, and Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 3 were in possession of 50 billion won shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 and 409% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, 2005.

7) During the process of the instant accusation case, Defendant 2 was suspected of not accepting 5% of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 as a bribe. Defendant 1, 2, and Nonindicted 7, and 8 at the Ilsan Police Station stated that the said amount was KRW 32,00,000 created by Defendant 2 and that it was a money lent to Nonindicted Company 1 (Evidence No. 34 and 35 of the Evidence List), Defendant 2’s written statement (Evidence No. 28 of the Evidence List No. 49), Defendant 2’s authentic statement (Evidence No. 49 of the Evidence List), and Nonindicted 8’s written statement (Evidence No. 31 of the Evidence List) (Evidence No. 31).

8) Afterwards, the prosecutor revealed that the above KRW 450 million was created by Defendant 1 through the account tracking, and Defendant 1 and 2 stated that Defendant 1 would have made the appearance of Defendant 2 as if Defendant 2 invested money in Nonindicted Co. 1.

D. Determination

1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s factual basis and the evidence revealed: (a) in the process of obtaining authorization and permission from a female group on the ○○○○○ Business, Defendant 1, who promoted the ○○○○ Business, remitted the said money to Defendant 2, who is a constituent member of the said Association; (b) Defendant 2, again remitted the said money to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1; (c) the route is considerably complicated; (d) Nonindicted 7’s transfer of the money in KRW 450 million to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1; and (e) Defendant 1 did not show the details that the money was remitted to Nonindicted Incorporated 2; and (e) Defendant 1’s birth on January 3, 2008, when Nonindicted 1 presented the details of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 10’s execution to Nonindicted Incorporated Director 11 operated by Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2, 200,000,000 won, which was 50,000 won for Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1, 2010 won, without mentioning the above details.

2) However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence duly examined by this court, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

A) In the prosecutor’s office and this court, around March 2006, Nonindicted 2 proposed 5% of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 to Defendant 2, but Nonindicted 2 respondeded to the token. From November 2006, it stated to the effect that the issue of share distribution was discussed specifically and at that time, Defendant 2 agreed to give 5% of the shares to Defendant 2). Even based on such statement, Defendant 1 appears to have already been interested in the issue of share ownership around March 2006. In addition, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 had been 5% of the shares since they invested capital of KRW 00 million to Nonindicted Company 1 until March 2006, the issue of how to divide shares was directly related to Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2’s management right, and there was no possibility that Nonindicted 2 would have been 10% of the shares distribution to Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2, and there was no possibility that the shares would have been distributed to Defendant 15% of the shares.

B) In addition, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 sent KRW 450 million that he created to Defendant 2, and received it to Defendant 1’s account. This does not consume KRW 450 million, but merely put Defendant 2’s name into the account of Nonindicted Co. 1, which is actually regarded as his own company, and thus, Defendant 1 did not have any big difficulty in taking measures prior to the distribution of shares.

C) Meanwhile, with regard to the deposit of KRW 450 million in the name of Nonindicted Co. 7 via the aforementioned remittance route, Defendant 1 did not provide Defendant 2 with any objective document that Defendant 2 could exercise his right against Nonindicted Co. 1, including the receipt or loan in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, Ltd.

그리고 공소외 1 주식회사의 "2006년_계정별 원장.txt" 파일의 출력물[ 공소외 9에 대한 검찰진술조서(증거목록 순번 제128번)에 첨부됨] 중 2006. 3. 23. 부분에 “ 공소외 7 일시가수”라고 기재되었을 뿐 주35) , 2006. 3. 23.자 대체전표[ 공소외 9에 대한 검찰진술조서(증거목록 순번 제128번)에 첨부됨]에는 4억 5,000만 원의 가수금란에 " 공소외 7"이 기재되어 있다가 나중에 " 피고인 1"로 수정되었고, 공소외 1 주식회사의 2006년도 계정별 원장[변호인 의견서(증거목록 제135번)에 첨부됨] 중 3. 23. 부분에는 4억 5,000만 원이 “일시가수 반제 피고인 1 주36) ” 로 기재되어 있으며, 회계법인 ▷▷의 공소외 1 주식회사에 대한 2006년도 재무제표[변호인 의견서(증거목록 제135번)에 첨부됨]에 대한 감사보고서의 단기차입금 항목에는 주주들로부터 운전자금으로 3,990,139,000원이, 공소외 20 주식회사로부터 시설자금으로 300억 원이 차입된 것으로 기재되어 있을 뿐, 피고인 2로부터 4억 5,000만 원이 차입되어 있다는 내용의 기재가 없으므로, 공소외 1 주식회사 내부의 회계처리 과정에서 피고인 1이 피고인 2가 향후 공소외 1 주식회사에 대하여 어떤 권리를 주장할 것을 염두에 두었다고 보기도 어렵고, 피고인 2가 향후 공소외 1 주식회사에 대하여 가수금 채권 등을 주장할 만한 근거도 빈약하다.

D) As examined in the aforementioned convictions, the meaning of the procedures for hearing the opinions of the competent authorities in the administrative procedure relating to the ○○○○○ Business cannot be under-assessment. However, unlike the lapse of July 6, 2006 where there was a negative speech on the golf course of the competent Si/Gun, it is difficult to find out a situation where Defendant 1 would particularly interfere with the administrative procedure pertaining to the ○○○○ Business, and it is difficult to find out whether Defendant 2 would be able to know about whether he would have any trouble in the administrative procedure related to the ○○○○ Business. At that time, Defendant 2 was merely a member of the Gun, not the Speaker, and Defendant 1 would not have any question as to whether it was necessary to give or receive a bribe (the Prosecutor’s claim of KRW 450 million was not realized at the time of giving or receiving it, and thus, it is difficult to view that Defendant 2’s ownership of the right to a bribe in the future would have been in conflict with that of Defendant 1’s business.

E) Defendant 1 and 2 and their surrounding persons stated to the effect that Defendant 2 would create KRW 450 million at the time when they were investigated by the U.S. police station and lent it to Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 7. The prosecutor asserts that, as seen earlier, if the financial transaction circumstance as seen earlier was merely the change of Defendant 1 and 2, Defendant 2 would have made the same appearance as having invested funds in Nonindicted Co. 1, as seen earlier, there was no need to make a false statement.

However, from the standpoint of Defendant 2 at the time of undergoing an investigation at the Yongsan Police Station, Defendant 2’s statement to the effect that the fact that KRW 450 million was deposited in Nonindicted Co. 1 Company in the name of Nonindicted Co. 7 is money created by Defendant 1. Even if it was transferred upon Defendant 1’s request and again deposited in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, it can be sufficiently understood to the effect that Defendant 1’s suspicion could result in not receiving KRW 450 million from Defendant 1 as a bribe. Thus, the above KRW 450 million was determined as favorable to Defendant 1, and that it was doubtful that Defendant 1 was given 50 million shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 as a bribe, and that it was made a statement to the effect that the above KRW 4550 million was lent not to Nonindicted Co. 1 but to have invested in the said KRW 50 million.

In addition, even from Defendant 1’s perspective, it can be understood that Defendant 2’s statement that Defendant 2 invested or lent KRW 450 million to Nonindicted Co. 1, 200,000,000, which was 450,000,000, which was the remittance by Defendant 7, to Defendant 2’s wife, is favorable to Defendant 1’s dispute on equity rights between Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Co. 2.

F) Defendant 1 asserts to the effect that, under the name of Nonindicted 7, the details of the deposit in KRW 450 million to Nonindicted Company 1 did not appear to have been shown to Nonindicted 2 before the time of investigation by the Busan Police Station, and that, even when Nonindicted 9, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, on January 3, 2008, sent the statement of fund execution to Nonindicted 2 on January 3, 2008, Defendant 2 merely stated that Defendant 2 invested KRW 250 million, not KRW 450 million, and did not show the above financial details (the witness Nonindicted 2’s legal statement). Defendant 1 and 2’s change to the effect that Defendant 1 and 2’s change to the effect that Defendant 2 was against the above circumstances.

However, in this court, Non-Indicted 2 made a statement from the end of 2007 to the effect that he believed Defendant 1’s words related to Defendant 2’s investment money as they were, and that he had see himself himself, and Defendant 1 merely made Defendant 2 believe that he made Defendant 2 made an investment corresponding to 5% of the shares of Non-Indicted 1 corporation. Thus, in the situation where Non-Indicted 2 believed Defendant 1’s words, it seems that it was not necessary to display the details deposited in Non-Indicted 1 corporation in the name of Non-Indicted 7 in the name of Non-Indicted 1 corporation.

In addition, when Nonindicted 9 sent the statement of execution of the above funds, there was a difference in the amount of money equivalent to 5% of the total amount of money invested by Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 after recovering a considerable portion of the money invested by each of them, but Defendant 1 is important to have Nonindicted 2 believe that he made an investment corresponding to 5% of the equity of Nonindicted 1 corporation, and Defendant 1 merely believed that Defendant 2 made an investment corresponding to 450 million won of the above funds, not in itself, because the amount of KRW 450 million per se was not an important part, it can be viewed that Defendant 2 made an investment near 50 million of the total amount of the investment at the time, not KRW 450 million, but rather KRW 250 million of the amount of the money invested by Defendant 2 as an investment. Rather, it can be viewed that Defendant 1’s defense suit is consistent with the circumstance in which Defendant 1’s defense.

G) In addition, the prosecutor asserts to the effect that Defendant 1’s use of the borrowed name account in a very complicated manner, as seen earlier, in the process that Defendant 1 sent the above KRW 450 million from Nonindicted Company 1 to Defendant 2, and again returned to Nonindicted Company 1, the prosecutor asserts to the effect that the above KRW 450 million is a bribe, and that it is a bribe.

As to this, at the time of March 23, 2006, Defendant 1 instructed Nonindicted 14 to send the money to Defendant 2 at the time of the birth of Nonindicted 14, which was KRW 450 million. Nonindicted 14 instructed Nonindicted 47 to send the money to Defendant 2. Nonindicted 4, in the circumstance that Nonindicted 4 would receive KRW 39 million from female and female Nonindicted 47, ordered Nonindicted 2 to send the money to Defendant 2. Accordingly, Nonindicted 46 sent the passbook deposited in KRW 39 million to Nonindicted 47 to Nonindicted 9 by means of a substitute transaction in accordance with Nonindicted 9’s instruction. Nonindicted 3 explained, in accordance with Nonindicted 14’s instruction, Nonindicted 14, the wife of Nonindicted 14, to transfer the money from Nonindicted 150 million to Nonindicted 8 by means of a substitute transaction.

Defendant 2 was present at the meeting of the Arts Hall Selection Committee from March 23, 2006 to 15:00, Defendant 1 received KRW 450 million from Defendant 1 to Defendant 1 corporation by requesting the wife Nonindicted 7 to process the case instead of Defendant 1 corporation. Defendant 2 also asked Defendant 7 to process the case instead of Defendant 8 on behalf of Defendant 1 corporation, and explained to the effect that Nonindicted 8 transferred KRW 450 million to Nonindicted 1 corporation by receiving remittance of KRW 80 million.

이러한 피고인 1· 2의 설명이 그 자체로 전혀 터무니없어 보이지는 않고, 증인 공소외 7의 법정진술, 피고인 1에 대한 검찰 피의자신문조서(증거목록 순번 제127번), 공소외 9에 대한 검찰 진술조서(증거목록 순번 제128번), 공소외 8 작성의 진술서(증거목록 순번 제85번), 공소외 7에 대한 검찰 진술조서(증거목록 순번 제122번), 법무법인 ♤♤의 2010. 3. 25.자 의견서(증거목록 순번 제156번)에 첨부된 제1회 여주도예명장 선정심사 결과보고는 위 설명에 부합한다.

In addition, in light of the fact that the remittance of money by a person, other than the account holder, intends to remit money by means of a substitute transaction, there are often instances in which his name is recorded as a remitter for the convenience of remittance, the remittance is difficult to be deemed as an abnormal transaction only with the fact that the remitter was recorded as Nonindicted 9 or Nonindicted 3 in the process of remitting money by means of a substitute transaction.

3) If so, in full view of the facts acknowledged in paragraph (c) above and the circumstances acknowledged in paragraph (1) above, it is doubtful that this part of the facts charged is guilty. However, in light of the various circumstances as examined in paragraph (2) above, the remittance of KRW 450 million to Defendant 1 does not constitute a bribe for Defendant 2, but can not be ruled out that Defendant 1 may create the same appearance as that Defendant 2 invested in Nonindicted Company 1 in order to secure more than Nonindicted Company 2’s equity, such as Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s change suit. Accordingly, this part of the facts charged was not proven to the extent that the judge did not have any reasonable doubt.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, insofar as it is found that the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the crime of offering of a bribe is guilty

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant 1

A. Summary of the facts charged

On July 28, 2006, Defendant 1 entered into a PF agreement in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co., Ltd., the borrower and the borrower who are substantially operated by Defendant 1, Nonindicted Co. 21 Co., Ltd., the subcontractor, Nonindicted Co. 20, the subcontractor, Nonindicted Co. 22, the financial advisory body, Nonindicted Co. 24, Defendant 1, and Nonindicted Co. 2, the joint guarantor, and Nonindicted Co. 2, the joint guarantor, and Nonindicted Co. 2, the joint guarantor, respectively. On July 31, 2006, around July 31, 2006, the PF Fund was deposited in KRW 26,708,24,059, which was deducted financial expenses out of KRW 30 billion in the amount of the first loan agreement (Account No. 1 omitted) in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, the PF Fund Management Account.

On the other hand, Article 6-1 of the PF Agreement provides that ① in the case of a loan agreement loan agreement funds (the name of the account shall be the name of the borrower, the seal impression shall be the name of the borrower and the contractor), ② in the case of a loan agreement funds, all of the funds related to the project shall be withdrawn from the operation account and the sales revenue account only from the operation account and the sales revenue account, and in the case of withdrawal, it shall be executed only in accordance with the loan execution request signed and sealed by the borrower and the contractor, and ③ in the case of a loan agreement funds withdrawn from the above operation account and the sales revenue account, the execution of the funds shall be made only for

In addition, in Chapter 5 of the PF Agreement regarding the security for the above loan, ① the contractor and the joint guarantor jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation related to the loan agreement, ② the owner of the project site requires the lender to complete the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the borrower as the debtor in order to secure the obligation related to the loan agreement.

After the loan agreement amount was deposited into the operation account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, Defendant 1, as above, attempted to recover the funds accumulated in advance by himself and Nonindicted Co. 2 for the purchase of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Development Project. In the course of negotiations on the execution of the loan funds with Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 20, Nonindicted Co. 21, Nonindicted Co. 22, and Nonindicted Co. 22, Defendant 1 decided to recover the remainder of the investment funds remaining after deducting 4 billion won from the total amount of the loan.

On March 24, 2006, prior to the aforementioned consultation, Defendant 1 paid KRW 4.63 billion out of total intermediate payments of KRW 5.3 billion out of KRW 5.4 billion in relation to the purchase of the golf course site, the total amount of KRW 4.6 billion in value of Nonindicted Co. 43 issued by Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, KRW 5.6 billion in value, KRW 4.6 billion in value, KRW 4.6 billion in value, KRW 2.6 billion in value, KRW 4 billion in value, KRW 4.6 billion in value, KRW 4 billion in value, KRW 2.6 billion in value, KRW 4 billion in value, KRW 4.6 billion in value, KRW 4 billion in value, KRW 2.6 billion in value, KRW 4 billion in value, KRW 4.6 billion in value, KRW 2 billion in value, KRW 4.3 billion in value, KRW 4.6 billion in value, KRW 1.4 billion in value, and KRW 2.6 billion in value, KRW 16.4 billion in value.4 billion in each of the bill.

Defendant 1, taking advantage of these circumstances, prepared a false request for execution of funds, accompanied by evidentiary documents, such as the above specification of transactions, with the consent of Nonindicted Co. 21 and Nonindicted Co. 22, to obtain the PF funds, and to embezzled it by using it for other purposes.

Defendant 1, around August 3, 2006, deposited KRW 12.28,583 billion in the corporate account in the name of the victim non-indicted 1 corporation ( No. 2 omitted), and deposited KRW 5 billion in the account of the non-indicted 2 corporation for the purpose of the recovery of investment funds, such as the first claim for the PF funds, from the loan agreement amount of KRW 30 billion loaned from the non-indicted 20 corporation 20 billion to the non-indicted 30.5 billion, around August 4, 2006 (the number No. 2 omitted), and actually remitted KRW 5 billion in the account of the non-indicted 23 corporation to the non-indicted 30 billion for the purpose of collecting investment funds, around 3.5 billion in total, around 2006; KRW 8.5 billion in the account of the non-indicted 23 corporation; KRW 6.4 billion in the name of the defendant 1,600,000 won in total; and around 2.8.4 billion won in each of the account around August 7, 20006

B. The specification of facts charged

As Defendant 1’s defense counsel asserts that this part of the facts charged is unlawful because it is not specified, it is understood that this part of the facts charged is the following:

The amount of KRW 26,708,244,059, which Nonindicted Co. 1 received through the PF Fund Operation Account (Account Number 1 omitted) shall be used only for its original proper purpose in accordance with the PF Agreement. Nonindicted Co. 1 received KRW 12.28,583,00 out of the said money from the said money to the corporate account ( No. 2 omitted) of Nonindicted Co. 1 on the pretext of “collection of land purchase price.” As such, Defendant 1 who manages the corporate account of the said Nonindicted Co. 1 Company should disburse the said money only for the purpose of “collection of land purchase price.”

However, the money paid by Nonindicted Party 2 to Nonindicted Company 1 as the land purchase price is a total of KRW 5 billion, and the money paid by Defendant 1 to Nonindicted Company 1 as the land purchase price is a total of KRW 5,830,000,000,000 if the bill was issued among the part of the part of the part of the land purchase by Nonindicted Company 43 and 44, and the money paid by Defendant 1 to Nonindicted Company 1 as the land purchase price is excluded from the total of KRW 1,00,000,000,000,000,000 won, which can be disbursed for the purpose of “land purchase price recovery.”

Nevertheless, from the corporate account of the above non-indicted 1 corporation on August 4, 2006, to October 10, 2006, the defendant 1 remitted the total of KRW 5 billion to non-indicted 2, 5 billion from August 4, 2006, and KRW 6.835 billion from August 4, 2006 to October 10, 2006, respectively, and remitted the total of KRW 11.835 billion to non-indicted 24 corporation, etc., which is substantially operated by the defendant 1, and then, he embezzled the above KRW 9,9170,00 in excess of KRW 10.835 billion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's facts charged are as follows: (a) although the bill of KRW 1 billion paid to non-indicted 43 and 44 had not yet been paid as the land price, Defendant 1, as if the document was already prepared, has been transferred to the corporate account of non-indicted 1,28,5830,000 won out of the PF loan agreement amount to the corporate account of the non-indicted 1,228,5830,000 won, which was specified as "the recovery of the land price of the above non-indicted 43 and 444", Defendant 1 embezzled the amount of KRW 99,9170,00 among them for another purpose by remitting it to the company operated by the defendant 1, and the date and time of embezzlement was specified as "the date from August 4, 2006 to October 10, 206", and thus, the defendant 1's assertion that this part of the facts charged was not accepted.

C. Defendant 1’s lawsuit

Defendant 1 received KRW 12.28,244,059, out of KRW 26,708,244,059, which was loaned to the PF Fund Operation Account, from Nonindicted Co. 1 to the corporate account of Nonindicted Co. 1; at the time, Nonindicted Co. 1 paid KRW 1.0 billion out of the land price to be paid to Nonindicted Co. 44 and 43 couples as the bill issued by Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 1 on November 30, 2006; Defendant 1 recognized the fact that the above KRW 5.0 billion out of KRW 1.228,583,00,00 to Nonindicted Co. 2; and KRW 6.835,000,00 to Nonindicted Co. 24 et al. as stated in the facts charged, it did not change to the purport that the money was not remitted to the intent of unlawful acquisition of KRW 6.835,500,00.

D. Determination

The money entrusted with the purpose and purpose shall be deemed to be reserved by the truster until it is used for the specified purpose and purpose. However, if the specific nature of the money is not specifically required, even if it is temporarily used in a situation where the trustee can substitute it for another money at the necessary time without going against the purpose of the entrustment, the crime of embezzlement shall not be established. The trustee constitutes embezzlement only when he consumes it for another purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002; 2007Do7568, Mar. 14, 2008).

According to the above evidence and the records of trial, according to the Customer Director (No. 8 of the evidence submitted by Defendant 1) and the Customer Director attached to the prosecutor's protocol of statement (Evidence No. 128 of the evidence list) with Nonindicted Co. 1, unlike the PF Fund Management Account (Account No. 1 omitted), Nonindicted Co. 1, unlike the KF Fund Account (Account No. 1 omitted), has independently used funds for various purposes, such as settlement of accounts accounts from February 2, 2006. ② The above corporate account of Nonindicted Co. 1, in addition to the above KRW 12.288,583,00,000, and was deposited for various purposes without distinguishing it from the above KRW 12.288,583,000,000, and was disbursed for various purposes; ③ the above corporate account of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2006 to the account of Nonindicted Co. 2. 2.66 billion won after the deposit; and ③ the balance of KRW 16.666 billion after the deposit.

In light of the above details of Nonindicted Co. 1’s use of the corporate account, even though KRW 12.28,583 billion deposited in the said corporate account of Nonindicted Co. 1, the purpose and purpose of use are determined, it is not distinguished from the mixture of money. As such, it is difficult to recognize the specificness of the money, unlike the status of deposit in the PF Fund operation account, as it is kept in a mix with money.

Furthermore, since each bill was already issued to non-indicted 44 and 43 with a face value of KRW 560 million and face value of KRW 440 million for the issuance of the non-indicted 1 corporation, it is evident that the total amount of KRW 1 billion will be disbursed as the land purchase price on November 30, 2006, the payment date. However, on August 4, 2006, it is sufficient for the defendant 1 to procure money exceeding KRW 3 billion prior to the payment date of the above bill because it was transferred to the account of non-indicted 24 corporation, etc., which he operated under the pretext of collecting land purchase price, and it is difficult to conclude that the above bill was transferred to the account of non-indicted 25 billion on October 10, 2006 without any other evidence to acknowledge that the above bill was transferred to the above 9 billion account of KRW 6.6 billion on the sole basis of the fact that there was no difference between the above company’s face value and KRW 9.6 billion prior to the payment date.6 billion.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged is not proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge.

D. Sub-determination

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

Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) There is a dispute between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 regarding the specific amount of the investment amount. The statement made by Defendant 1’s partner Nonindicted 9 sent by Defendant 1 to the Police Station on September 24, 2009, stating that Defendant 1 invested KRW 9.2 billion in the Nonindicted Company 1 and KRW 7.45 billion in the Nonindicted Company 2 by March 24, 2006.

2) Next, as seen earlier, the PF agreement on the ○○○○ Project was concluded on July 28, 2006, and Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2’s funds for collecting part of the pre-sale of land was deposited into the corporate account of Nonindicted Company 1 on August 3, 2006.

3) Nonindicted Co. 6 entered into a contract for construction with Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 4 and a contract for construction (the testimony of Nonindicted Co. 26 of the witness) with two companies, including Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 4, who received a written estimate for construction, and presented any further condition among them.

Note 4) It is Sundays.

5) Of the 200 million won withdrawn from the account of Nonindicted 15 as seen in the foregoing paragraph (e) above, the remaining KRW 130 million which was not remitted to Defendant 2 was issued as a check. Of them, one copy of the KRW 1 million check was endorsed by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 at the time and place indicated in the same paragraph.

(6) Nonindicted 2 also made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that Nonindicted 2 was concerned about the progress of the ○○○○ project due to the appointment of Nonindicted 13 head of the Gun (Evidence List No. 123 No. 123).

(7) At the time, Nonindicted 31, who was in charge of Defendant 2’s challenge, stated in the prosecution that Defendant 2 was interested in the ○○○○○ business, and that Defendant 2 was taking part in the ○○○ business site (Evidence List No. 115, 145).

8) On the registry of Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted 28 mainly in charge of the administrative affairs of the ○○○○ business, as the representative director on the registry of Nonindicted Company 1, stated in the prosecutor’s office that it would be difficult for the head of the Gun to fully disregard the opinions of the Gun in the process of authorizing the ○○○ business (Evidence No. 117 No. 517).

9) On the receipt attached to the second prosecutor’s statement (Evidence No. 116) against Nonindicted Co. 5, the due date for the payment of taxes imposed on Nonindicted Co. 4 was April 30, 2006. Therefore, the imposition of taxes seems to have been notified at least in the first order of April 2006.

(10) Defendant 2, in addition to the above bill discount, asserts that, on May 26, 2008, the bill discount amounting to KRW 39 million at KRW 50 million at a face value on May 26, 2008, KRW 42 million at a face value on June 20, 2008, KRW 50 million at a face value on KRW 43 million at a face value on July 18, 2008, Defendant 2 at a discounted rate of KRW 43 million [the second suspect examination protocol of prosecution (Evidence No. 154 of evidence No. 154 against Defendant 2)], Defendant 2 asserts that all of the above bill discount amounted to KRW 7’s funds from close relatives.

Note 11) Defendant 2 borrowed KRW 10 million from Defendant 3 on May 12, 2005, and repaid on July 28, 2005, Defendant 2 borrowed KRW 12 million on August 21, 2005, and repaid on November 16, 2005. Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 50 million from Defendant 1 until December 30, 2005, Defendant 3 (No. 120 million on the suspect examination statement No. 30 million on December 30, 2005; Defendant 200 million on the prosecutor’s evidence No. 305, Nov. 19, 2005; Defendant 200 million on the suspect examination statement No. 375, Dec. 30, 2005 (Evidence 120 million on Dec. 30, 2005); Defendant 200,6.

Note 12) Defendant 2 asserted that he paid KRW 30 million out of the total amount of KRW 70 million to Defendant 1 on June 28, 2010, when the instant trial was in progress, Defendant 2 stated that he was deposited KRW 30 million from Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 4 on June 28, 2010, and that he was deposited KRW 30 million from Defendant 1 (No. 5 omitted) which was bound in the records of trial (Evidence 25 submitted by Defendant 2) which was bound in the records of trial.

Defendant 13) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 asserted to the effect that, on July 9, 2006, the maturity of the credit guarantee period of Nonindicted Co. 4 at the time, the certificate of full payment of national taxes is required until July 7, 2006, which was the day before this frame, since it was Sundays.

Not only note 14, but also even if such recognition has functioned in a certain part, insofar as the above KRW 70 million is given or received in relation to Defendant 2’s duties as chairman of the Military Council, the bribe is not denied.

주15) 전체 사업부지 약 30만 평 중 공소외 43·공소외 44 부부 소유의 토지는 21만 평을 차지한다[법무법인 ◈◈◈ 작성의 의견서(증거목록 순번 제165번)].

16) However, the date of the preparation of the above contract is written on January 25, 2006, and Nonindicted 9, the representative director of ○○○○○’s registry, stated in the prosecutor’s office that the date of the actual preparation of the above contract was the end of 2009 (Evidence No. 134 No. 134).

17) After that, Defendant 3 received from Nonindicted Co. 1 Company KRW 50 million on August 3, 2006, KRW 27 million on May 2, 2007, KRW 15.10 million on April 10, 2009, and KRW 96.7 million on October 30, 2009, as a fee for land purchase business.

Note 18) This is the total face value of a check which is confirmed to have been used by Defendant 2 or his related persons as a result of account tracking.

Note 19) Since then during the investigation process, the statement was corrected by means of lending for the payment of taxes to “Nonindicted 18 Co., Ltd.” in the “2001,” and the statement was stated nine (9) years prior to the time of investigation, such correction of the statement will be sufficiently understood.

Note 20) The time when the remaining 19.2 million won deposited into Nonindicted 37 and Nonindicted 39 account was withdrawn is unclear.

Note 21) There is a dispute between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 as to whether there was an agreement on the share distribution ratio at the time, and if so, what content was what constitutes.

Note 22) As seen earlier, there is a dispute between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 with respect to the specific amount of the investment, and Defendant 1’s written reply sent by Defendant 9 to FAX on September 24, 2009, stated that Defendant 1 invested KRW 9.2 billion in Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 and KRW 7.45 billion in investment by Nonindicted 2 until March 24, 2006.

Note 23) It appears that the account is the same as the new bank (Account Number 8 omitted) account (Evidence No. 85 No. 85).

Note 24) The same shall apply to the corporate account (Account Number 2 omitted) of Nonindicted Company 1.

Note 25) Defendant 1’s large coupleds Nonindicted 14 and small coupleds Nonindicted 9 and 47, and Nonindicted 15 are the wife of Nonindicted 14 and Nonindicted 3 are the employees of Nonindicted 14, and Nonindicted 9’s employees of Nonindicted 46. Nonindicted 7 is the wife of Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 8 is the relatives of Nonindicted 7.

Note 26) The name of the document is “the details of the execution of Macck Fund”.

Note 27) 250,00,000 won / (2,473,571,006 won + 2,120,000,000 won + 250,000,000 won) =0.0516 (round 5 decimal point)

Note 28) Defendant 120%, Nonindicted 25 17.5%, Nonindicted 497.5%, and Nonindicted 507.5%,

Note 29) Nonindicted 2 42.5%, Nonindicted 48 5%

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 asserted to the effect that, for the purpose of receiving 2.5% of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 from Defendant 1, Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 12 entered into a false share transfer agreement and Nonindicted 12 filed a complaint against Nonindicted 2, and that the police investigation was extended to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

31) More specifically, on the market price of 5% shares in Nonindicted Co. 1 Company and financial transaction details, Defendant 2 was suspected of having invested in Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, not having received as a bribe an amount equivalent to the difference of KRW 450 million in which Defendant 2 was considered to have invested in Nonindicted Co. 1 Company.

32) Specifically, Defendant 2’s wife Nonindicted 7 asserted that Defendant 8’s wife borrowed money from Defendant 8.

Note 33) Defendant 1 asserts that there had been specific discussions on the distribution of shares between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 before March 2006.

Note 34) The protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 2 by the prosecution (Evidence No. 50 No. 50) and, in particular, the written statement (Evidence No. 51) prepared by Nonindicted Party 2 is indicated to the effect that Nonindicted Party 2 demanded Nonindicted Party 1 to transfer the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 from March 2006 to Defendant 1.

Note 35) As the representative director on the register of Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation, Nonindicted Co. 9, in charge of the actual accounting affairs, was in charge of tax adjustment before revising the replacement list on March 23, 2006, and the files of “2006..txt” was prepared by the tax accountant. In the process of re-examination and confirmation at the time of the year-end settlement, the said replacement list was revised and explained that Nonindicted Co. 1 prepared a ledger by account in 2006 (Evidence No. 128) of Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation (Evidence No. 128).

Note 36) This seems to be a clerical error in “Temporary Defendant 1”.

Note 37) Nonindicted 8 also stated that Nonindicted 7 asked him to make a false statement to that effect (No. 86 of the prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted 8).

Note 38) Nonindicted 8 also stated that Defendant 1 made a false statement to that effect (Evidence List No. 86 No. 86).

Note 39) As seen earlier, the written reply sent by Nonindicted 9 to FAX to the TAX Police Station is written that until March 24, 2006, Defendant 1 invested KRW 9.2 billion in Nonindicted Co. 1 and KRW 7.45 billion in Nonindicted Co. 2. On the other hand, Nonindicted 9 sent to Nonindicted Co. 11 on January 3, 2008, the file for the execution of the above funds that Nonindicted 9 sent to Nonindicted Co. 11 on January 3, 2008 is written that Defendant 1 included KRW 2,473,571,06, and KRW 250 million by Defendant 2,100 million, and KRW 2.2 billion by Nonindicted Co. 2.

Note 40) Nonindicted 9 stated in the prosecutor’s office that Defendant 1 sent documents to Defendant 2 that Defendant 2’s share is 5%, and that the above statement of execution of funds was stated as above (No. 134 of the evidence list).

41) Proj fining. The financing provider will raise funds for projects separated from the business owner. In raising funds, the financing provider means the fund structure in which the provider determines the loans by taking into account the cash flow of the project, and the principal invested in the project and its profits are returned.

Note 42) Even if the amount of the said money is less than the above KRW 12.2885.83 billion, such circumstance alone alone is difficult to view that the said amount is distinguishable from the other money of a different nature, and Defendant 1 does not have a separate method of payment.