2015No489 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Gong)

Teachers, Violation of the Commercial Code (Recognizing Violation of the Commercial Code), Assaults;

Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, coercion, and Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

(Intimidation of Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.) (Special Intimidation, Intimidation, Intimidation, Ma

Breach of the Pharmaceutical Control Act (fix), accusation, fraud, injury;

Illegal confinement, perjury, Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act

(Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which is partially recognized)

2015 Initial 43 Compensation Order Calculation

A

Defendant and Prosecutor

Preliminary Prosecutions, stuffed Line (Public Prosecutions and Public Trials)

Law Firm 0, Attorneys XB, XC, Q

U

Western District Court Decision 2012Gohap129, 142 decided August 24, 2015 (Jick)

Gohap 180, 214, 242, 277(combined), 484(Consolidated) Judgment

and 2015 initially 324 Application for compensation order

January 28, 2016

1. Of the judgment of the court below, the guilty part (including the acquittal part on the grounds of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and fine 1.2 billion won for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in 2006 and 2008 for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in 2007 against B and C of each Commercial Act, for aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in 2009, for each of the crimes of aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in 2007, for 4 years and 1.2 billion won for the crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in 2007, for 3.3 billion won for each of the crimes in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in 209 and 2010.

3. Where the accused does not pay each of the above fines, the accused shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting nine million won into one day: Provided, That the fractional amount shall be one day.

4. 90,100,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.

5. An order to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines and additional charges shall be issued.

6. Acquittal of special intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case

7. The prosecutor's appeal on the acquittal portion of the judgment below is dismissed.

8. An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed;

1. Scope of the trial;

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court convicted the victim G of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax). The lower court convicted the victim G of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. The Defendant appealed the guilty part, and the prosecutor brought a lawsuit against the remainder of the charges except for the violation of the Act on September 5, 2008.

On September 5, 2008, the above islands of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and antiscam were separated and confirmed, and the violation of the above Commercial Act, which is the part not guilty in the grounds, was judged to have been exempted from the scope of public defense between the parties. As such, the judgment of the court below on this part shall be followed as it is and not judged again. Ultimately, the scope of the judgment of the court below is limited to the above violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence and antiscams) and the remaining parts except the violation of the Commercial Act, among the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

1) In misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the defendant's coercion was forced during the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial, intimidation against the victim, each injury to each commercial law, the attack against V, the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (favour) and the violation of the Punishment of Narcotics Act at March 15, 2009, and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in 2006 and each specific crime (tax) at 30, 40, 47, 49, 49, 52, 69, 71, 71, 79, 80, 93 through 101, 107, 112, 113, 118, 124, 129, and 6-15, 30, 41, 65 or 7 of the judgment of the court below at the trial at the trial at the court below.

A) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)

As stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant did not interfere with the check equivalent to KRW 930,00,000 by threatening the victim W as well as W at the time. However, the Defendant offered public notice at the office of CF around August 2010 by CF (hereinafter referred to as “D”) that CF would be subject to criminal punishment if the Defendant was to receive the said money from CF, and the Defendant attempted to deliver a check equivalent to KRW 930,000,000 in face value to 930,000,000,000 in face value to the money when she received the said money. However, there was only the fact that the Defendant refused such request.

B) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law related to AL (part of the facts charged)

The Defendant listened to the comments that he lost a large amount of money to AK with XD and AR, and introduced the police officer he knows, and arranged to go with AK, and there is no fact that he received money from AL in return for arbitration or reconciliation in the process.

C) Violation of Attorney-at-Law related to AR (2012 Gohap180)

As stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant did not receive money from AR as a solicitation fee from a public official in charge of investigation upon a request from the Republic of Korea to prevent any injury by robbery by AR from being treated in a sound manner or in relation thereto.

D) Special Intimidations (of the facts charged 2012 Gohap214)

Around 2003, the Defendant had been asked by a man from AU to bullying him and her with AU at the same time, and there was a fact that he met with AU to that extent. They reported that there was a fighting by a few people at the same time, and that there was a fight, and there was no threat of the victim at AT hotel located in ATS in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 2006 and around 5, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

E) The point of perjury (part of the facts charged in the 2012 High Gohap277)

There is no fact that the Defendant instigated BIM to make a false testimony as stated in this part of the facts charged.

F) Violation of each Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (2012,484)

(1) Non-deduction of brokerage commission;

In most of the loan transactions of this case, most of the parties involved in the loan transaction of this case. In such a case, the above intermediaries received money from the borrower under the name of interest or commission and delivered only the remainder to the defendant. The defendant received interest from the borrower and did not have paid some of them as brokerage commission to the loan broker. Therefore, only the interest actually received by the defendant under individual loan transaction should be recognized as the income of the defendant.

② The attached Form of the court below (hereinafter in this case, the attached Form attached to the court below's decision) 4-1 (the attached Form attached to the court below's decision shall be 30,40, 47, 49, 52, 69, 71, 79, 80, 88, 93 through 101, 107, 112, 113, 118, 124, 129) is a transaction in which the attached Form of the court below's decision (hereinafter in this case, the attached Form attached to the court below's decision) was paid interest equivalent to the amount stated in the facts charged, even if the defendant did not participate or participated, or even if the transaction was made, the transaction was made, at least by the amount specified in the facts charged (the specific assertion of

③ As to this part of the facts charged by the lower court, the EB, F, and AC stated differently from the fact in the investigative agency’s failure to memory or to properly know the transaction details. Nevertheless, the lower court committed an unlawful act that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of each of the above statements without credibility.

④ Although [Attachment 6] of the lower judgment (excluding Nos. 30, 41, 65] attached to the lower court did not contain all the contents recorded in the F’s pocket book, the core evidence of the facts charged, which is the material evidence of the facts charged, but did not constitute sexual intercourse or receive interest, the lower court convicted of this part of the facts charged.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (limited to 6 years of imprisonment and 2.8 billion won of fine, 5 years of imprisonment and 10.6 billion won of fine) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence of the court below is too unfluent and unfair (the prosecutor completely withdrawn the argument of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles on the 7th trial date of the original trial).

3. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

1) Alteration of indictments

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor applied for changes in the bill of amendment of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) from among the names of the defendants to "special intimidation", and Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act from among the applicable provisions of Acts are "Article 284, Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act", and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

2) Determination of the changed facts charged

A) Summary of this part of the facts charged

On May 206, the Defendant, along with his name and incompetence, suffered from approximately KRW 1.3 billion damage from AU and AV fraud gambling in ATS ATS located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and had a victim U (54 years of age) who wants to file a complaint unless he returns the amount of KRW 1.3 billion from the fraudulent gambling damage. In short, the Defendant sent the above AU, AV to the head of drinking house, and carried the beer’s disease, which is a dangerous object, to the head of AU, AV, and the victim, and throw away the beer’s disease, which is a dangerous object after destroying the beer’s disease. Unless so, the Defendant died. This person said, “The head of Young-gu organized violence must be the head of it.” In order to prevent the Defendant from claiming the return of the damage caused by the fraudulent gambling by carrying the dangerous object with the victim.

B) Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where there is a change in indictment, the issue of whether the statute of limitations has expired shall be determined at the time of the initial indictment and the time of the change in indictment does not serve as the basis for the original indictment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002). However, in a case where there is a difference in the statutory punishment due to the change in the indictment by the procedures for the amendment of indictment, the statutory punishment for the changed indictment shall be the basis for the statute of limitations period. As such, in a case where the statutory punishment for the changed indictment was based on the statutory punishment for the changed indictment at the time of prosecution, the statute of limitations has not yet expired at the time of prosecution, but if the statutory punishment for the changed indictment has already expired at the time of prosecution, the judgment of acquittal shall be pronounced on the ground of the expiration of the statute of

(2) Specific determination

Since this part of the crime committed in around May 2006 is an offense falling under Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act and the statutory penalty is imprisonment for not more than seven years or a fine not exceeding ten million won, the statute of limitations is five years pursuant to the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730, Dec. 21, 2007). This part of the public prosecution was instituted on Oct. 6, 2015 after five years have already passed since it was raised on Oct. 4, 2012 after the record that the facts charged was changed to a special intimidation, and the statute of limitations has expired, it is obvious that the facts charged was changed to a special intimidation, and thus the statute of limitations has to be acquitted pursuant to Article 326(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3) Sub-decisions

Special intimidation that should be sentenced to acquittal as above, and each offense of aiding and abetting Co., Ltd., Ltd., among the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, offense of aiding and abetting in violation of the Commercial Act, each offense of aiding and abetting in violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, offense of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., 15 March 2009, offense of aiding and abetting in violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., 2006 and 2008, offense of aiding and abetting in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and offense of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc., of Specific Crimes, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "crime prior to the final judgment," and hereinafter referred to as "crime prior to the final judgment"), among these facts, have a relation of concurrent crimes

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court (Provided, That as long as the special intimidation is judged to be acquitted as mentioned above, it is not judged separately as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles). We examine

B. Judgment on the defendant's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

1) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant threatened W with W by threatening W as stated in this part of the facts charged. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is unacceptable.

A) At the time of the instant case, W, at the investigative agency and the court of the court below, planned D to success in the 15 billion won capital increase through a public offering to a policeman on August 2010 and undergo an examination for listing for two weeks. However, upon being aware of the fact that D would not have been listed on the Korea Exchange, the Financial Supervisory Service, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, etc., and notified D of D to the Korea Exchange, the Financial Supervisory Service, and the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of the fact that D would not have been listed on the Korea Exchange, and threaten D would not have been listed on the Korea Exchange to take measures to prevent the cancellation of the authorization and permission of the business, and contacted the Defendant by preparing for the sum of 930 million won in the sum of the checks borrowed from A and AH. Accordingly, the Defendant had been able to use at the police station, and the Defendant was again given money to the police station, and then the Defendant was again given the Defendant the money to the “EM” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant”).

B) At the time of the instant case, at the investigative agency or court below, the Defendant had been holding 10 billion won for 10 billion won and 200 billion won for 10 billion won to keep the said 30-year cash records (at the end of August 2010, 196) and 1.3 billion won for 200 billion won for 30 billion won for 10-100 won for 300 won for 10-100 won for 2000 won for 10-100 won for 3000 won for 300-100 won for 300-100 won for 300 won for 10-100 won for 300-100 won for 300-100 won for 300-100 won for 300-100 won for 300-100 won for 300-100 won for 300.

C) At the investigative agency or court of the court below, AH, which lent money to D, had a concern that W would not recover money if the company did not list it, provided that W borrowed money from the main point of this case with W, etc. and provided the Defendant with a check to the main point of this case with W, etc., and stated that the Defendant was also aware of the check in the above envelope (2012 Gohap129, 129, 132-723, 838, 854 pages of the trial record).

D) At the time of the instant case, the CA (the above AH punishment has been imposed) which was a director at the time of the instant case, transferred to D’s executives the statement that W was threatened by the Defendant for a large amount of intimidation at the court of original instance, and made an attack with D’s officers. W heard that W, while having a telephone conversation with the Defendant, would make a speech that W would not be listed unless the Defendant would be aware of the agreement, and expressed that W would like to have an opportunity to not be listed (the trial record 817-818, 831). E) while mediating the Defendant’s loan transactions, it was close to the Defendant in the investigative agency or the court of original instance, if W would be prevented from listing D around August 2010, it was strongly demanded from W 1 billion won and prepared money for that reason, and C’s statement that W was 181-181,2081 to 2085 of the trial record (the trial record).

바) 이에 반하여 대부업 또는 대부중개업을 영위하면서 피고인과 잘 알고 지냈던 CF은 원심 법정에서 이 사건 당일 저녁 집에서 쉬고 있는데 이 사건 주점으로 오라는 연락이 와서 나가 보았더니 D의 대표이사인 CB과 AH, AG 등이 있었고 피고인과 W은 없었으며, AG이 피고인에게 D의 미지급 이자로 9억 3,000만 원을 대신 전달해 달라며 수표가 든 봉투를 주기에 그 다음날 피고인에게 전화하여 이를 알렸더니 피고인이 위 돈을 받지 않겠다고 하였고, 며칠 후 피고인이 자신의 사무실에 들르자 9억 3,000만 원권 수표 1장을 발행하여 제차 이를 피고인에게 선하려 하였으나 피고인이 검찰 수사 중에 있다면서 돈을 받기를 거부하여 위 수표를 자신이 부회장으로 재직하던 주식회사 XE(이하 'XE'라고 한다)에 보관하고 있다가 그 중 8억 5,000만 원을 D에 내여하였으며, 그 후 2011. 4.~5.경 W에 대한 위 수표 반환 채무를 기존에 XE가 에 대하여 보유하고 있던 채권으로 상계하였다고 진술하였고(공판기록 1168~1172, 1202쪽), 이 사건 무렵 D의 대표이사로 근무하였던 CB도 원심 법정에서 이 사건 당일 이 사건 주점에서 AH, CF, W, AG과 만나 CF을 통해 D의 피고인에 대한 미지급 이자를 지급하려 한 것이 사실이고, 그 후 피고인이 CF으로부터 위 수표를 받는 것을 거부하여 CF이 이를 보관하고 있기로 하였다고 진술하였다(공판기록 1144~1147쪽). 그러나 CF CB의 위 진술은, ① D에 대한 수사는 2011. 2.경 피고인의 신고로 개시되었으므 로(공판기록 1187쪽) 그보다 수개월 전인 이 사건 당시에 피고인이 검찰 수사 중에 있다는 이유로 미지급 이자의 수령을 거부하였다는 것은 납득하기 어려운 점, ② D측에서 CF을 통하여 피고인에게 이자를 지급하고자 하였다면 낮에 CF이 근무하고 있는 사무실을 찾아가 위 9억 3,000만 원을 충분히 전할 수 있었으므로 굳이 저녁에 집에서 쉬고 있는 CF을 주점에까지 불러 돈을 교부할 이유는 없어 보이는 점, ③ CF이 위와 같이 피고인에게 9억 3,000만 원을 전달하지 못하였음에도 이를 W이나 AH(앞서 본 바와 같이 W과 AH은 위 돈을 지인으로부터 빌리는 등 힘들게 마련하였다)에게 반환하지 않고 그대로 보관하였다는 것 또한 쉽게 수긍하기 어려운 점, (4) 무엇보다도 CF과 CB의 위 진술에 따르면 위 9억 3,000만 원은 피고인에게 전달된 사실이 없다는 것인데, 앞서 본 바와 같이 CF은 피고인에게 위 9억 3,000만 원에 대한 반환채무가 있음을 전제로 한 현금보관증을 작성하여 교부하였던 점[CF은 원심 법정에서 위 현금보관증은 피고인이 W으로부터 위 9억 3,000만 원에 대한 공갈죄로 고소를 당하자 검찰에 제출하려 한다며 자신이 W으로부터 돈을 받지 않았다는 의미로 작성해 달라고 하여 적어주게 된 것이리고 진술하였으나(공판기록 1173쪽), 이는 앞서 본 위 현금보관증의 기재 내용과 모순될 뿐 아니라 이후 피고인이 위 현금보관증을 검찰에 제출하지도 아니하였던 섬에 비추어 도저히 납득하기 어렵다]에 마추어 믿기 어렵다.

G) The Defendant asserts that W, AG’s statement on the date and time and location of the Defendant at the time of the instant case at an investigative agency or the court of original instance is not consistent or that AH’s statement was delivered to the Defendant on August 24, 2010 as a check issued on August 24, 2010, in view of the fact that the sum of face value of the same copy of the check submitted as evidence was 650 million won. However, considering that W, AG, and AH’s statement was made after several years since the instant case occurred, even if it was somewhat inconsistent with the Defendant’s statement or that it was not consistent with the evidence submitted, it is merely a minor inconsistency arising from the limit of memory arising from the passage of time, and it cannot be said that the credibility of the above statement has been undermined.

H) In addition, in the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against W, etc. of the Seoul Central District Court 201Gohap571, the Defendant claimed that W’s above statement was difficult to be believed in light of the fact that W’s defense counsel sought to pay KRW 930 million as interest to the Defendant through AG at the time of the instant case. However, according to each of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 7 submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel at the lower court, the Defendant’s defense counsel at the lower court’s 2011Gohap571, supra, tried to pay interest KRW 93,00,00 to the Defendant through W and the Defendant present as witness, but the Defendant did not directly state that W would not have any refusal to receive such information from CF 160,000,000 won under the pretext of the above summary of the trial, and that CF 160,000,000 won was not a public trial record of W.

2) As to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act related to AL

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined evidence and XD’s statement at the trial court, XD and AR conspired with AK prior to the date and time stated in this part of the facts charged, and acquired money by fraud against AK, and the remaining AL who is dissatisfied with it did not occupy a mixed golf and distribute it, and requested AL to receive money from AK after visiting the defendant’s house together with AL and introducing AL. The defendant requested AL to give 1/2 of the money damaged by AK and received 1/2 of the money and received the consent from AL and received an explanation of the circumstances of the case from AL, and it is difficult to accept the defendant’s first promise to receive 00,000 won from AK or 50,000 won from A, and it is difficult to accept the defendant’s first promise to receive 50,000,000 won from AK or 50,000,000 won of the money and valuables at the time of the appeal.

Although the Defendant asserts that each of the above statements is difficult to believe because there are differences in XD, AR, AL, and E’s statements regarding the above demand and delivery status, each of the above statements is difficult. However, the inconsistency between the above statements alleged by the Defendant arises from the limitation of memory due to the lapse of a long period of time after the occurrence of the case, and thus, it cannot be said that it interferes with recognizing its credibility.

3) As to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act related to AR

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant received money and valuables from AR under the pretext of soliciting or arranging matters belonging to the duties of the public official in charge of investigation as stated in this part of the facts charged. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

A) From October 25, 2007 at the investigative agency and the court below's decision, AR stated that at least 23:00, the defendant visited the defendant's house on October 26, 2007, Q Q was suspected of injury by robbery, and that on October 26, 2007, the defendant could get a deduction of contact to assist the defendant, and that the defendant paid 5 million won in cash or 10 million won to the head of the Gangseo Dong Police Station at the time of ten (10) days thereafter, the defendant visited the defendant's house on the same day and delivered 10,000 won to the prosecutor, 200,000 won after visiting the defendant's house on the same day, and 200,000 won on the one hand, 10,000 won on the one hand, 200,000 won on the one hand, 20,0000 won on the one hand, and 10,000 won on the one-6,0.

C) According to the results of the prosecution's consolidated case inquiry conducted by the prosecutor, Q was actually arrested on October 25, 2007 by the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station on the charge of robbery, and was released on October 26, 2007 by the revocation of arrest. On November 1, 2007, it was prosecuted to the Seoul Dong-dong Local Police Agency, which was sent on December 31, 2007, but was subject to a non-prosecution disposition (non-prosecution disposition) at the above prosecutor's office (Evidence 16-17) (Evidence 2012 Man-Ma180). This is supported the credibility of AR's statement that it was sent by the defendant to the prosecutor at the expiration of 10 days from the date of emergency arrest (Evidence 16-17).

4) As to the perjury

The evidence adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, in the 18th trial records of the court below, the witness E's statement (1897~1902 of the trial records), the statement of the prosecutor's statement of the prosecutor's office about BH (2012Dahap277 evidence 2, 197-206 of the evidence), the joint statement of the prosecutor's office about BH (2012Dahap277) and the joint statement of the prosecutor's office (BH was arrested under suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint conflict) and is detained in the custody of the Seoul Mine Police Station, E is submitted to the prosecutor's office, and there is a document stating the matters requested by BH, such as cancellation of the establishment registration of collateral security, attorney's fee, and agreement payment, 202Da2777 of the evidence records). Each copy of the statement [2002Da275274 of the court records of the case, the defendant was present at the court below's 20720 Ha-27202 of the evidence and made.

After testimony, the Defendant was found not guilty on July 23, 2009 in the above case of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence), etc., and the Defendant cancelled the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on a part of the real estate that was demanded by BH on July 30, 2009, one week thereafter, and F also stated that BH had an interview when BH was detained in the detention room of the above police station (2012Da277 evidence records, 2012Dahap277 evidence records, 16-24, 157 pages). The Defendant also stated that BH had an interview when BH was detained in the detention room of the above police station (2012Dahap2777 evidence records, 192 pages). The Defendant stated that B had an interview with B as a result of termination of the right to collateral security with E (2012DaDa2772566) without reasonable proof as to this part of the facts charged.

이에 대하여 피고인은 BH이 위 마약류관리에 관한빕률위반(향정) 등 사건에서 여러 차례 진술을 바꾼 점에 비추어 그 진술을 믿기 어렵다고 주장한다. 그러나 BH의 위 진술내용 변동은 BH이 당초 사실대로 진술을 하였다가 피고인의 위증교사로 인하여 법정에서 위증을 한 후 다시 위증사실을 자백하는 과정에서 나타나게 된 것으로서 이러한 사정이 BH의 위 자백 진술의 신빙성을 감쇄시킨다고 보기는 어렵다.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

6) As to each violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax)

A) Unfair assertion of non-deduction of brokerage commission

The Defendant also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court determined that in calculating the interest income amount that the Defendant received from the borrower in the course of loan transaction, the Defendant should not deduct the commission for brokerage that the Defendant paid to the loan broker. The circumstances stated by the lower court are as follows:

① In the case of loan transactions in the corporate bond market as in this case, it seems almost impossible to understand the existence and amount of the brokerage commission in individual transactions because the interest or the amount of the brokerage commission is not entirely indicated in the loan documents, such as the statement of the terms of request, and the personal information of the loan broker (the same shall apply when several loan brokers are involved in the loan transaction between the credit service provider and the borrower as claimed by the defendant). ② In calculating the interest income amount in the above voice loan transaction relationship, if the brokerage commission is to be deducted from the brokerage commission, it would be possible for the credit service provider to seek tax evasion by reducing or concealing disinfection by claiming the brokerage commission deduction with which it is difficult to know the grounds arbitrarily. ③ The above brokerage commission claimed by the defendant exceeds the amount of necessary expenses according to the standard expense rate under the Income Tax Act. The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's assertion in this part is not acceptable.

B) The argument on the attached Form 4-1 of the lower judgment

(1) No. 1 to 19,21

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The defendant does not engage in this part of the transaction with the EEC, and there is no fact that there is no check submitted as evidence for this part of the facts charged to the EEC.

(B) Summary of this part of the charges

From January 10, 2006 to November 29, 2006, the Defendant, even if not preparing or preparing evidentiary materials on which the details of a loan agreement, loan agreement, account book, etc. or transaction, including the loan agreement or account book, or other transactions, was stated, has evaded the income tax by means of fraud or other unlawful acts by manipulating and concealing the income of the sum of KRW 314,00,000 ( KRW 16,000,000 x 19 + 10,000,000 x 19 x x 1) that was paid to the bearers, as described in the attached Table 4 to the lower judgment, by failing to state interest, etc.

(C) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking full account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

(D) Judgment of the court below

The evidence that correspond to this part of the facts charged is written on the EEC [2:2:4215-4; hereinafter referred to as “Separate Book”) No. 4216-2; interest details; and copies of the check (2: 4236-4237; 4257-42; hereinafter referred to as “Separate Book No. 2); however, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, the above evidence is difficult to believe as it is or is insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

① At the time of the preparation of the above written answer at the court of the court below, the EEC testified to the effect that he/she made a false statement as if he/she received a copy of the said check from the Defendant in order to make the Defendant appear to have received a large amount of interest (the trial record 2627-2630 pages).

② The phrase “to receive 3 billion won interest on each of the instant checks” is written in the EEC (E stated that the above phrase was written at the court of the trial once the check was reproduced). However, E stated that in the transaction of copying the check at the court of the trial, interest or commission is KRW 200,000 per KRW 100,000 per KRW 100,000,000 per KRW 100,000,000 per KRW 10,000,000,000 per KRW 20,000,000,000 per KRW 6,000,000; in order to prevent the above and alteration if the lending period is more than 2 days, the number of the check is not crossed out and still remains (in the case of the copy of the instant check, the number of lending period is deemed one day in light of the fact that the face value of each copy is KRW 3,00,00,000,00 per KRW 60.

③ On April 20, 2006, a copy of the check listed in No. 4, No. 13 of the lower judgment (No. 4274 pages of the separate book No. 4, No. 4274), indicated that “A” was the actual president of XG (E) and “XG (XH)” in the above section of the court at the time of the trial. However, the copy of the corporate registration (No. 2, No. 4321 pages of the separate book) against XG was located in the Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court and was transferred to XH around June 15, 2008. In light of such circumstances, the above phrase appears to have been recorded after the fact that it was not a copy of the check, but a copy of the check after the fact that it was recorded differently from the contents of the statement mentioned above.

(e) Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and the defendant's above assertion is reasonable.

(2) No. 20

(A) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) sent a copy of the check by facsimile by sending it to a loan broker at the time of the instant case. As such, the Defendant merely sent a copy of the check by facsimile, and did not have any interest thereon.

(B) Determination

The court below duly adopted and examined evidence, in particular, (1) the EEC stated that this part of the loan transaction was made between the client CO and the defendant, the former owner, around October 29, 2006 (Now 2:4214-4215), and CO stated that the name of the defendant was expressed as the former owner at the time of the instant case at the court of the court below (Now 2927 pages of the trial record), (2) the CO stated that it paid 30 million won to EEC as interest on the above loan transaction at the court of the court below (Now 2929 pages of the trial record), (30 million won of the above loan transaction at the Seoul Central District Court 209Da249229 (former claim), which is a civil case related to ECE, and that it was paid 30 million won of the loan or interest payment of CO as stated in the letter of claim for damages (Now 2929-4200,000 won of this part).

(3) No. 32

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction was conducted between H and XJ. At the time, BO had to examine the defendant's office and the defendant, while keeping the loan-related documents, the defendant did not participate in the above transaction.

(B) Determination

The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) CR, a real operator of H, (i) borrowed KRW 30 billion from ET and FG brokerage, a loan broker at the time of the instant case, and stated that he paid KRW 180 million per 10 billion (the trial record 2961-2962 pages), and (ii) in the course of search and seizure of the Defendant’s borrowed 12 billion won in the process of the Defendant’s borrowed neck loan, i.e., the document related to the loan, including a letter of loan and a letter of request (No book 4 rights 566-5671 pages), which was requested by the Defendant only after review by BO at the time, and did not make an actual transaction. If the Defendant did not have any reason to keep the above document in the name of the loan broker at the time of the instant case, the investigation agency also did not accept this part of the loan as the Defendant’s loan broker’s 200 billion won.

(4) Serial 34

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction was intended to make an investment in DB by providing money from the Defendant while J, CX, UP et al. participated in the capital increase issued by DB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DB”). At the time of delisting DB, the Defendant only recovered only the principal, but did not receive any interest.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the fact that CX, SA, which mediated this part of the loan transaction, stated to the effect that the defendant lent 7.5 billion won to DB at the court of original instance or the party court, ② the defendant also stated to the investigation agency that he was aware that he was paying interest at the time of this case (No. 5010 pages), ③ CX was aware that the defendant was paid interest amounting to 6.7 billion won in relation to the above transaction (No. 3 books 4934 pages), and E also stated to the investigation agency that BO had paid interest amounting to 60 million won in relation to the above loan (no. 3 books 4934 pages), and C also stated that BO had the interest amounting to 60 million won in relation to the above loan and stated that he had replaced it (No. 3847-3848 pages of the trial record). Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion can be accepted.

(5) Serial 37.

(A) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the instant case, XK sought money from the Defendant on the security of the guarantee issued by the Jeju Dot Agricultural Co., Ltd. at the Jeju Dot Agricultural Co., Ltd..., which was not issued properly by the NA head office, and the Defendant was not paid interest.

(B) Summary of this part of the charges

On April 10, 2007, the Defendant, as indicated in the [Attachment 4] No. 37 of the lower judgment, attempted to manipulate or conceal income of KRW 18 million which he received as interest from GH, and evaded income tax by fraud or other unlawful act, by failing to enter interest, etc., even when preparing or preparing evidentiary materials, such as a loan agreement or account book.

(C) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking full account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

(D) Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was trying to lend KRW 4.5 billion to Jeju Jeju District Agricultural Cooperative on April 10, 2007, and the transaction did not take place. At the time, as to whether the defendant was paid interest as a result of the above loan transaction, E's investigation agency and court testimony corresponding thereto were made as to whether the defendant was paid as interest, and E was given as to the amount of KRW 18 million per 10,000 won per 10,000 won per 100,000 won per 100,000 won in investigation agency, and at the court of the party trial, it was stated that the defendant was paid KRW 18,00 won per 18,00 won per 10,000 won per 10,000 won (No 3.419th day per 5,000 won per day) and the number of days per 9,000 won per day, it is difficult to believe that other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone.

(e) Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and the defendant's above assertion is reasonable.

(6) No. 38

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant did not engage in any loan transaction in this part.

(B) Summary of this part of the charges

On April 10, 2007, the Defendant, by manipulating and concealing income of KRW 28 million received as interest from CW as stated in the [Attachment 4] No. 38 of the lower judgment, in a manner that does not state interest, etc., even when preparing or preparing evidentiary materials, such as a loan agreement or account book, etc., on or around April 10, 2007, evaded income tax by fraud or other unlawful act.

(C) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking full account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

(D) Judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is insufficient to view that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was proven without reasonable doubt.

① From April 22, 2007 to May 26, 2007, W borrowed KRW 5 billion from the Defendant and submitted to the National Tax Service a written confirmation to the effect that the Defendant paid KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant (No later than 3:4832 pages). However, in the court of original instance, the court of original instance stated that, rather than preparing the said written confirmation, it signed at the time when the documents to be confirmed by the National Tax Service were affixed, and that the above borrowed amount of KRW 5,00,000 was known to anyone (No later than 407-407-79 of the trial record). The EC stated at the court of original instance that at the court of original instance, SI requested SI to arrange this part of the transaction at the request of SI and that the said Defendant was not related to the said transaction (No later than 2623,719-208).

③ At the court of first instance, E stated that the loan documents, such as the content of request, note, etc. submitted as evidence of this part of the facts charged, were not the data obtained in the process of search and seizure by an investigative agency, but the loan-related documents submitted by EC to the National Tax Service individually, and was not related to the Defendant.

(e) Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and the defendant's above assertion is reasonable.

(7) No. 41

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant did not engage in any loan transaction in this part.

(B) Summary of this part of the charges

On June 21, 2007, the Defendant evaded income tax due to fraud or other unlawful act by manipulating and concealing income of KRW 120,250,000,000, which was paid as interest from CVC, as stated in the [Attachment 41] of the lower judgment, by means of not stating interest, etc., even in a case where he did not prepare or prepares evidentiary materials, such as a loan agreement or account book, etc., on which details of the loan agreement

(C) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking full account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

(D) Judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor is insufficient to view that this part of the facts charged was proven without any reasonable doubt (the original court presented a copy of passbook, a certificate of personal seal impression, a certificate of withdrawal, and a statement of account as evidence of guilt against this part of the facts charged (110 pages of the original court judgment). However, the above evidence did not appear in the original court and did not examine evidence.

① On April 2012, Cy borrowed KRW 7 billion from June 21, 2007 to June 27, 2007 in order to obtain a balance certificate from the Defendant and F, and submitted a reply to the Seoul regional tax office to the Seoul Regional Tax Office on the confirmation of the fact that the principal borrowed KRW 175 million interest from June 21, 2007 to June 27, 2007, and submitted a reply to the payment of interest to XL during loan transaction (No book 4202 pages). However, CV, although the name of the Defendant was not entered in the court of original instance, was printed in the volcanic document on the confirmation of the fact that the name of the Defendant was not stated in the court of original instance, and was borrowed KRW 7 billion due to a balance certificate, but was actually known as money of anyone, and was introduced by L and X at the time of loan transaction to the bank of this case. The same is also stated in the record that it was not the Defendant (No book 3609-63122).

(e) Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and the defendant's above assertion is reasonable.

(8) No. 48

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction refers to the transaction in which the Defendant, at the request of the FE, participated in a passbook with KRW 10 billion and the Bank of Korea to show the passbook to the Governor of the Bank of Korea. At the time, the Defendant: (a) entered the FE upon the introduction of the GJ, etc.; (b) entered the waiting room of the Bank of Korea; and (c) entered the waiting room of the Bank of Korea; and (d) entered the Bank of Korea, and (c) entered the Bank of Korea, and the Defendant returned to the Bank of Korea upon the receipt of KRW 10 million from the FE.

(B) Summary of this part of the charges

On September 12, 2007, the Defendant, by manipulating and concealing income of KRW 50 million, which was paid as interest from FE as stated in the [Attachment 48] No. 48 of the lower judgment on September 12, 200, by means of fraud or other unlawful act, in a case where he did not prepare or prepare evidentiary materials, such as a loan agreement or account book, which describe the contents of the loan agreement or transaction, or by failing to state

(C) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking full account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

(D) Judgment of the court below

As seen earlier, the Defendant did not dispute that the Defendant was paid KRW 10 million from the FE due to this part of the loan transaction. Furthermore, as stated in this part of the facts charged at the time, the Defendant stated that the Defendant was paid KRW 50 million as interest as stated in this part of the facts charged at the time, “the Defendant shall waive the payment of KRW 10 million to the President of the Bank of Korea and the President of the FE at the time when he became aware of his sexual intent until December 13, 2007, September 14, 200.” In light of the fact that the FE at the time of GE that it arranged the above loan transaction, the Defendant stated that the FE prepared the letter of waiver of KRW 10 million at the time of GE written statement of waiver of KRW 10 million (2:4194-4195-4195), the statement of demand, the statement of demand and the statement of withdrawal of KRW 196-419-49-196-199-1.

(e) Sub-committee

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged falls under a case where there is no proof of crime, the above argument by the defendant is reasonable (However, since the defendant recognizes the criminal facts with respect to the part of income of KRW 10 million included in the above facts charged, it is not likely that the exercise of the right of defense would be practically unfair even if punishment is punished, so the defendant is guilty without changing

(9) No. 50

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The loan principal of this part is KRW 6 billion, and the defendant only received interest in KRW 10 million.

(B) Summary of this part of the charges

On October 2, 2007, the Defendant evaded income tax by fraud or other unlawful act by lending KRW 6.6 billion to C, as stated in the [Attachment 4] No. 50 of the lower judgment, and manipulating and concealing income of KRW 30 million paid as interest, by means of not stating interest, etc., even in a case where the Defendant did not prepare or prepare evidentiary materials, such as a loan agreement or account book, etc., on or around October 2, 2007.

(C) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking full account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

(D) Judgment of the court below

The defendant does not dispute the defendant who lent 6 billion won to CT at the time of the instant case and received 10 billion won interest. Furthermore, as stated in this part of the facts charged, the defendant lent 6.6 billion won to CT and received 30 million won interest as stated in this part of the facts charged, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the column for requesting contents in the name of CT in the name of 6.6 billion won in Japan bank BP (4.6 billion won in separate book), recopiction, 6.3 billion won in cash, and 6.3 billion won in cash, and the defendant provided 6.6 billion won in cash at the time of the instant case with the signature of 6.6 billion won in consideration of the above facts charged, it is difficult to view that the defendant provided 6.6 billion won in cash again with the signature of 6.6 billion won in advance at the time of the above 6.6 billion won in consideration of the following facts charged.

(e) Sub-committee

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the above argument by the defendant is reasonable (However, as to the part of income of KRW 10 million due to the loan of KRW 6 billion included in the above facts charged, the defendant also recognizes the smell crime, and even if punishment is imposed, it is not likely to actually disadvantage the exercise of the right of defense. Thus, the defendant is guilty without changing

(10) No. 51

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant was only a window with interest on the loan transaction 10 million won.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the CT stated that it would be slved by the court of the court below that it would clearly memory the 30 million won in relation to this part of the transaction (the trial record 3569 pages), the defendant could fully be fully admitted that he traded the loan as stated in this part of the facts charged and received 30 million won as interest. Thus, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

(11) Serial 53

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction is unrelated to the defendant, whether the BO has transacted with XJ.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the CU borrowed 5 billion won as one day to obtain proof of balance, and paid 25 million won as interest, and the name of the defendant was expressed at the time when the documents were prepared by the bank at the time. However, although the defendant's name was written at the time of borrowing funds, the defendant stated that he did not memory with the name of BO (the trial record 3583-3585 pages), it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant conducted loan transactions such as those stated in this part of the facts charged and received 25 million won interest, so this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

(12) Serial 54

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction is a transaction with XJ, and there is no relation with the defendant.

(B) Determination

In full view of the statements from JM’s representative director at the original trial court (which is 7156-7158 of the trial record) and the statement of reply to the confirmation of the interest that he prepared (which is 3:56-7158 of the trial record), a copy of the check found to have been given by the Defendant’s borrowed loan, and each statement of the certificate of personal seal impression (which is 3:5388 of the book 5388 of the book), the Defendant made a loan transaction as stated in this part of the facts charged, and was paid at least 1,90,000 won as interest (which is 17,000,000 won as stated in the written reply to the confirmation of the above interest payment). Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

(13) No. 61

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant did not engage in this part of the loan transaction, and was unaware of the FT Co., Ltd. as the borrower itself.

(B) Determination

The court below determined that the defendant lent 15.4 billion won to FT Co., Ltd. at the time of the instant case and received 1.2 billion won interest on the ground of the circumstances adopted by the court below. In light of the circumstances stated by the court below, the court below's above determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as argued by the defendant. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

(14) Serial 62.

(A) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant sought to receive a balance certificate for the re-performance of force, and attempted to make such transaction, but did not receive interest because the transaction did not have a sexual intercourse.

(B) Determination

The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: ① The CP stated that this part of the transaction was on the date of borrowing KRW 50 billion from the investigative agency and the court below's court below's loan of KRW 120,000 won per 10,000 won, and the interest was paid at KRW 60,000 won per 10,000 won (No book 3:5209, the trial record 7138), ② The statement of the request for this part of the loan transaction (No book 3:5215, the separate book 5215), and the statement that "A president" is "not to return the borrowed amount." However, if the defendant had already been aware of the loan of KRW 5397,00 per 10,000,000, this part of the charges cannot be accepted, in light of the fact that the defendant had been paid the loan of KRW 60,000,000.

(15) No. 63

(A) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant invested in the FP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “FP”). The Defendant only recovered the principal only, and there is no fact that he received interest.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and in particular, the E, for the purpose of self-determination, etc. on January 23, 2008, borrowed KRW 10 billion from the defendant for a month from the defendant for the purpose of this part transaction by the FP on January 23, 2008, and stated that the defendant received KRW 328,552,550,000 as interest accrued from the deposit in bank over the above KRW 10 billion for one month and the above KRW 28,552,50 as interest accrued from the deposit in bank for the above KRW 300,000,000,000 per month (No book 5439 pages), it can be fully convicted

Meanwhile, DN and XM worked for the FP at the time of the instant case stated that the FP was invested by the Defendant on Jan. 23, 2008 in the process of purchasing and selling the 10 billion Seoul XO at the lower court or the first instance court, and that the investment terms return the principal amount of KRW 10 billion after the purchase of commercial buildings, and that the investment interest was not paid separately within 12 months (348 pages of the public trial record), and that the interest or commission was not paid separately (50 billion) written between the Defendant and the FP (563~564 pages of the separate 4). However, in light of the fact that the 1E stated that the above investment contract was partially created when the above investment contract was last 00 billion won, and that it was difficult for the Defendant, who is a credit service provider, to return the investment interest amount of KRW 100 billion to the Defendant without any interference with the above 300 billion investment agreement or the above 500 billion investment agreement.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

(16) Serial 64

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction is the transaction in which the defendant has made an investment but only the principal has been recovered.

(B) Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the statement of the prosecutor's statement of E (2012 high-priced 484 evidence records 1856) and the statement of the prosecutor's statement of E (4°573 pages 5574 pages) and the statement of the contents of the request (4°574 pages) and the copy of the check (4°574 pages), it can be fully recognized that the defendant made a loan transaction as stated in this part of the facts charged and received a payment of KRW 80 million as interest, so this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable

(17) No. 70

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant does not engage in any loan transaction or receive interest.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, 1) AC is a loan transaction with interest of KRW 2.5 billion in the police, KRW 150 million in the loan period of KRW 2.5 billion in the loan period of KRW 2.5 billion in the loan, and KRW 14,973,642 in the deposit interest of KRW 2.5 billion in the loan, and KRW 14,973,642 in the above 2.5 billion in the deposit interest of KRW 2.5 billion in the loan period of KRW 2.5 billion in the loan period of KRW 164,97, KRW 5351 in the name of AC and HS, and 2.5 billion in the name of AC and HS, the defendant's assertion that all rights of KRW 2.5 billion in the deposit certificate of KRW 2.5 billion in the above part as stated in the facts charged are stated in the loan and that the defendant was paid KRW 164,97, KRW 150,000 in this part cannot be accepted.

(18) No. 73

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant only received interest in the loan transaction amounting to KRW 20 million.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, 10 billion won as at the time of loan transaction, 10 billion won as at the time of loan transaction, 200 million won as at the time of loan transaction, 10 billion won as at the time of loan transaction, 20 million won as at the time of loan transaction, 30 million won as at the time of loan transaction, 40 to 50 million won as at the time of loan transaction, 2068, 30 million won as at the time of loan transaction, 200 million won as at the time of this part of this part of this part of this part of this part of this case, 20 million won as at the time of this case's loan transaction, 20 billion won as at the time of this part of this case's loan transaction, 30 billion won as at the time of this part of this case's loan transaction, 200 million won as at the time of this part of this case's loan transaction, 200 million won as at the time of this part of this part of this case's loan transaction.

(19) No. 74

(A) Defendant’s assertion

In the event that the Defendant lends money as collateral to the real estate, the Defendant did not receive interest, separately,. This part of the loan transaction was made by setting up a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of 1.5 billion won on the real estate owned by HU and lending one billion won, and did not receive interest, and thereafter, the Defendant did not recover all the principal and interest.

(B) Determination

원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, HU의 아들인 DF은 HU 소유인 임야의 진입로를 개설하기 위한 자금이 필요하여 XP, XQ, X의 중개로 위 임야를 담보로 제공하고 피고인으로부터 10억 원을 차용하였으며, X은 위 차용금 채무를 연대보증한 사실, 그 후 DF은 위 10억 원 중 8억 원을 다시 XP, XQ에게 대여하였는데, XP, XQ이 이를 약정기일 내에 변제하지 아니하자 피고인에게 이자 문제를 상의 하였고, 그 과정에서 피고인으로부터 위 10억 원에 대한 신이자 5,000만 원을 X이 이미 지급하였고, 향후 이자는 월 3,000만 원이라는 이야기를 들은 사실, X은 DFXP, XQ을 상대로 제기한 대여금 청구 소송에서 증인으로 출석하여 위 10억 원을 차용할 당시 피고인에게 선이자를 지급하였다는 취지로 증언한 사실(별책 3권 5094쪽, 공판기록 3399쪽)을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 피고인은 이 사건 당시 X로부터 DF 의 선이자 5,000만 원을 대낡받음으로써 피고인은 대부거래에시 중개업자가 선납이자를 대신 납부하는 경우는 없다고 주장하나, 앞서 본 바와 같이 XP, XQ이 DF의 위 차용금 중 일부를 빌려 사용하고자 하였으므로 그 일행인 X로서는 위 선납이자를 대납할 동기가 충분하였다고 보인다) 적어도, 3,000만 원(검사는 위 선이자 5,000만 원 중 3,000만 원에 대하여만 공소를 제기하였다)의 이자수입을 취득하였음을 충분히 인정할 수 있으므로(X이 DF을 위해 대납한 위 선납이자는 차후 XP, XQ이 DF에게 위 8억 원을 변제하는 과정에서 정산되어야 할 부분이다), 피고인의 이 부분 주장은 받아들일 수 없다.

(20) No. 75

(A) Defendant’s assertion

There is no fact that the defendant received interest on this part of the transaction with an infinite relation.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, AC intended to mediate a transaction of borrowing funds for capital increase with 19.8 billion won from the defendant at NH Co., Ltd., which it operated at the time of the instant case at the police, but did not meet the conditions, the above company was responsible for the transaction without fault, and paid KRW 100 million to the defendant, and the details of the payment of the money specifically stated (No. 5334 pages), it can be fully recognized that the defendant made a loan transaction as stated in this part of the facts charged and received KRW 100 million as interest. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is unacceptable.

(21) No. 76

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The interest that the defendant received due to this part of the loan transactions does not amount to KRW 240 million.

(B) Summary of this part of the charges

On March 17, 2007, the Defendant evaded income tax by manipulating and concealing income of KRW 240 million received as interest from C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) as shown in [Attachment 4] No. 76 of the lower judgment, by means of fraud or other unlawful act, such as failure to enter interest, etc., even in a case where he did not prepare or prepares evidentiary materials, including a loan agreement or account book, etc., which describe the contents of a loan agreement or transaction.

(C) Determination

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking full account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

(D) Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, AB and AB requested AC to borrow a loan of KRW 6 billion from a private individual during loan transactions around January 2009. AC borrowed KRW 4.8 billion from the defendant around March 17, 2009 and received an investment of KRW 1.2 billion from the land (the above KRW 6 billion is deemed to have been used for the advance payment of KRW 4.6 billion in the original judgment) The above fact of recognition that AB paid KRW 2 billion to AC with the interest of KRW 6.4 billion in the above 6 billion in the above 6 billion in the above 6.4 billion in the above 6 billion in the 2000 billion in the 6.4 billion in the 2000 billion interest amount (the above 6 billion interest amount was KRW 4.6 billion in the above 4 billion in the 200 billion interest amount). Furthermore, the defendant stated that the above 6.4 billion in the 200 billion interest loan of KRW 4.6 billion in the above 6 billion in the 2.8 billion interest amount (the 5.8.8 billion in the record).

(e) Sub-committee

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, the above argument by the defendant is reasonable (However, the above facts charged includes the part that the defendant lent KRW 6 billion to C and received KRW 200 million as interest, and in light of the process of the trial of this case, even if the defendant punished tax evasion of KRW 200 million, it does not pose a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense, and thus, the defendant

(22) Serial 77

(A) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant lent KRW 14.65 billion to HD and G, and paid KRW 500 million as interest, but immediately after the instant transaction, the Defendant transferred the said transaction to BO and SA, and received KRW 14.65 billion from them, and delivered the said KRW 500 million to SA. Therefore, there is no interest that the Defendant received as the said loan transaction.

(B) Determination

The court below duly adopted and examined evidence, in particular, DM, an employee of G and HD, from the investigative agency on March 24, 2009, borrowed 14.65 billion won from the defendant as "the early date," and paid 300 million won interest as a check, and completed HD's capital increase with the above funds. The defendant immediately withdrawn the above funds and completed the capital increase with the above 14.65 billion won as a result of the defendant's prompt withdrawal of the above funds before the morning, the defendant stated that he additionally paid 370 million won as interest by borrowing KRW 1.65 billion from X (2012, 277 evidence records, 14, 2012, 200, 1819, 233-23-36-45, 2500, 2500 won as the above facts charged, and thus, the defendant could not be found to have received more than the above 14.5 billion won as the defendant's payment of the above funds.

(23) Nos. 81

(A) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of this portion loan transaction, the CF increased the price of the shares through C’s capital increase with the capital increase, and subsequently, the CF did not pay interest at all.

(B) Determination

The lower court determined that the Defendant could have received interest of KRW 15 billion at the time of the instant case on the grounds of the circumstances stated in the Decision 54-55. The lower court determined that: (a) the lower court stated in the circumstances stated by the lower court that AC borrowed KRW 15 billion from the Defendant at the time of the instant case from the investigative agency to pay 15.5 billion, including interest (2012 Gohap484 Evidence No. 897,89,906), and F stated that the said KRW 15.5 billion was delivered at the investigative agency as a check (2012 Gohap484 evidence No. 484 evidence No. 912 pages); and (b) the lower court’s aforementioned determination is reasonable; and (c) the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the Defendant. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

(24) Serial 83

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant only received interest in the loan transaction amounting to KRW 20 million.

(B) Determination

According to each entry of FH and submitted to the Seoul Regional Tax Office a reply (No. 4192 pages), a letter of request (No. 2: 4193 pages), a letter of request (No. 4193 pages) and F’s Round (No. 3: 5133 pages), it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant engaged in loan transactions as described in this part of the facts charged and received KRW 100 million as interest, and that Defendant was insufficient to reverse the above recognition. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is unacceptable.

(25) Serial 84

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant only received interest on the loan transaction amounting to KRW 40 million.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the fact that "F is 100 billion Won (F) 70 million Won (G)" on July 24, 2009 ( separate 3rd page 5133 pages), the defendant can be recognized to have engaged in loan transactions as stated in this part of the facts charged and received at least KRW 600 million as interest, and the fact that SO's statement at the trial alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

(26) Serial 85

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant received the interest of KRW 40 million in this part of the loan transaction, and filed a lawsuit from the HZ, the borrower, and returned the said money to the JIZ.

(B) Determination

The court below duly adopted and examined evidence, in particular, (1) '80,000 won' at the bottom of the standard contract for loan transaction (No. 4784 pages) concerning this part of this part; (2) Z was stated as '80,000 won at the time of this part of this part of this transaction; (3) Z was paid the loan amount of 20,000,000 won at the time of this part of this part of this transaction with the Defendant and F, an individual in loan transaction; and (4) Z was stated as '47,000,000 won at the time of this part of this part of this transaction; and (3) Z was paid the remainder of this part of this case with the Defendant's loan fee of 205,000,000 won at the time of this part of this transaction (No. 4707,000,000 won at the time of this part of this case's loan; and (4) Z was paid by the Defendant 275,07,07,07,000,00.

(27) Nos. 87

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction was conducted by our internal trader to pay KRW 28 billion to the account of DI. However, even though the Defendant deposited the said money to DI’s account, the Defendant immediately recovered the money from 1 to 2 minutes, and suspended the transaction. The Defendant did not receive any interest on the loan transaction at all.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly incorporated and examined by the court below, especially the fact that DI borrowed KRW 4 billion at the time of the instant case and prepared and submitted to the investigation agency a letter of confirmation that DI paid KRW 40 million as interest (No. 4871 pages), and the court below stated that the loan broker demanded 1% interest of the loan as interest and paid KRW 40 million to the said broker (No. 7191-7195 pages of the public trial record), it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant conducted loan transactions as stated in this part of the facts charged and received interest of KRW 28 million at least (No. 28 million as seen earlier, even if the brokerage commission of the loan broker is included in the above 28 million won as stated in the facts charged). This part of the Defendant’s assertion is unacceptable.

(28) Nos. 89

(A) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant lent 14 billion won to the IB’s capital increase with the subscription price for new shares, and received 280 million won as interest, but at the time of the instant case, the Defendant returned all of the above interest and recovered the loan due to unstable settlement of the bill received as security.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was merely a person who lent 14 billion won to the IB’s capital increase increase in the capital gains at the time of the instant case and received 280 million won as interest, and it can be sufficiently recognized in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant returned the above interest to IB merely by the SL’s statement in the court below.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

(29) Serial 90

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction is that the BO's East International Trade Association received the certificate of deposit worth KRW 22 billion through the Defendant, and the transaction was cancelled in the middle, and there is no difference between the Defendant and the above loan transaction.

(B) Determination

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, 1) the IC tried to mediate loan transactions of 22 billion won from October 28, 2009 to November 28, 2009 at the request of the person called JU at the investigative agency, but did not provide loan, but stated that the interest was paid to F after receiving 45 million won from JU at the time of commencement of the day (5360 pages), 2) interest payment confirmation letter (5369 pages 5,000,000 won, 2) interest payment confirmation letter (5369 pages 5,000,000 won, 2) interest payment confirmation letter by the IC, which stated that the above amount was paid as interest payment under interest payment under this part of the loan to the IC, which is not sufficient to support this part of the loan transaction (the above defendant 45 million won and 500,000,000 won, 2).

(30) Nos. 91

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant was only paid 1180,000,000 won as interest on loan transactions.

(B) Determination

According to evidence duly adopted and examined, the court below tried to show that the above 70 billion won was in a crisis of business suspension from the Financial Supervisory Service around 2009, and that the defendant borrowed 30 billion won from the defendant on November 3, 2009 and deposited 30 billion won to the attorney-at-law on December 1, 2009, and borrowed 12.1 billion won again from the defendant on December 1, 2009. The above facts are as follows: (1) The defendant stated that the above 170 billion won was 60 billion won for each of the above 70 billion won securities transaction of the above bank (the above 1.7 billion won securities transaction of the above bank) and the defendant stated that the above 160 billion won was 1.7 billion won for each of the above 6 billion won securities transaction of the above bank (the above 1.7 billion won securities transaction of the above bank was 60 billion won or more for each of the above 1.7 billion won securities transaction (the above 1.75 billion won securities trading).

(31) Serial 92

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction was revoked, and the Defendant was not paid any interest due to the cancellation.

(B) Determination

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, EB, an employee of CF who arranged loan transactions in this part, paid interest of KRW 116 million to the borrower in the manner that the borrower directly paid to the Jeonju on November 6, 2009 by borrowing KRW 5.8 billion from the defendant on November 6, 2009. The answer to the confirmation of the payment of interest was prepared and submitted to the Seoul Regional Tax Office (No. 5226 pages, EB submitted to the Seoul Regional Tax Office (No. 3 books, No. 5226 pages, and No. 7166 pages of the trial record) that the above transaction was not sexually established (No. 7164-7166 pages of the trial record). This is difficult to believe that the above transaction was not sexually established in light of the evidence and the customer comprehensive customer transaction information inquiry table of ID as seen earlier, and thus, the defendant's assertion that ID's comprehensive customer transaction information statement of KRW 1600,000.1.59.

(32) Nos. 102

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction is a patternless transaction of passbook, which is immediately withdrawn from approximately one minute of money to the head of the Tong, and only the defendant was paid an interest amounting to KRW 2 million in relation to the transaction.

(B) Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the response to the confirmation notice of interest payment prepared and submitted by DG, the representative director of the IP company, and the statement in the investigative agency (at least three books 5381), the confirmation letter (at least 569 pages), and the copy of the passbook (at least three books 5383 pages), it can be sufficiently recognized that the IP company paid 512 million won as interest to the defendant through XR among this part of loan transactions (at least 5383 pages), since the defendant asserted that XR received the above amount of KRW 512 million and did not pay in full to the defendant (at least, even if XR included the brokerage commission of the loan broker, the total amount received from the loan broker, which is the borrower, should be considered as the amount of interest income of the defendant), this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

(33) Serial 104

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of internal trading is not a defendant, but a transaction in which E is his own money.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, ① the principal of the loan transaction in this part was deposited to EO, the borrower, and returned to F’s account, ② EO stated in the court below’s decision that E himself was gathered (374-3745 pages of the trial record), ③ E stated that he was only the number of days between the parties (1854 pages of the evidence evidence 2012Da4844 of the trial record), and that E stated that he was only the number of days between the parties (2012Da4854 pages of the trial record), it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, other than E, has been engaged in the loan transaction as stated in this part of the facts charged and received payment of KRW 3 million as this interest. Accordingly, this part of the defendant’s argument cannot be accepted.

(34) Serial 105

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant only received 200 million won in cash and benz car as interest on the loan transaction.

(B) Summary of this part of the charges

On February 23, 2010, the Defendant evaded income tax by a fraud or other unlawful act by manipulating or concealing income of KRW 1.41 billion, which was received as interest from D, as shown in [Attachment 4] No. 105 of the lower judgment, by means of failing to record interest, etc., even in cases where he/she did not prepare or prepare evidentiary materials, such as a loan agreement or account book, etc., which indicated the details of a loan agreement or transaction.

(C) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the fact that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant had been paid interest of KRW 1.266 billion in the above loan transaction and received interest exceeding the interest amount, as set out in the Decision 55-56.

(D) Judgment of the court below

Defendant is not only the person who was delivered 200 million won in cash with interest on loan transactions from D but also the person who was lawfully admitted and investigated by the lower court. According to W and AG’s investigation agencies or the court below’s statements, the market price at the time of W and AG’s car was 180 million won (2/129 evidence records, 639 pages of the trial records, 2012/129), further, as to whether the Defendant received interest on 1.41 billion won in the facts charged, it is difficult for the lower court to view that W and the lower court’s statement at the investigation agencies or the court below did not coincide with the aforementioned loan agreement and interest rate of 1.7 billion won in consideration of the fact that W and AG’s statement at the investigation agencies or the court below’s court did not provide evidence of 200 million won in cash, and it is difficult for the lower court to conclude that W did not have any capacity to pay interest rate of 1.3 billion won in the record and interest rate of 1.7 billion won in the facts charged.

(e) Sub-committee

Therefore, since the prosecution room in this section constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the above argument by the defendant is reasonable. However, since the defendant recognizes the criminal facts as to the part of the income of KRW 380 million (cash 200 million + 180 million for benz passenger car 100,000 won (the defendant, while holding the above benz passenger car to the defendant in D, had one unit of old benz passenger car which the defendant was entering the previous benz car, so the amount equivalent to the market price of the above benz passenger car should be deducted from the market price of the above benz. However, according to the records, the above benz passenger car in the above benz is operated with D or W, it is evident that the above benz passenger car was operated with D or W, and even if punished, it is not accepted). Thus, the defendant is found guilty ex officio without changing the indictment.

(35) Nos. 106

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction was exchanged with a check, and the defendant was only paid 5 million won as a fee.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, (1) EK, which sought to accept the FU corporation at the time of this part of this transaction, prepared a loan transaction standard contract (No. 3: 5464-5 pages), and (2) EK had a fund of KRW 10 billion to be loaned to the investigation agency, and only KRW 9.7 billion on February 9, 2010, and on the same day, it stated that the defendant was to receive KRW 10.1 billion (1 billion check, KRW 10 billion check), through XS, the former owner of FU corporation (the first owner of the FU corporation, KRW 10 billion check), and that the defendant was to make a statement that the defendant was to make a loan as stated in this part of this part of the facts charged, and thus, it is not sufficient to accept the above part of the court below's determination that the defendant was to have been paid the interest of KRW 4.1 billion (1 billion).7 billion.

(36) Nos. 108

(A) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the instant loan transaction, DK as an individual in the loan transaction would review the Defendant, and there is a few documents related to the loan in the Defendant’s office, but there is no fact that the Defendant actually made the loan transaction.

(B) Determination

In full view of all the statements in the original judgment of the EG and written statements submitted by EG to an investigation agency (2012 Gohap484, 550 pages of evidence), written confirmation (5304-5 pages of separate 3 books), written confirmation (5304-5 pages 5305 pages), and written pocket book (5127 pages), it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant engaged in loan transactions like this part of the facts charged and received KRW 150 million as interest. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is unacceptable.

(37) Nos. 109

(A) Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the instant loan transaction, DK as an individual in the loan transaction, sent a review to the Defendant, and recorded the loan-related documents in the Defendant’s office, but there is a fact that the Defendant actually engaged in the loan transaction.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, EH plans to accept WB corporation from IS around the end of February 2010 at the investigative agency, and upon request from IX to raise funds due to shortage of 19 billion won, it borrowed money through JX, and later, it became aware of the fact that the above loan fee was KRW 350 million, and our JX stated that the former owner was the defendant (2012 senior 484 evidence records 519-520 pages). In light of the fact that IX stated that the defendant was the defendant's talking that the former owner was the defendant (2012 senior 484 evidence records 519-520 pages), this part of the defendant's assertion can not be accepted.

(38) No. 110

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the loan transaction is not a defendant, but a transaction in which E is his own money.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the EM prepared a letter of request (No. 5461 pages) at the defendant's home, along with IT around March 15, 2010 at the investigation agency, and it stated that IT delivered KRW 3 million to the defendant (No. 512-513 pages of evidence No. 2012 Gohap484) that IT was delivered from the borrower (No. 512-513 pages of evidence evidence), and that E stated that the above transaction was lent to the defendant by using the passbook of CN, a her birth, (no. 3837 pages of the trial record), it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a loan transaction as described in this part of the facts charged and received KRW 3 million as such (No. 50 million at the time of the above loan transaction at the court below's ruling). However, in light of the above part of the EM's testimony and the above 3450 billion amount, the defendant's testimony was insufficient.

(39) No. 111

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction is cancelled, and there is no interest which the defendant received in connection with the transaction.

(B) Determination

The court below reasoned that the evidence duly examined by the court below, in particular, I introduced the borrower in the name of the need for a copy of the passbook for the balance certificate by the XU around March 16, 2010, and stated that E, together with the defendant's house, was directly prepared at the defendant's house and delivered 19 million won to the defendant through XU (20,484 steam Records 510-512 pages), ② The books prepared by the F (30,3127 pages of separate books), 30,3/16-19 (300,000,000 won, 300,000,000 won, 300,000 won, 30,0000 won, 30,000 won, 30,000,000 won, 30,000 won, 30,000,000 won, 19,000 won, 16,000.

(40) No. 114

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant only received interest on the loan transaction amounting to KRW 40 million.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the EL stated that it mediated this part of the loan transactions and delivered KRW 60 million among them to the defendant by receiving KRW 100 million as interest from XV (the previous trade name: XV) (the trial record 3328 pages), since the defendant could sufficiently be recognized that he conducted loan transactions as stated in this part of the facts charged and received KRW 100 million as interest ( even if the above 100 million won includes brokerage commission of loan brokers such as EL, the total amount received from the borrower Co., Ltd. shall be deemed as the interest income amount of the defendant), this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

(41) Serial 115

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant only received interest in the loan transaction amounting to KRW 20 million.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the following facts: ① DX borrowed 20 billion won in apartment purchase fund in the name of EI after being introduced by the defendant through EI at the time of the instant case and stated that the defendant paid KRW 320 million in advance interest (200 million in advance and KRW 600 million in the record of evidence 2012Da484); ② El prepared a reply to the confirmation notice on the interest payment that the interest interest interest interest payment amounting to approximately KRW 300 million in the loan transaction was about KRW 300 million and submitted to the Seoul Regional Tax Office (No book 2:4141 pages) (No book 4141), and the court below stated that the interest payment of the defendant to DX was either fixed at the Defendant’s office or transferred it in cash, etc. (No book 3014 pages of the trial record). Accordingly, the defendant’s assertion that the interest payment of KRW 210 million in this part as stated in the facts charged was not accepted.

(42) Serial 116

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction is only 8 million won interest in connection with the above distance, as the so-called pattern of passbook, in which the defendant paid money to the head of the Tong and immediately withdraws about one minute.

(B) Determination

The lower court determined that the Defendant could have lent KRW 20 billion to FU Co., Ltd., EK, and IDR at the time of the instant case and received KRW 80 million as interest on the ground of the circumstances stated in the Decision 56-57. Examining the lower court’s aforementioned judgment in comparison with records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is unacceptable.

(43) Serial 117

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the loan transaction is due to the collection of principal from 2 to 3 days, and the interest that the defendant received does not reach KRW 4 million.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, (1) the standard contract for loan transaction under the name of E Q (No. 3: 4896 pages), the contract date is August 24, 2010; (2) the loan term expires on September 8, 2010 (no. 16 days for the above loan transaction) and (3) the F submits to the investigation agency a written confirmation that it was paid KRW 4 million as interest of this part of the transaction (No. 3: 4892-4893 pages), the defendant can sufficiently be recognized to have been paid KRW 4 million as interest of the loan transaction as stated in this part of the facts charged, and it is insufficient to accept this part of the defendant's assertion on this ground.

(44) Serial 119

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the loan transaction is a transaction that establishes a collateral security and lends money, and the defendant has not received interest.

(B) Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the EZ's statement at the court below (4843 pages of the trial record) and the letter of confirmation prepared by F (2: 4710, 4712 pages) and the letter of confirmation in the name of EZ (2: 4719 pages), it can be ensured that the defendant was engaged in loan transactions as stated in this part of the facts charged and paid 26 million won as interest, and that the DN's statement at the court below alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

(45) No. 121

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the loan transaction is XW, and the defendant was not involved in the above transaction.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, that ① FC borrowed 5 billion won for a period of one month and is expected to keep the F in custody at the time of the transaction in this part, and ② ES prepared a reply to the confirmation notice on the confirmation notice on the payment of interest (3rd page 500,000), ② EB requested KB to raise funds for acquiring funds at the court of the court below, and stated that KB paid KRW 150,000 to KB as it is necessary to pay money (406 pages of the trial record), ③ a FC borrowing certificate and a certificate of personal seal impression (502 to 503 pages) are found to be a loan borrowed by the Defendant’s second name, the Defendant’s assertion that this part of the facts charged was identical to the loan and received KRW 150,500,000,000 as the loan, and thus, this part of the judgment below cannot be accepted.

(46) Serial 122

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant received interest on loan transactions in this part and returned all of the interest that he received from the CA as the borrower in the lawsuit.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the CA borrowed KRW 2.4 billion from the defendant at the time of the instant case and paid 100 million as interest at the time of the instant case, but the transaction had not been conducted, it stated that the conciliation was concluded to receive return of KRW 470 million by filing a lawsuit against the defendant and loan broker (No. 470-4703 of the public trial record), EB that arranged the said loan transaction, and EB that made the statement corresponding thereto at the investigative agency (No. 3:516 pages), the defendant made a loan transaction as stated in this part of the facts charged and received KRW 60 million as interest (no. 10 million - 40 million ). Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is unacceptable.

(47) No. 123

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the loan transaction is not a defendant, but a transaction in which E is his own money.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the fact that EM stated at the investigation agency that it received 4 million won as interest from the borrower at the time of this part of this part and 4.5 million won as storage fees for head of Tong (2012 high Gohap 484 evidence records 509) and the fact that the principal of the loan transaction was deposited and repaid as a copy of the F passbook (2nd 4716 pages), it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, not E, has been paid 4.5 million won as interest, and that this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

(48) No. 125

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant was only paid 5 million won interest on the loan transaction.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the EW clearly stated that it paid 45 million won as interest to the defendant at the time of this case in this part of this part of this case through two times (public trial record 4732), it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant conducted loan transactions as stated in this part of the facts charged and received 45 million won as interest. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is unacceptable.

(49) No. 126

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant was only paid 3 million won interest on the loan transaction.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the EN clearly stated that it borrowed 3 billion won from the defendant on December 29, 2010 from the court below and paid 12 million won interest to the defendant (3603 pages of the trial record), since it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant conducted loan transactions as stated in this part of the facts charged and received 12 million interest, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

(50) No. 127

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant only received interest in the loan transaction amounting to KRW 13 million.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the representative FF of the IZ Co., Ltd., 1, submitted to the investigative agency a letter of confirmation that the interest in this part of the transaction is KRW 300 million (No. 3 books 5187-5188), ② the document of confirmation that the EB, which brokered the above loan transaction, paid to the Defendant, the capital owner of the above KRW 120 million (No. 300 million) is submitted to the prosecutor’s office (No. 2012 high-class 484 evidence records 681-683 pages), it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant conducted internal transactions as described in this part of the facts charged and received the payment of KRW 120 million as interest. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is unacceptable.

(51) No. 128

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant was only paid 3 million won interest on the loan transaction.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the defendant submitted to the investigation agency a letter of confirmation that ER, who is an employee of JA company, paid 5 million won in cash to the broker at the same location with the broker at the time of the instant case (No. 3:4846 pages); and 2. A copy of the passbook of JA company (No. 3: page 4849 pages), which is the date of the said loan transaction, is recorded in the records of the details deposited in KRW 31,25 million on December 31, 2010, the above loan transaction as stated in this part of the facts charged, and at least KRW 17,50,000 (the prosecutor above 2,500,000 won and KRW 17,50,000,000,000). Thus, the defendant's assertion in this part is not acceptable.

(52) Serial 130

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction is a patternless transaction of passbook, which is immediately withdrawn from approximately one minute of money to the head of the Tong, and only the defendant was paid an interest amounting to KRW 6 million in relation to the transaction.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, in particular, XY, who worked as the JC representative at the time of this case, stated that it paid 12 million won to DY in loan transactions (the trial record 6.824 pages), and DY stated at the court below that it paid 6 million won or 12 million won to the defendant at the time of the above loan transaction (the trial record 6283 pages), it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a loan transaction as stated in this part of the facts charged and received 12 million won interest (the total amount received from JC as seen earlier shall be deemed as the interest income amount of the defendant), and this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

(54) Nos. 132

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant only received 3.6 million won interest on the loan transaction.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, especially the EX, which operated JID at the time of the instant case, submitted a reply to the confirmation of the interest payment that the said company borrowed KRW 1.2 billion from the Defendant on December 31, 2010 and paid KRW 20 million to the private individual, to the Seoul Regional Tax Office (No. 3 books 51.63), and the court of the court below stated that the above reply was made as at the time of preparation (No. 4829 pages of the trial record), it can be fully recognized that the Defendant had been paid KRW 20,000 as interest and paid KRW 20,000,000 as interest (this part of the defendant's assertion shall not be accepted even if the above 20,000,000 won was included in brokerage commission of loan transaction broker, such as RL, as seen earlier).

(55) No. 133

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the loan transaction is due to the collection of principal in two to three days, and the interest that the defendant received does not reach KRW 17.5 million.

(B) Determination

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, that the EJ, which is operating JE, received a balance certificate of KRW 700 million from the F at the time of the instant loan transaction through F at the court of original instance, and stated that the EJ paid in cash KRW 17.5 million by deducting KRW 500,000 on the ground that it had been located at the time of the instant loan transaction (the trial record 314-3148 pages), and ② F was paid interest KRW 17.5 million on the said loan transaction.

In light of the fact that the defendant was submitted (No. 5170, 5175 pages), this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted, since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant made loan transactions as stated in this part of the facts charged and received interest amounting to KRW 17.5 million.

(56) Serial 134

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant was only paid 3 million won interest on the loan transaction.

(B) Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the JF borrowed KRW 1.5 billion from the defendant on December 31, 2010 to deposit at the passbook for one month in the event of over-fluence, and it can be aware of the weak fact to waive the rights of the deposit interest holders. The above personal facts stated that ① FO, an employee of JF, and DZ, the president of JF, paid interest 2.5 million won to EL in the above loan transaction at the investigation agency or the court of the court of the court below (No later than 3rd 5216, the trial record 7695 pages), ② F also submitted to the investigation agency a confirmation that it received KRW 22.5 million as interest of the above loan transaction (No later than 3rd 5304-505 pages), ③ the above 1.5 billion won was stated in the name of KF, and the defendant could not accept this part of the loan transaction with KRW 1.2531,291,259.25

(57) No. 135

(A) Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant was only paid 2.7 million won as interest on the loan transaction.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the EB submitted to the Seoul Regional Tax Office a reply to the confirmation notice on the interest payment that the interest interest rate of the above loan transaction is KRW 30 million (No. 5241 pages), the defendant can sufficiently be fully recognized as having conducted loan transactions as stated in this part of the facts charged and received KRW 30 million as interest payment. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

(58) No. 136

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction is E’s independent transaction. Even if the Defendant’s transaction is the Defendant’s transaction, it is only the so-called form of passbook in which the Defendant deposited money in the passbook and withdraws approximately one minute, and the Defendant was paid 100 to two million won as interest in connection with the transaction.

(B) Determination

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the representative director of JH Co., Ltd., and FM, borrowed KRW 2 billion at the time of the instant loan, and paid an interest of KRW 54 million to him. The fact that a written confirmation is submitted to an investigation agency (No. 3 rights 5291 pages) and ① the fact that a written statement (No. 3 rights 5293 pages 5293 pages) of this part of the request for loan transaction contains a statement that “the funds temporarily borrowed from creditors E” is “E transaction” in the F’s written confirmation (No. 3 rights 5304~5305 pages), but considering the various circumstances indicated in the record, E is merely the Defendant’s internal female and the actual transfer of the loan transaction is seen to be the Defendant. In light of the fact that the Defendant, other than E, stated this part of the facts charged and stated at least KRW 378 million as a loan, at least the amount of interest of KRW 378 million,700,000.

(59) No. 137

(A) Defendant’s assertion

This part of the transaction is E’s independent transaction. Even if the Defendant’s transaction is the Defendant’s transaction, it is the so-called pattern of passbook in which approximately one minute of money was deposited and withdrawn from the passbook, and the Defendant was only paid 100 to two million won as interest in connection with the above transaction.

(B) Determination

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, especially the fact that the representative director of JI Co., Ltd. borrowed KRW 1.0 billion at the time of the instant case and submitted to an investigation agency a certificate that he paid interest of KRW 27 million (No. 5292 pages) and the aforementioned E’s auxiliary status, the defendant, not E, conducted loan transactions as stated in this part of the facts charged and received at least KRW 18.9 million (the prosecutor prosecuted only for the amount of KRW 18.9 million equivalent to interest of KRW 27 million as stated in the above certification). Thus, this part of the defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

C) Judgment on the argument on the attached Form 5-1 of the lower judgment

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, F, EB, and AC are investigating agencies.

In addition, after reviewing and confirming the financial data on the details of transactions deposited in the defendant's borrowed account in his own name, the details of the deposit stated in the attached Table 5-1 of the court below can be recognized as having been stated that the defendant would have received interest. The above facts of recognition are the employees of the defendant, but the F would have been well aware of the interest transaction of the defendant due to the relationship with the defendant's loan and the establishment of security, etc., which was involved in the above credit business. Furthermore, the F would have been well aware of the interest transaction of the defendant. Furthermore, before making the above statement at the investigative agency, the EB was consulted with the tax accountant in advance, and the EB was also conducted after meeting the CF which was summoned by the National Tax Service at the time of detention. Thus, this part of the defendant's argument is not acceptable.

D) Judgment on the argument on the attached Form 6 of the lower judgment

The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment, and the lower court determined that the F’s pocket book is a document with credibility stating the details of genuine internal transactions, and that the amount of interest recorded in the F’s pocket book should be deemed as the interest income actually acquired by the Defendant, based on the circumstances stated in detail in the Decision 66-69.

The court below stated that: (a) if the F is consulted only on the above pocket book and did not actually make a transaction, it would be difficult to distinguish between the nature of the transaction and the nature of the transaction; and (b) DL, at the court of the court below, has made a statement that F is subject to questioning from the loan broker in several hundred and twenty instances a day (7 pages of the trial record) and all the contents consulted before F is entered in the above pocket book. If the amount is more likely to have been more than those mentioned in the above pocket book (E is no longer likely to prejudice the domain of the negotiation stage of the transaction terms and if the F was made in the above pocket book, it would have been able to determine that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as seen above, such as the principal and interest payment, and there was no possibility that the Defendant could have made a mistake of the legal principles as to the above details of the transaction as stated in the Attachment 6 of the court below.

(e) annual interest income and tax evasion;

(1) The Defendant’s interest income in the year 2006, which was recognized by the trial in accordance with the above judgment as above, shall be as follows: ① Attached 4-1 in the first instance court’s 2006 interest income; ② interest income in the year 20 attached Table 19, 34, 56, 94, 97, 117, 118, 121, 122, 128, 131, 132, 134, 138, 154 in total, and ③ interest income in the year 238,540,000 in the second instance court’s 7-1 in the second instance court’s 7-1 in the second instance court’s 206 interest income; ② the Defendant’s tax evasion amount in the year 206 shall be as the attached Table 2 in the first instance court’s 19,340,000 won in the calculation 371 and 274.

(2) The Defendant’s interest income in the year 2007, which was recognized by the trial in accordance with the above judgment as above, shall be the sum of the interest income omitted in the year 2007 and the amount of tax evasion in the year 2007, as stated in the [Attachment 3] List 30, 32, 34, 40, 47, 48 through 54, and 61 of [Attachment 4-1] List 174, 184, 186, 202, 229, 242, and 306 of the lower court’s interest income, ③ the sum of the interest income in the year 2007, 2,497, 750,000 won, and the amount of the Defendant’s tax evasion in the year 207, as stated in the [Attachment 2] Table 10-1] List 30, 481, and 2840.

(3) The Defendant’s interest income in the year 2008, which was recognized by the first instance court in accordance with the above judgment as above, shall be KRW 51,52,500 in total, such as the interest income omitted in the year 2008 and the tax evasion tax amount, and KRW 511,52,50 in the case of [Attachment 3] [Attachment 4-1] and [Attachment 62 through 64] and the annual interest income in the case of [Attachment 10], such as the omitted amount of corporate bonds-related revenue and the annual aggregate amount of interest income in the case of [Attachment 10] and [Attachment 10] and [Attachment 5-1], 34, 347, and 375. The Defendant’s tax evasion amount in the year 2008 shall be included in [Attachment 2] and the calculation of the table and calculated tax amount.

(4) The amount of interest income of the defendant for 209 5 years which is recognized by the first instance court pursuant to the above judgment 209 - 3 - 4 - 5 - [Attachment 3] - [Attachment 4-1] 69 through 7, 79 through 81, 83 through 87, 87 through 102, 2. 5 [Attachment 4-1] - 378, 385, 395, 403, 418, 4446, 45, 45, 452, 459, 45, 45-1 to 205 of the original judgment , 205 [Attachment 4] - 5] - [2] - [Attachment 5] - [6] - [4] - [Attachment 5] - [10 to 5] - [14] , 201 and 1 other amount of interest income per 5 years .

7) Scope of reversal

Of the judgment of the court below on the ground of ex officio destruction, the part concerning the crime after the final judgment, in addition to the part concerning the crime before and after the final judgment, includes the criminal facts concerning the tax evasion in 2009 and 2010. As seen in the judgment of the court below, the defendant's appeal is partially reasonable, and the remaining criminal facts among the crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, since the judgment of the court below on the facts constituting the crime before and after the final judgment of the court below on the tax evasion, the part concerning the crime after the final judgment of the court below on the application for compensation order shall be reversed in its entirety.

According to Article 32(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation is unable to file an appeal against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation, and cannot file the same application for compensation again. According to the records, the defendant can be found to have filed an application for compensation of the same content after filing an application for compensation order with the Daegu District Court Branching the Daegu District Court Branching 2015 early 324, which was dismissed, and received the judgment dismissing

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing, as well as the defendant's appeal is partially reasonable. The judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (including the part on acquittal of the grounds for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). The prosecutor's appeal on the acquittal portion among the judgment below is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it has no reason to appeal, and the application for compensation by

(Reasons for Dismissal) Summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence

The summary of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the evidence related thereto shall be deleted from Paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime of 10-11 of the judgment of the court below [2012 Gohap214], and the 12-12-15 c. October 1, 2009 hereinafter referred to as " around October 1, 2008", and the 17-18 c. as follows: 1 to 3,4-1, 10 c. 1 to 3, 4-1, 10 c. 3, 4-1, and 10 c. as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and this shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

“2012, 484”

1. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, 206;

In order to conceal income, such as interest, fees, etc. from the loan transaction at the above office site from January 2006 to December 2006, the Defendant used another person’s account as shown in attached Form 8 of the judgment below, such as E, BP, Q, BR, BS, BTS, AJ, BU, BV, etc., or received and manage interest or fees, and even if the Defendant failed to prepare or prepares any supporting material stating the details of the loan contract or transaction, such as the loan agreement or account book, or fails to enter the interest, etc., the lower court determined that the Defendant evaded and concealed the income of 201,089,20 won from the above office site to December 2, 2006 and evaded income tax or other unlawful act, as described in attached Form 1, 2 of the judgment below, 301, 207, 207, 3716, 207, 207.

2. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) of 2007;

As above, the Defendant, while operating a unregistered credit business from January 2, 2007 to December 2, 2007, operated and concealed income of KRW 2,105,603,250 as shown in [Attachment 1, 2007] [Attachment 3, 4-1] and [Attachment 5-1, and 7] in the same manner as that of paragraph (1), and evaded income tax of KRW 82,214,410 in the year 2007, as stated in [Attachment 1, 2] of the lower court’s judgment, by fraud or other unlawful act.

The Defendant registered a credit business with the trade name of “BX” in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and actually operated a credit business office in the AI apartment in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. From January 2008 to December 2008, the Defendant manipulateed and concealed the income of KRW 431,238,758, as shown in [Attachment 3, 4-1] and [Attachment 5-1] in the same manner as that of [Attachment 3, 4-1] and [Attachment 5-1] in the judgment of the court, and evaded the reported payment period as described in [Attachment 1, 2] and 37, 233,565, which was June 1, 2008.

4. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) of 2009;

As above, the Defendant, while operating BX from January 2009 to December 2, 2009, operated and concealed income of KRW 4,978,615,817 as shown in [Attachment 3, 4-1, and [Attachment 5-1, and 7] of the lower court’s judgment, thereby evading income tax of KRW 1,727,04,817 on May 31, 2010 as stated in [Attachment 1, 2] of the lower court’s judgment.

5. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) of 2010;

As above, the Defendant, while operating BX from January 201 to December 2010, operated the income of KRW 4,512,121,667 in the court below by manipulating and concealing the income of KRW 3,4-1, 5-1, 5-1, 6, and 7, such as [Attachment 4,512, 121, and 667] from January 201 to December 201, and evaded KRW 1,562,02,293 of the income tax of KRW 201, May 31, 2011, as indicated in [Attachment 1, 201], as it was applied by law.

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

(a) An Article 628 (1) or 622 (1) of the Commercial Act, Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act;

B. The attack against the victim W: Article 3(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 350 of the Criminal Act. The attack against the victim V: Article 350 of the Criminal Act (selected of imprisonment)

(d) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against AL: Subparagraph 1 of Article 109 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008)

(e) The point of coercion: Article 324 of the Criminal Act;

(f) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act against AR: Article 111(1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 8991 of Mar. 28, 2008)

(g) The point of intimidation: Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act;

(h) Possession of psychotropic drugs: Articles 60(1)3, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4(b) of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (Amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 201); Article 30 of the Criminal Act

(i) Point of accusation: Articles 156 and 30 of the Criminal Act;

(j) The occupation of a perjury teacher: Articles 152 (1) and 31 (1) of the Criminal Act.

(k) The point of each injury: Article 257(1)(a) of the Criminal Act; Article 256(1)(a) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 9(1)3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010);

(m) The point of evasion of tax in 2007: Article 8(1)2 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010); (n) the point of evasion of tax in 209 and 2010: Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 11136, Dec. 31, 201); Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Concurrent imposition of fines); (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 201; 205)

2. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the crime of aiding and abetting a violation of the Commercial Act as stated in the judgment)

3. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the former part of Article 37 and the former part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of aiding and abetting the Violation of the Commercial Act against B and C, the crime of extortion, each of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the crime of violating the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) of 2006 and 208, each of the violation of the Punishment of Narcotics Act of 207 and the

4. Aggravation for concurrent crimes; and

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

A. As indicated in the judgment B and C, each of the crimes of aiding and abetting a violation of the Commercial Act, the crimes of extortion, each of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the crimes of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Narcotics (favour) and the crimes of false accusation, the crimes of aiding and abetting a person in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (favour), the crimes of aiding and abetting a person in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) in 2006 and 208, and the crimes of violating the Act

B. The crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Commercial Act, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of extortion, coercion, intimidation, each bodily injury, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (tax) in 2009 and 2010 with respect to D: The punishment of imprisonment shall be aggravated by imprisonment with prison labor as provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (tax) in 2010 with respect to the most severe punishment, and the punishment of a fine shall be excluded by Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act in accordance with Article 20 of the Punishment,

5. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 65(1)6 of the Criminal Act ( considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing below)

6. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2)7 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

Article 116 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (Amended by Act No. 8991, Mar. 28, 2008); Article 67 proviso 4 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics (Amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 201); [Calculation of Collection: 1; 90 million won (including KRW 75 million received from AL + KRW 15 million received from AR) acquired as a result of the Defendant’s violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act as indicated in the judgment of the Defendant; 20 million won cannot be confiscated as a result of the Defendant’s consumption of a dose to BF once in collusion with BA; 3.0 million won cannot be confiscated as a result of the Defendant’s consumption of a dose.

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant, while running a credit business for several years, has evaded income tax of approximately KRW 4.5 billion, and, on the other hand, aiding and abetting the long payment of the stock price through loan, and threatening the borrower to report on the best payment on the other hand, thereby 90 million won. Furthermore, the defendant involved in a dispute over gambling and received part of the agreed money or received money from the victim related to gambling while mediating a settlement by using the defendant's refitness and personality. Furthermore, if the defendant took advantage of his unfavorable statement in relation to investigation or trial, he did not commit such act as "the so-called "narcotics drugs that drink and reported to him," and did not ask the victims of a false statement from him, and even if he did not cause severe harm to the defendant's property, he did not cause serious harm to the defendant's life or injury to him by taking account of the number of times he did not have a superior economic position.

On the other hand, the defendant does not have any record of being sentenced to punishment, and the final judgment is delivered.

The crime committed in the above judgment ought to be taken into account the equity between the case where the above judgment was rendered and the case where the judgment was rendered. The Defendant, when recognizing a considerable part of the criminal facts in the instant case, appears to be against the crime. The Defendant deposited KRW 2 billion in the original ginseng for the payment of portal charges, followed the deposit of KRW 70 million in the first instance trial, and the remainder of the unpaid tax payment can be collected through the seizure, disposition on default, etc. by the tax authority on the Defendant’s property.

In addition to these circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.

The acquittal portion

1. The summary of the charge on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) in 2006 is that the Defendant evaded KRW 880,793,416 of the income tax in 2006 by manipulating and concealing income of KRW 2,167,572,337 in the same manner as the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below.

However, as seen in the above 3. b. 6)(e)(1), the Defendant merely evaded the income tax of 2006 KRW 167,732,841, which is less than KRW 500,000,000,000, which is less than KRW 500,000,000, and thus, this part of the facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders

2. The summary of the facts charged on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) in 2007 is that the Defendant evaded KRW 2,778,374,553 by manipulating and concealing income of KRW 7,523,203,661 in the same manner as the facts charged in the crime of paragraph (1) of 201 in the judgment below.

However, as seen in the above 3. 82,214,410 won of income tax in 2007 as stated in 3. b. 6. E. (2) above, the defendant shall be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) in 2007, which is related to such a crime, the defendant shall not be acquitted separately from the disposition.

3. The summary of the charge on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) in 2008 is that the Defendant evaded income of KRW 638,408,804 by manipulating and concealing income of KRW 1,863,168,013 in the same manner as the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below in the case of 2012Gohap484.

However, as seen in the above 3.(b)(e)(3), the Defendant merely evaded 137,233,565 won, the annual evaded tax amount of less than 500 million won. This part of the facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in 2008, which is related to such a crime, the Defendant shall not be acquitted separately from the disposition.

4. The summary of the charge on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) in 2009 is that the Defendant, by manipulating and concealing the disinfection of KRW 7,954,379,182 in the same manner as the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, the Defendant evaded income tax of KRW 2,773,641,670 in 209 by fraudulent or other unlawful act.

However, as seen in the above 3. 2.(b)(e)(4), the Defendant merely evaded income tax of 1,727,004,817 won in 209, and thus, this part of the facts charged should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) in 2009, which is related to such a crime, the Defendant shall not be

5. The summary of the facts charged in the part of the charge against the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) in 2010 is that the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the lower court, fabricated and concealed income of KRW 7,55,530,611 in the same manner as that of the facts charged of the crime of 2012 high-priced 484 Case, and subsequently evaded income tax of KRW 2,631,617,640 in the year 2010 by fraud or other unlawful act.

However, as seen in the above 3.(b)(e)(5), the defendant merely evaded income tax of 1,562,022,293 won in 2010. Thus, this part of the facts charged should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) in 2010, which is related to such a crime, the defendant shall not be acquitted separately

Acquittal Parts

Among the facts charged in this case, the summary of the special intimidation is the same as the above 3. A. 2. A. 2. b. As seen in the above 3. A. 2. b., this constitutes the time the statute of limitations expires, and thus, a judgment of acquittal is rendered in accordance with Article 326. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Equal judges of the presiding judge;

Judge Gyeong-man

Judge Goh Sung

1) As seen in the following, the name of the crime against this part of the facts charged as a result of the amendment of indictment in the trial of the political party violates the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective

It was changed from the special intimidation to the special intimidation.

2) As to the number of pages for separate books, the lower court cited the number of pages at an investigative agency, such as the written judgment or the protocol of examination of a witness, but not more than the lower court

Among them, the number of copies of the newly produced evidence records shall be expressed when the evidence is bound only when the evidence has been examined. However, in the evidence column of attached Form 4-1 of the trial court, the number of copies of the newly produced evidence

The number of books shall be quoted in the same manner as the court below's decision for convenience.

3) Of [Attachment 2] and the calculation details of calculated tax amount in the case of a party, the term “amount of income” is the same as the amount of the “income” in [Attachment 1] in the case of a party.

(n) The same shall apply

4) A criminal judgment (Tgu District Court Decision 20132338 Decided February 12, 2014) that additionally collects KRW 100,000 to BA, an accomplice, other than an accomplice, was rendered (Seoul District Court Decision 20132338).

Although the collection under Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act was confirmed, there was no benefit from the crime by a disposition of a punitive nature.

Even if an accomplice has to be ordered to collect the full amount of the penalty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do3250, Mar. 23, 1993).