(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.2.14. 선고 2018고합683 판결

On June 11, 2015, the defendant was sentenced to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and three years of imprisonment for fraud in Seoul High Court, and the above judgment was finalized on August 21, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

In fact, on April 24, 2009, the entire amount of KRW 500 million borrowed money from the Co., Ltd. on the security of the member's land in Ansan-si was not delivered to D. In addition, the Defendant did not pay KRW 300 million borrowed from D on March 31, 2009, as stated in the loan certificate.

On November 19, 2014, the Defendant appeared at the Seoul High Court Decision 310, the Seocho-gu Seoul High Court located in 157, the Seocho-gu Seoul High Court, 157, to take an oath against EF and D, as a witness of the Seoul High Court case, and gave a false statement contrary to his memory, such as the attached list 1.

A summary of the steam

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of F and D;

1. Each statement made in F and D in the protocol of the trial of the Seoul Central District Court 2016 Godan6566;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused and F concerning the accused and F;

1. Each police statement made to F and D;

1. Protocol of examination of the witness;

1. A fact-finding certificate of the G bank;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of a copy of investigation records of a suspect's separate investigation records), investigation report (related records (related records (related records No. 2014 & No. 27940): centering on the statements, etc. of the complainants and E and H), investigation report (including submission of data "investment and loan details" by the complainants);

1. A written reason for appeal, written opinion, complaint, loan certificate, and written consent to provide security;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing has been repeatedly taken into consideration for favorable circumstances)

argument and Judgment

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the defendant and victims

1) From April 12, 2007, the Defendant was the representative director of I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "L"), from April 17, 2007 to the representative director of J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "J"), from December 16, 2008 to the representative director of K Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "K"), and from April 8, 2009 to the representative director of L Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "L").

2) A victim F, D (hereinafter referred to as "F, D") was between husband and wife, F was appointed as K's auditor on December 16, 2008, and L on March 6, 2009 as K's auditor on December 16, 2008, and D was appointed as K's director on December 16, 2008.

3) The F and D lent KRW 300 million to I on July 25, 2006, but the Defendant became aware of the introduction of M.

4) E and H are as between husband and wife, F, D husband and wife, and the 'N Teachings Association' located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. Progress related to this corporation

1) P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”) entered into a contract with Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the management and operation of the above Q for twenty (20) years from January 6, 1996 to January 5, 2016, instead of donation to P Q Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and entered into a contract for the management and operation of the above Q. The above Q from January 6, 1996 to the present date.

2) P divided a company into a company on December 28, 200 and established a R Co., Ltd. for the purpose of civil engineering and housing construction. On April 22, 2002, R Co., Ltd changed its trade name into S Co., Ltd. and on November 10, 2004 (hereinafter “0”).

3) On March 2, 2004, upon filing an application for commencement of the company reorganization proceedings, the company was ordered to commence the company reorganization proceedings by the Changwon District Court.

4) Since 2004, 00 attempted to sell to a third party via capital increase with consideration in accordance with the reorganization program.

From 2004 to 2008, T Co., Ltd., U.S., V Co., Ltd., and W et al. have promoted 0 acquisitions, but all of them were born.

5) As the former officer of P, X, X, AA, and the Defendant agreed to take over KRW 5 billion for the acquisition price of KRW 5 billion. The acquirer agreed to KRW 1.5 billion out of KRW 5 billion for the acquisition price, X et al., and KRW 3.5 billion for the Defendant.

6) According to the above agreement, X et al. deposited KRW 300 million into the AC bank account of Y on February 20, 2008, and thereafter provided KRW 1.5 billion from that time to May 9, 2008.

7) On March 7, 2008, the administrator filed a modified plan with AB Co., Ltd. (Y) and 5 billion won for the assignee. Accordingly, on April 10, 2008, the said modified plan was approved on April 10, 2008 by the Changwon District Court Order 2014 dated April 10, 2008, and on May 1, 2008, X and Z were appointed respectively as the administrator and the director on May 19, 2008.

1) On March 20, 2008, E filed a lawsuit against Ho Government District Court Decision 2008Gahap2644, Yangju-si 3,805m2 (hereinafter referred to as "1m2") and Yangju-si 967/9m2 (hereinafter referred to as "AF 989m2", and "AF 2m2" in Yangju-si 989, and "AF 2m2" when referring together to the land 1 and 2," and "AF 'each land' was finalized on June 8, 2008 after the judgment of winning the entire decision was rendered on May 15, 2008.

2) However, E without a qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland was unable to complete the registration of ownership transfer notwithstanding the final judgment, since land category No. 1 is called "the land category", and the AI, which entered into a lease contract with AD, installed the ground water on each land of AF and operated AJ.

3) As long as the land development project for AH substitute land is in progress for F couple, the couple completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land AF No. 1 before the completion of the expropriation procedure for the land site development project, and delegated the â€˜services to remove the ground objects on each land of AF and withdraw the AI (hereinafter referred to as the "service of this case"), and the F couple asked the defendant who has been engaged in the real estate development project to handle the service of this case.

4) On August 12, 2008, F and D agreed on the payment of the instant service with E and drafted “written undertaking of service request and payment of the service price” (hereinafter referred to as “written undertaking of service”). Its main content is “service price of KRW 200 million, and the service trustee did not separately state it, and the payment of the service price was made with the loan of each land AF as security. Meanwhile, even though the written undertaking was the service price of KRW 200 million, it was agreed to pay KRW 250,000 in total by adding up KRW 52,000,000 to KRW 52,000.

5) With respect to the land AF No. 1 on August 13, 2008, the transfer registration under E was completed.

6) On September 12, 2008, E obtained a loan of KRW 281,33,468,000,000,000 from the Do Government District Court Decision No. 127129, Sept. 12, 2008, which was received on September 12, 2008, for the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage to AK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AF No. 1 collateral security”), and the Defendant deposited KRW 281,33,468,00,000, excluding interest, out of KRW 300,000,000 deposited into J on the same day, and deposited KRW 242,00,00,000 at a face value of KRW 1,00,100,000,000,000, and KRW 70,707,000,00 cashier’s checks in the account of E.

(d) 0 investment-related processes

1) As seen earlier, the Defendant was making efforts to seek the remainder of KRW 3.5 billion among KRW 5 billion acquisition price of KRW 0,000, and around that time, recommended F and D to make investments.

2) The F Husband and wife stated that if the Defendant acquired 0 to the E couple and received the management and operation rights of Q Q shop, us will purchase 10 commercial buildings at the price at which 10 discount is discounted, us would have to purchase 1 commercial buildings." On September 17, 2008, E prepared a written consent to provide 'AF land as security in order for the Defendant, who is the J representative director, to prepare 0 billion won for the increase of 0 capital.'

3) The Defendant, F, and D agreed to take over a new legal entity that is not the former or J for 0 acceptance. To this end, after taking over K on December 16, 2008, the Defendant was the representative director; F was the auditor; and D was the auditor.

4) Around 208.12 and 20.20 between the Defendant and F and D: (i) D made an investment by investing in kind or offering as security the land of 11,107 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "B") and 11,107 square meters of forest land B in Ansan-si, Ansan-si; and (ii) the Defendant, F and D terminate the right to collateral security established on each of the above lands before August 15, 2009, eight months after the date of investment in kind; (iii) if D obtains the right to manage and operate Q commercial building by acquiring 0 billion won, it shall be distributed to D as security of the above 6 billion won, and if D obtains the right to manage and operate Q commercial building at a discount of 30%, the agreement was prepared as follows (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement in kind").

○ 현물투자(투자) 약정서현물출자 금액 50억 원(AN 외 2필지)(50억 원 담보설정)담보제공 투자 9억 원(B, 양주시 AE 외 1)1. 현물출자 및 담보제공에 대한 보상 (배당)조건가, 총 60억 원의 배당다. 과천 AO 골프장 개장시 매월 1,500만 원2. 변제기간: 현물출자는 출자일로부터 8개월인 2009. 8. 15. 전에 현물출자조로 설정한 근저당설정및 담보대출조로 설정한 근저당설정을 해지한다.가. 1차로 상가(Q 상가) 분양 및 임대수입에서 정산한다.나. 이 사업 (AP 사업, AQ사업, AR사업)에서의 현금 또는 상가 부문 수입에서 우선 정산한다.3. 상가 분양가액 산정: 분양전문업체 3개사에 용역발주하여 용역보고서 기준으로 회사에서 결정한다. 분양가액에서 30% 할인한 금액으로 위 60억 원의 이익금 수령담보조로 D에게 희망업종(도너츠,약국, 편의점, AS,3) AT,4) AU, 생맥주, 피자, 꽃집, 커피)점의 용도로 1층 전면 도로변에 해당평수를분양한다.4. 위 현물출자 및 담보제공한 금 60억 원에 대한 변제담보조로 분양가액에서 30%를 할인한 금액으로 1층 상가를 해당되는 평수를 D에게 분양한다(단, 제2항의 변제기간 내에는 담보로 보관중인 상가를 제3자에게 분양할 수 없다.)5. 0의 100% 주주인 지주회사(K)의 대표이사인 A은 0에 대한 담보조로 0의 주식 중 현물출자에 해당하는 주식 50억 원의 주식 중 40%에 해당하는 주식을 주권양도양수계약서를 첨부하여 D에게 보관시키며 D의 서면상 동의 없이는 제3자에게 양도 및 질권설정 등의 행위를 할 수 없다. 위 회사의이사인 D는 위 2항의 기간 내에는 보관한 주식을 제3자에게 양도할 수 없다.6. A은 0 및 K의 증자 시에는 사전에 D와 서면상 동의를 받아야하며 모든 영업활동은 이 창구로 통일한다.7. 은행대출 시 우선적으로 D에게 4억 6천만 원을 지급키로 한다.8. D와 F을 지주회사 및 0의 상근직 이사 및 감사로 등기하여 근무키로 한다.9. A은 D에게 지주회사 K의 무의결권 주식 40%를 주며, D는 이 주식에 대한 40%의 이익배당권의권리를 가지며 K 대표이사인 A은 이를 인정하고 상호 약정한다. 단, K 및 0 대표이사인 A은 이들회사의 주식을 상장 시에는 액면가 기준으로 20억 원(50억 원 자본금의 40% 해당금액)에 해당하는주식을 D 명의로 변경해주기로 상호합의한다.10. 위 제항이 이행되지 않을 시에는 출자 약정사항이 결렬된 것으로 보아 D는 2008. 12. 20. 현물출자동의서를 일방적으로 취소하여도 A은 아무런 이의를 제기할 수 없다.11. 법원의 현물출자 취소가 즉시 안될시에는 D는 보관 주식 및 분양 및 보관중인 상가를 처분하여담보제공된 부동산에 대한 근저당설정을 해소하여도 지주회사 K 및 0 대표이사인 A은 이의를 제기할 수 없다. 또한, 법원에 0의 증자회사(지주사)가 K가 아닌 제3의 회사가 될 시도 동일한 효과가있으며 약정서를 보완 작성키로 한다.위와 같은 조건으로 지주회사(K) 및 0 대표이사 A과 부동산 담보제공으로 현물출자와 투자조건으로담보제공한 D는 인감증명 첨부하여 현물출자(투자) 약정하며 약정서 2부를 작성하여 1부씩 보관키로한다. 위 사항을 위약 시에는 위 양회사 대표이사인 A은 민형사상 책임을 진다.

5) On December 26, 2008, E offered each parcel of land AF as collateral. On December 26, 2008, the maximum debt amount of KRW 96,000,000,000 for each parcel of land AF, which was received on December 26, 2008, and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage to the debtor K and the mortgagee C (hereinafter referred to as “AF No. 2 collateral security”) was completed, and the account in the name of K was deposited KRW 830,00,00 for loans to the account in the name of K. 302,054,7945). Of the above loans, the amount of KRW 8,258,160 was used as incidental expense each, and only KRW 4,150,60 was withdrawn from the account in the name of K No. 472,400,700,000 and KRW 3637,405,000).

6) On March 31, 2009, the Defendant drafted a "Borrowings certificate stating that the principal shall be repaid for one month after the receipt of the additional amount of KRW 300,000,000 ( KRW 200,000,000 on account transfer, KRW 100,000 on one’s own, and KRW 100,000 on one’s own) from D, and that interest shall be paid as the top priority from the beginning of the business in which the interest is in progress in the future."

7) In addition, upon D’s permission to use B’s collateral as collateral, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage for D’s land was completed with the maximum debt amount of KRW 600,000,000 on April 24, 2009, which was received on April 329, 2009, with L/W and the mortgagee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”). Thereafter, the total amount of KRW 500,000,000,000 on May 22, 2009 was deposited into L/C account.

8) However, a loan secured by NN land was not made until the end, and the Defendant was unable to pay the remainder of KRW 3.5 billion for which the Defendant was responsible, out of the acquisition price. The Changwon District Court decided to abolish the company reorganization procedure on February 9, 2010 and decided on March 6, 2010.

Furthermore, on April 1, 2010, the Changwon District Court declared bankruptcy on April 1, 2010, and on December 1, 2014, the bankruptcy estate was decided to discontinue the bankruptcy and decided on December 16, 2014 on December 16, 201.

(e) the progress of civil action against E F and D;

1) At around 2010, E filed a complaint against Defendant, F, and D with charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), etc. on June 18, 2010, with Seoul Central District Court 2010 Gohap62654, "(1) as D is an organized violence and so it is necessary to pay KRW 200 million to E as cost of removal." It was received KRW 242,00,000. In fact, AI did not have organized violence, but did not have paid KRW 17,00,00,000 for actual cost of removal. Accordingly, F, D had the obligation to pay KRW 205,000,000, 2000, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 205, 200, 300.

2) The Defendant appeared as a witness on the 8th day of pleading held in Seoul High Court on January 1, 2014, 19, when the Defendant was detained as follows, and testified as shown in Annex 2 to the List of Crimes.

3) In the appellate court proceeding with 2012Na41429, Feb. 11, 2015, the Seoul High Court held that the parties to the service agreement were F and D with respect to the instant service. Since F and D received payment of KRW 242 million exceeding 100,000,000,000 which appears to be reasonable remuneration, they are obligated to return unjust enrichment of KRW 142,000,000,000,000, which is unjust enrichment of KRW 142,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was used for purposes other than invested, and that F and D operated K jointly with the Defendant. However, the Defendant was liable for damages of KRW 530,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000 won was decided as the Defendant’s employer.

(f) Progress of criminal complaint E

1) As seen earlier, E filed a complaint against Defendant, F, and D in around 2010, and the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office indicted the Defendant under detention on October 21, 2014 on the grounds of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and additionally charged the Defendant with a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds of steam f and D.

2) In the case of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da309 decided December 26, 2014, the defendant was convicted of all the criminal facts that the defendant acquired KRW 200 million from E in relation to the service of this case, and that the defendant acquired KRW 530 million in relation to the second collateral security (AF) and sentenced the defendant to four years of imprisonment. (9) The defendant appealed against this case of the Seoul High Court Decision 2015No135 decided June 11, 2015, the Seoul High Court sentenced 2015No135 decided June 11, 2015, sentenced three years of imprisonment to the defendant, taking into account the fact that three victims, including E, expressed the intention of not to impose punishment at the appellate court, and the appeal of the defendant was dismissed by the Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1099 Decided August 21, 2015.

II. Determination on perjury

1. Facts charged;

Around July 2008, the Defendant won a lawsuit claiming the ownership transfer registration against H’s husband E who attends a church such as his/her female from D, but he/she did not obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland because E cannot obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland, and the Defendant was requested to remove the above high-water and remove the above high-water surface because AI occupied and operated the above land.

Therefore, the Defendant, upon accepting this, requested H to change KRW 200 million as the above service cost through D, and thereafter, the Defendant requested D’s husbandF on August 12, 2008 and thereafter discovered a plan to complete the above transfer registration, and thereby, received a written promise of payment to the effect that “200 million won of the above service cost is promised to pay at the payment rate for the above land as a collateral loan,” and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the above land on August 13, 2008.

After that, on September 12, 2008, E trusted the Defendant: (a) on the above land and one parcel outside the above land, the maximum debt amount of KRW 420 million was set up; (b) the debtor J; (c) the mortgagee J; and (d) through H, the wife, who borrowed KRW 300 million; (b) D lent KRW 42 billion to the Defendant for the registration fee of the above land; and (c) the Defendant paid KRW 200 million for the above service cost of KRW 52 million; and (d) immediately granted KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant for the service cost of KRW 52 million.

On the other hand, on September 26, 2008, the E couple decided to make an investment in the business of this case under the condition that one of the 10 commercial stores of the above building that D would have purchased a long-term lease from the Seoul Metropolitan Government for 20 years and then returned to Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "the business of this case") after remodeling the AX building in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for 20 years, and it will hear the statement that D himself would have invested in the business of this case. On December 26, 2008, the E couple decided to make an investment in the business of this case under the condition that he would receive one store among the 10 commercial stores of the above building that D would have purchased a long-term lease from the Seoul Metropolitan Government for 20 million won, the debtor corporation, K-mortgage Co., Ltd., and the mortgagee Co., Ltd., Ltd. will additionally set the maximum debt amount of 96 billion won and paid the loan amount of 300 million won to the above company's account.

However, as E couple did not receive the sale of a commercial building or receive the said investment deposit, E filed a claim for damages against F Husband and wife at the Seoul Central District Court by 2010 Gohap62654, and lost at the first instance court, and appealed, Seoul High Court 201241429, which was pending in the lawsuit, the Defendant was present as a witness of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, on November 19, 2014, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath as a witness of the above case in the Seoul High Court No. 310 located at the Seocho-gu Seoul High Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seoul, on November 19, 2014, and there is no question that the witness of the Plaintiff’s agent would be in charge of the registration of ownership transfer from the Defendant, and there is money received as a payment for the said affairs. The witness testified that he could not demand the consideration for the subjects that he would be 3.5 billion won.

However, as above, the Defendant received KRW 200 million in return for services such as transfer of ownership.

Therefore, the defendant, as shown in the attached list 2 of the crime committed, has made a false statement contrary to his memory over 24 times.

2. Relevant legal principles

The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4467 Decided July 24, 2008, etc.). Perjury is established when a witness makes a statement contrary to his/her memory as to the facts that he/she has taken an oath under the law, and in cases where a witness’s statement is a legal evaluation of facts experienced or does not go through simple opinion, it cannot be deemed as a false public offering in perjury, and even if a witness’s legal and subjective evaluation or opinion as to an experienced objective fact is somewhat somewhat wrong or inconsistent with that of the witness’s name, perjury is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11007, Mar. 12, 2009).

3. Parts of conviction;

A. Determination as to No. 10 of Attached Table 2 of Crimes List 11

1) Summary of the argument

Since D took out a loan of KRW 500 million on April 24, 2009 as security on the land B, D would bring about KRW 100 million, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant testified the fact contrary to memory.

2) Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, the purport that the Defendant’s testimony brought about D all or most of the above loans KRW 500 million, ② the Defendant asserted that the above loans were used in full, and the Defendant appears to have used KRW 400 million out of the above loans in acquiring the equity interest, etc., this part of the statement constitutes a case where the Defendant testified a false fact against the Defendant’s memory. The Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion are not accepted.

B. Determination as to Nos. 2 15 of the Attached Table 13

1) Summary of the argument

The defendant's answer was organized to the account by calculating the above 300 million won loan and the existing loan amount as a double amount and preparing a certificate of loan with the total loan amount of KRW 1.33 billion. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have testified that is contrary to memory.

(ii) the facts of recognition

(1) The defendant was granted KRW 300 million from D on March 31, 2009 as seen earlier.

② Around March 2009, the Defendant lent KRW 300 million to the witness by having the witness lent KRW 300 million to Defendant D, and the witness prepared the loan certificate on March 31, 2009, which is called “I have repaid the above KRW 300 million,” and on April 24, 2009, the period for repayment was determined as follows: (a) Defendant D provided a security and repaid KRW 300 million, and (b) additionally borrowed KRW 100 million to the witness from among the loans received KRW 500 million; and (c) the witness respondeded that “I have repaid KRW 300 million if so, I would have given repayment.”

(3) However, as seen earlier, the defendant stated that he used the amount of KRW 400 million out of KRW 500 million borrowed on April 24, 2009 as collateral for the acquisition of gold or mineral shares.

3) Determination

If the facts are identical, this part of the Defendant’s statement is to the effect that the Defendant paid the full amount of KRW 300 million with a secured loan on April 24, 2009, and it constitutes a case where the Defendant’s testimony was made contrary to the Defendant’s memory in the instant facts where the said KRW 300 million debt exists separate from the above KRW 500 million debt. The Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion are not accepted.

4. Parts not guilty;

(a) Judgment on the perjury related to the receipt of KRW 200 million for the service cost for the registration of ownership transfer (attached Form 2 Nos. 1 through 8);

1) The relationship between the instant service and the instant investment (an order of Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8)

A) Review of issues and evidence relations

The key issue of this part is whether F and D have decided to consider the investment of KRW 3.5 billion in the acquisition price of KRW 0 billion when F and D have dealt with the service of this case. The evidence to acknowledge the key issue is F and D’s statement.

F on May 10, 2015, at the police station, the transfer registration of ownership on the land AF of the E was around August 2008, and the discussion on the provision of the land AF was started on September 17, 2008, and the establishment of the discussion on the provision of the land AF is on September 14, 2008, and the establishment of the instant in-kind investment is on December 20, 2008. Therefore, at the time when the Defendant handled the instant service, Q investment cost was not expected to be related to the instant service and Q investment KRW 3.5 billion, and at the same time, the Defendant made a statement on September 28, 2008.

B) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The Defendant consistently sought 0 acceptance around December 2007 from the police to this court, and came to know of F and D, from that time, and recommended F and F to make an investment in 0 acceptances from that time. The Defendant asserted that F and F will be 0 acceptances if F and F couple wanted to deal with the instant service on or around June 7, 2008, and that F and F will be able to make an investment in 0 acceptances at the same time. As F and F will consider the instant service as a premise for 0 acceptances investment.

C) Determination

In light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined and circumstances that may be inferred from the court, namely, F was solicited to make an investment in the acquisition of the Defendant first from the police and this court around September 2008, as seen earlier. However, upon ① the defense counsel presented a statement of the shareholders’ organization of the capital increase with capital (2018 Gohap683, the evidence No. 29) on July 18, 2008, the first statement of the acquisition was about July 7, 2008. The above statement was reversed by 10 years, and 20 days later, F was less than 10 days later than 30 days later than 10 days later than 10 days later, and F was willing to take over the Defendant’s land from the prosecutor’s office on August 30, 2016 to offer 20 years more than 0 days less than 10 days less than 20 days less than 20 days less than 20 days less than 3 days less than 10 days less than 3 days later.

2) Determination as to the service commitment of this case (attached Table 2 No. 5)

A) Review of issues and evidence relations

The issue of this part is whether or not the defendant's "before the defendant was examined by the police" is a fact that the defendant's service declaration of this case is true. The evidence to acknowledge this part of this issue is F and D's statements.

F. D, on May 11, 2010 and July 24, 2014, stated to the effect that “E signed the instant service commitment to the police and gave the original copy to the Defendant” (Article 418, 457, 458, 459 of the evidence record No. 1, No. 1, No. 418, 457, 458, 459 of the Seoul Central District Court) and the statement at the prosecutor’s office (Article 326, 327 of the evidence record No. 1, No. 2018,710) and the statement at the court (Seoul Central District Court 2016,656, No. 4 of the trial record) are the same purport.

B) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts to the effect that ‘the service declaration of this case' is ‘the first time after being investigated by the police' from the police to the court.

C) the facts of recognition

① On April 13, 2011, the Defendant did not directly meet or contact E and H prior to the police’s investigation, and delivered his/her will only through F and D.

E on Aug. 12, 2008: (a) signed and sealed the original copy of “the instant service undertaking” and signed and sealed one copy; (b) delivered the remainder to F; and (c) the original copy of the instant service undertaking did not specify the service consignee.15)

③ On April 16, 2015, F and D filed a complaint with the Defendant with perjury with the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office attached a copy of the instant service commitment, and the copy added “A” to “A” under the service trustee, unlike the original (Article 2018 Gohap710 No. 2 of the Evidence Record, etc.).

4. On February 28, 2017, E appeared as a witness in this court and stated to the effect that “I had no word in the original copy”.

⑤ The F appears as a witness again on July 20, 2017, and the word “A” in this Court is the same as the word “A” in the attorney’s office. The F has the original to refer to the original. The Defendant presented the original copy of the instant service undertaking to the effect that “I show and keep the original document.”

D) Determination

If the facts are the same, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has made a false statement against his memory, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

3) Determination on the cost of the instant service (attached Table 2 Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7)

A) Review of issues and evidence relations

The key issue of this part is whether or not KRW 200,000 among the 242,00,000,000 delivered to D when E created a mortgage on AF Article 1 in return for the instant service on September 12, 2008 (16) has been delivered to the Defendant. There is a statement of F or D as major evidence to acknowledge the key issue of this part.

F. D stated that 42,00,000 won out of 242,00,000 won was delivered to E at the investigation agency and this court, with the exception of 42,000,000,000 won, which was lent to E at the expense related to ownership transfer registration.

B) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that "D was awarded KRW 30,000,000 on September 12, 2008, and the amount of KRW 100,000 was borrowed from D on September 13, 2008, because it was necessary to pay back the amount of KRW 100,000 on September 13, 200."

C) Determination

E on September 12, 2008, 242,00,000 won, which was issued to D's cashier's checks, deposited to D's account in D's AL bank account under D'.17) F and D, in investigation agency and this court, have delivered 20,000,000 won, excluding 42,00,000,000 won loaned to E' in its name, and the Defendant stated to the effect that "the bank deposited 77,00,000,000 won (=42,000,0000,0000 + 35,000,0000,000) in its own account."

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the F and D statements in this part cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant made false statements against memory only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

① At the prosecutor’s office on September 15, 201, “30,000,00 won was lent several times to the defendant while running a commercial building, and KRW 5,00,000,00 was stated to the effect that the defendant was concurrently engaged in a trade zone (No. 1st 477 of the evidence record No. 2018,710). However, at the prosecutor’s office on August 30, 2016, the defendant lent 30,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won were loaned money to the effect that the defendant used it as entertainment expenses when the defendant first started the work (the service in this case).”

F and D’s written reason for appeal from October 30, 2007 to December 31, 2007, stated that the Defendant lent KRW 30,000,000 on four occasions from October 30, 207 to December 31, 2007 (Articles 2, 19, 185, 186, 187 of evidence No. 2010 of evidence records). However, D loaned money from this court on April 4, 2017 to the Defendant on August 4, 2008. Furthermore, the Defendant appears to have no consistency in lending money from the Defendant, such as lending money from this court to the Defendant on August 30, 2008, to the end of December 31, 2007, as long as the aforementioned Defendant’s loan of entertainment expenses related to the instant service to the EF couple from October 30, 2007 to December 31, 207.

③ The Defendant, by deceiving E, obtained a conviction of KRW 200,00,000 in relation to the instant service, is recognized as having become final and conclusive.18) The Defendant’s assertion that he/she did not dispute the detailed circumstances and recognized a crime and attempted to receive a consideration in sentencing is sufficiently acceptable, since he/she is recognized to have inflicted damage on E in relation to the instant service.

4) Determination on loan of KRW 3.5 billion (attached Form 2 Nos. 3, 6, 8)

The key issue of this part is whether or not the Defendant made a statement that F husband and wife would borrow the acquisition price of KRW 3.5 billion to the Defendant. In light of the following: (a) the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom; (b) the Defendant appears to have discussed the investment terms and methods of F husband and wife for a long time; (c) there is sufficient possibility that the Defendant had talked about the loan of KRW 3.5 billion between the Defendant and F husband and his wife; and (b) the expression “3.5 billion out of the Defendant’s testimony” (attached Table 2.6,8) can be deemed to mean both lending and investment to the effect that the Defendant would provide a loan of KRW 3.5 billion (attached Table 2.6,8), the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

B. Determination on perjury related to the operation of the KL (attached Table 2 Nos. 9, 11)

1) Issues

The issue of this part is whether F and D are involved in the operation of K, such as F and D's decision on the execution of funds.

2) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, F and D appear to have achieved a partnership with the Defendant and have been involved in K’s funding execution, etc. This part of the testimony appears to have specifically expressed the F and D behavior from the Defendant’s standpoint. The evidence alone submitted by the Prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to memory, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

① The F and D seems to have decided to make an investment in 0 acceptance and further, they seem to have understood that they will invest in this acceptance.

② F and D agreed to take over the Defendant and K to take over 0. On December 16, 2008, K acquired on December 16, 2008, respectively, and the appointment of the auditor and director was also made.

③ On January 2, 2008, F and D entered into the instant spot investment agreement with the Defendant. The agreement also includes that D and F shall hold 40% of the shares of K and 0 as full-time directors and auditors (paragraph 8), and that K and 0 shall hold 40% of the shares (paragraphs 5 and 9).

4.N land invested in kind or provided as security by F and D, and land B seems to have been almost all K assets.

6.F.D seems to have worked frequently in K office, and in relation to the acquisition of gold equity, which was one of K's business, it seems that K was sent to the gold field directly with Defendant and the head of bank branch office, etc.

④ As seen earlier, some of the loans granted by E’s land as collateral on December 26, 2008 appears to have been issued to D in the form of cashier’s checks. This is considered to be a circumstance in which F and D participated in the F and D’s funding execution.

D. Determination on relevant perjury, such as provision of security, investment in kind, payment of money (attached Form 2 No. 12-24)

1) Determination as to [Attachment 2] Nos. 12

In light of the overall purport of Defendant’s testimony in this case where F and D appear to have invested or lent money, it is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant testified against memory only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2) Determination as to [Attachment 2] Nos. 14

In other words, the defendant's testimony was made on August 19, 2014, which was the time when the transfer registration of ownership to AF 1 land was made on August 13, 201, and thus there is sufficient possibility that the defendant caused an error in the above expenses. ② The prosecutor instituted a public prosecution on the premise that the amount of the national housing bonds purchased was 3,2310,000 won, registration tax, local education tax, special tax for rural development, and other expenses were 4,676,00 won in total. However, in the case of national housing bonds, it is most cases of resale according to the discount rate on the day immediately after the purchase, so it is difficult to conclude that the actual expenses were 4,676,00 won in case of deduction of the sale price. In light of the above, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant gave testimony contrary to memory, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

3) Determination as to [Attachment 2] 16, 17, 18, 19,20 of the list of offenses

A) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted by this Court, the following facts are recognized.

① On Aug. 13, 2007, the head of Song District Tax Office imposed capital gains tax of KRW 247,909,416 on D on August 13, 2007. On December 11, 2007, the head of Song District Tax Office completed the attachment registration on the land of Suwon District Court No. 195083 on December 11, 2007. D filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of capital gains tax against the head of Song District Tax Office on March 13, 2009 at the Seoul Administrative Court of Seoul, the Seoul Administrative Court issued a judgment revoking the entire disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of the head of Song District Tax Office on February 19, 2010. The above attachment registration was revoked on March 4, 2010, and the court of Song District Tax Office appealed its final judgment on March 14, 2010, and the court of Song High District Tax Office rendered a final judgment on March 24, 2010.

② On September 10, 2009, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City completed the attachment registration on the land of Suwon District Court as the receipt of September 10, 2009 by the Suwon District Court (U.S. 165106) registry office, and the above attachment registration was cancelled on March 15, 2010.

B) Determination

In light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant testified a false fact contrary to memory in relation to this part of the statement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① By March 15, 2010, the registration of seizure by the director of the tax office and the registration of seizure by Seoul Special Metropolitan City was completed on the above land, and the loan secured by the above designated land was not made.20)

② The Defendant stated to the effect that “No security loan shall be made by a financial institution unless the registration of seizure is cancelled because the delinquent amount of tax on the registry is not indicated on the registry.” The Defendant’s statement is acceptable in light of the actual amount of security for the registration of seizure, the possibility of disputes arising from the use of other taxes, and the relationship between the bank and the tax authority, etc. If so, it appears that it was difficult to obtain a loan of NN land as security under the above registration of seizure, and that there was a dispute as to whether the Defendant and F, and D, on the preparation of advance payment for the cancellation of the above registration of seizure, have already been liable for the cancellation of the above registration.

③ The Defendant’s testimony is responsible for cancelling the above attachment registration, and it is not possible to obtain a security loan with NF and D because it did not cancel the above attachment registration. As such, it can be seen that the Defendant’s assertion or opinion related to the method of cancelling the attachment registration can be seen as an expression of the Defendant’s opinion. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant testified that the Defendant had testified against memory.

4) Determination as to [Attachment 2] 21 Nos. 21

In light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, this part of the statement can be seen as pertaining to who is liable to perform the transfer of shares between F, D and the Defendant. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to memory, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

5) Determination as to [Attachment 2] 22,23 Nos. 23 of the List of Offenses

A) Evidence related to the part on which the examination of evidence relation was conducted is concerned with F and D’s statement. F and D lent KRW 300,000,000 to F and D on July 25, 2006, and thereafter lent KRW 10,000,000 after one month, and further lent KRW 150,000 after two years and six months. However, the sum of the principal amount plus KRW 150,000,000 is KRW 460,000.

Based on the above principal and interest, Paragraph (7) of the instant spot investment agreement was inserted into the said principal and interest. However, on December 26, 2008, the said KRW 460,000,000 was paid or received as a premium of KRW 20,00,000,000 was stated to the effect that “No fact was received” (No evidence Nos. 28, 349, 2018, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2710).

B) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The Defendant borrowed KRW 230,00,000 to F and D until the time of the instant spot investment agreement. However, the Defendant asserted that F and D would bring about KRW 460,00,000,000, which is an equal amount of the loan, to F and D’s transfer of loan to F and AF land owned by E, and that Article 7 of the instant spot investment agreement was inserted. On December 26, 2008, upon receiving a loan on each land of F as security, D would bring about KRW 460,000,000 under the said provision, and D would bring about KRW 20,000,000,000 to F and D. The Defendant would bring about approximately KRW 50,000,000,000 to them.

C) the facts of recognition

① As seen earlier, there is a statement that “the 4.6 million won is to be paid in advance to D in the event of a bank loan pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the instant spot investment agreement.”

② On December 26, 2008, E set up a second collateral security (AF) and borrowed KRW 830,000,000 to a G bank account in the name of K on the same day; KRW 830,000,000 from the above loans were deposited; KRW 302,054,794 from the above loans were cancelled the first collateral security (AF); KRW 8,258,160 was used as loans incidental expenses; KRW 4,150,000 (cash’s cashier’s checks + KRW 4,00,000 + cash + KRW 150,000); KRW 472,00,000 (cash’s checks + cash + KRW 12,00,000) were withdrawn to the account of K on the same day; and KRW 302,00,000 from the above loans was withdrawn; hereinafter the same shall apply).

③ On March 31, 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 300,000,000 from D, and issued cashier’s checks, as seen earlier.22) On March 31, 2009, the Defendant presented the cashier’s checks at the point of G Bank AY for payment of KRW 100,000,000 at the above face value.

(4) Of cashier's checks withdrawn from K's account on December 26, 2008, the face value of KRW 100,000,000 shall be the same as those presented at the G Bank AY branch on March 31, 2009.

D) Determination

If the facts are identical, D appears to have been kept at least 10,00,000 won out of the cashier's checks withdrawn on December 26, 2008, and delivered them to the Defendant on March 31, 2009. Such circumstance goes against F and D's statement that there was no fact that the Defendant had been repaid from the secured loan on December 26, 2008, and rather accords with the Defendant's assertion. Thus, this part of the statement of F and D is difficult to believe, and it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone testified that the Defendant had testified against his memory, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

6) Determination as to [Attachment 2] 13, 24 Nos. 24

The sole evidence that corresponds to the facts charged is F and D’s statement to the effect that the Defendant agreed to repay the principal amount or that there is no evidence that the Defendant required as such. However, as seen earlier, there are many cases where F and D’s statements are inconsistent or are contrary to objective facts, and it is difficult to believe them as they are. ② The Defendant stated that D was first demanding the repayment of the amount of money pursuant to Article 7 of the Spot Investment Agreement, but the F and D’s statement cannot be deemed to have been clearly erroneous in the instant case where F and D’s statement cannot be deemed to have been made, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant made a false statement contrary to memory, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

I. III. Judgment on the Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

1. Facts charged;

A. Summary of the facts charged

On December 20, 2008, around 11:00, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would divide the amount of business funds to take over the victim F and the victim D (the owner of the commercial building located adjacent to Q Q) from the 1st floor coffee chain store located adjacent to AX building in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Q Q, into the profits of the victim D from the security of the bank, as the business funds are necessary to take over the business (the owner of the commercial building located adjacent to Q Q Q) at KRW 5 billion."

In addition, at around 11:00 on March 31, 2009, the defendant concluded that "the defendant would make payment without a mold after one month if he borrowed 300 million won to the victims from the (ju) KK office operated by the defendant near the Seocho-gu Seoul AZ apartment."

However, even if the Defendant received money from the victims, there was no idea to use the said state to take over the said state. The said 0th state did not have the right to own or use the commercial building for Q and operated Q and did not have the intent or ability to make profits to the victims. Since there was no particular property or income by committing multiple frauds from around 2005 to 2008, there was no specific property or income. Accordingly, even if the Defendant borrowed money or received the bank loans from the victims, there was no intention or ability to repay the said amount.

On December 20, 2008, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victims; (b) obtained from the victims the right to guarantee the amount of 11,107 square meters of forest land B in Ansan-gu, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City owned by the victims; and (c) on April 24, 2009, set up the right to collateral with the maximum debt amount of 600 million won to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd; (d) received KRW 500 million as a loan from the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd; and (e) received KRW 300 million from the victims on March 31, 2009.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victims, received the total amount of KRW 80 million property or property benefits.

2. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant received KRW 800,000 from the victims are money irrelevant to KRW 3.5 billion. The said money was used for the Defendant’s purpose with the money received in relation to gold mine takeover, office maintenance, and business expenses, which are another business entity of KRW 0,500,000, on the premise that the victims provided the victims’ land as security and received a loan of KRW 3.5 billion. Accordingly, the Defendant did not deceive the victims.

B. The Defendant had been aware that Qua shop had the authority to do so, and thus did not have the intention of deception.

3. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was an intentional act of deceiving the defendant at the time when the defendant was delivered a total of KRW 800 million from the victims, or that the victims committed an act of disposing of KRW 800 million in total due to the Defendant’s speech and behavior, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① A. As seen earlier, the Defendant actually accepted 0 and acquired Q’s management and operation rights, and subsequently examined and promoted the business of remodelling and leasing the commercial buildings in question. Meanwhile, AA, X, and Z, which promoted 0 acceptance together with the Defendant, stated to the same purport in this court. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that 0 did not have the management and operation rights of Q buildings as indicated in the facts charged, and rather, in light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged earlier, the acquisition value of 0 continued to have been maintained due to such assets.

② As seen earlier, F and D seem to run K and L in partnership with the Defendant. Moreover, F and their wife with ten-year experience of F and F are deemed to have been engaged in the instant spot investment agreement with the Defendant after seeking explanations about the acceptance and future projects from the Defendant, and examining the feasibility, feasibility, feasibility, etc. in a concrete and comprehensive manner.

③ On August 15, 2009, eight months after the date of investment, the establishment of the right to collateral security established for the investment in kind and the right to collateral security was terminated, and D received a dividend of 6 billion won and received a discount of 30%. To secure this, the term “the right to collateral security established for the investment in kind” includes the contents that are more favorable to F and D as a whole, such as the provision, and the term “the right to collateral security established for the investment in kind and the right to collateral security was sold in lots at a discount of 30%.” It appears that F and D had established various favorable safety devices for the collection of the investment amount.

4. The overall purport of the instant spot investment agreement is to distribute the profit of KRW 6 billion to F and D’s investment, and commercial buildings sale seems to be one of the various methods to distribute the profit of KRW 6 billion to F and D’s investment together with AP business, A Q business, AR business, etc.

⑤ Comprehensively taking account of the facts and circumstances as seen earlier, it appears that the above KRW 800 million was given for the purpose of operating funds, such as office rent and personnel expenses, separate from the balance of KRW 3.5 billion for the acquisition price of KRW 0 billion, and the Defendant appears to have used it in line with the aforementioned purport. In addition, F and D appear to have been sufficiently aware of the circumstances of the Defendant’s shortage in financial resources during the process of entering the acquisition price of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to five years;

2. Scope of recommendations on the sentencing criteria: Non-application (Fraud of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.).

3. Determination of sentence;

Perjury requires strict punishment as a crime undermining the proper judicial function of the State and impairing the people’s trust in trial. The Defendant has a number of criminal records, including imprisonment, and there is doubt as to whether he/she is against his/her own criminal act. Considering the above circumstances, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not weak.

However, it seems that the defendant's perjury does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's perjury is not likely to affect the conclusion of the judgment. Since the specific Economic Crimes Act, which are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, has been sentenced to three years of imprisonment in violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the crime of fraud

In addition to the above circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the age, character and conduct, environment, and family relationship of the defendant.

Parts of innocence

1. Judgment on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

The summary and judgment of the facts charged as to this part are the same as in the main text and judgment in the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). In the end, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant acquired the total amount of KRW 800 million by deceiving F and D, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

2. Judgment on perjury

The summary of the facts charged as to this part of the charges is insufficient to recognize that the defendant made a false statement against his memory as of November 19, 2014, the Seoul High Court located at the Seoul High Court located at the Seoul High Court located at 310, the Seocho-gu Seoul High Court located at 157, 157, as of November 19, 2014, presented an oath as a witness of the damage compensation case No. 2015Na41429, the Seoul High Court raised against E in the Seoul High Court at the Seoul High Court located at the Seoul High Court located at the Seoul High Court located at 310, and provided a false statement contrary to his memory as stated in the attached list No. 2 of the crime list No. 2. The remainder except for No. 10,15 (Attached Table No. 1, No. 1, No. 2 of the crime list No. 2)

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the perjury should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. However, as long

Judges

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Park Jae-ran

Judges Chief Democratic

Note tin

1) To the extent that the identity of facts charged is recognized and the defendant’s defense is not disadvantaged, the facts charged are revised ex officio as follows (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4419, Nov. 22, 2002).

2) contain accompanying documents; hereinafter the same shall apply.

3) AM appears to be a clerical error.

4) AV appears to be a clerical error.

5) The principal of the loan 300,000,000 + Interest 2,054,794

6) cashier’s checks of KRW 4,000,000 + Cash of KRW 150,000

7) cashier’s checks of KRW 460,000,000 + Cash of KRW 12,000,000

8) Since a loan of KRW 830,000,000 from AF 1 to BF 300,000 after obtaining a loan of KRW 830,000,000, it was deducted from KRW 830,000 to 300,000.

9) Three cases were combined except for the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against E.

10) On June 10, 2015, E submitted a written application for non-taxation to the Defendant.

11) Attached Table 1 of Crimes List 1 is as follows.

12) According to the summary of the oral argument dated December 3, 2018, the Defendant stated that the above loans amount to KRW 400 million was used for business, including acquisition of gold or mineral equity shares promoted by the Defendant at the time.

13) It is as shown in Appendix 1 No. 2.

14) As the date of preparation of the written consent to provide E and D, its detailed contents are referred to as “I. d. 2 of basic facts.”

15) 1. See basic facts D. 4)

16) 1. See basic facts C.

17) 1. Basic facts C. 6)

18) 1. Basic facts f.2)

19) On August 13, 2007, the head of the Songpa District Tax Office imposed capital gains tax of KRW 389,997,440 on D. D. This decision was made on November 26, 2007 by the head of the Songpa District Tax Office to reduce the capital gains tax of KRW 355,264,132 on the said capital gains tax amount by 355,264,132. D filed a national tax appeal, and D made a disposition to reduce the said capital gains tax of KRW 247,909,416 on December 12, 2008 by the Tax Tribunal.

20) See basic facts D. 8).

21) See basic facts D. 5).

22) Basic facts D. see d.