Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants and Prosecutor

The number of copies

Attorney Jeong-won et al.

1. Seoul District Court Decision 200 Gohap1402, 200 Gohap14666, 201 Gohap1098, 2001 Gohap1380, 2001 Gohap1397, 2001 Gohap1397, October 11, 2001, North Korean District Court Decision 98Da4023, 2000 Godan3667, 3. The Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2004Da1690, Dec. 28, 2004

Of the original judgment of the first instance, the guilty part against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and the second and third original judgment shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

The number of detention days prior to the issuance of the first judgment shall be 348 days for Defendant 1, and 74 days for Defendant 2 shall be included in the above punishment.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years for Defendant 1, and for two years for Defendant 2, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the delivery of each third party brain material to Defendant 1, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax), the fraud of six shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, the fabrication of each private document and the uttering of each private document concerning the sales contract of the shares in the name of six Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., the uttering of a falsified investigation document with respect to the confirmation of Nonindicted Co. 3, and the acquisition of third party brain material around August 23, 19

The appeal by the defendant 3 and the prosecutor's first judgment on the acquittal part against the defendant 1 and the appeal by the defendant 3 are dismissed, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

(1) Defendant 1

(A) Of the first judgment, the delivery of each third party brain in the first instance judgment

Defendant 1 does not constitute the crime of delivery of third-party bribery, since Defendant 2 made a tax investigation at his request to a public official who is well aware of it, or obtained the authorization of the university, and the payment or expenses are demanded and the delivery of money to Defendant 2 is not a delivery of money for such purpose to the public official concerned as a bribe.

(B) Violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) in the first judgment

(School Name omitted) The Organizational Committee determines to sell the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) owned by the church to the members of the Organizational Committee, and it does not constitute a disguised division of shares in the name of the members in order to evade taxes, as it actually sells the shares of the said company owned by the Organizational Committee from December 194 to October 195.

(C) Of the first judgment of the court below, perjury and perjury

(I)In the lawsuit of the Seoul District Court against the Construction Mutual Aid Association, the testimony made by Defendant 2 and the testimony made by Defendant 1 at the appellate court of the above case, all of which are true and consistent.

(D) Of the first judgment, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(Name omitted) A corporation (hereinafter referred to as "corporation name omitted") shall be issued the standard contract form from the Construction Financial Cooperative on July 30, 1997 to the (hereinafter referred to as "corporation name omitted") and the contents of the contract shall not require a letter to the effect that the contract form shall comply with the original contract form on July 22, 1997, and there is no benefit by deceiving the Construction Financial Cooperative.

Even if it is not a domestic case, it is merely an advance payment and contract guarantee that Defendant 1 acquired through deception is not equivalent to the elements of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). In addition, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes does not apply to the crime of fraud under Article 347 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and Article 352 of the Criminal Act on the attempted fraud is excluded from the scope of the application.

(E) Fraud in the second judgment of the court below

(G) In order to acquire 21.75 old shares, including Nonindicted Co. 1’s 15 shares, for which Nonindicted Co. 2 and 6 (including Nonindicted Co. 3’s 15 shares) disputing ownership against Nonindicted Co. 3, the church agreed to purchase 6 old shares in KRW 300 million (50 million per old unit) with Nonindicted Co. 2 and to pay additional KRW 500 million in consideration of the condition that the dispute over the above 15 old shares should be settled. Nonindicted Co. 4’s transfer of 15 old shares to Nonindicted Co. 3 while Nonindicted Co. 2 and other 6, including Nonindicted Co. 4, a criminal complaint, which Nonindicted Co. 4 acquired the above shares by means of forging a private document forgery, continue to exist, and since Nonindicted Co. 6, including Nonindicted Co. 4, etc. 6222,000 won, 60 million old shares were purchased from Nonindicted Co. 2 and 5500,000 won, it did not dispute the above old shares payment from Nonindicted Co. 62525.

(f) Of the judgment of the second court, the fabrication of each private document and the uttering of each private document

In preparation for the tax investigation, Nonindicted 5 prepared a sales contract of shares in the name of the church and six persons, including Nonindicted 2, etc., and requested Nonindicted 6 to affix the official seal of the church, and Nonindicted 6 affixed the official seal of the church after obtaining the consent of Nonindicted 7 from the representative of the church and affixed the official seal of the church, and copied it to Nonindicted 5 and stored the original copy of it, and submitted the copy of it to Nonindicted 5, along with other documents of stock sales in the custody after receiving the official letter from the Dobong, accompanied by a copy of the said sales contract. Defendant 1 was never involved in it at all.

(G) Original judgment of the third court (a point of uttering of a falsified Investigation Document)

A written confirmation of Nonindicted 3’s name is not forged that Defendant 1 was written by Nonindicted 3 on June 1994, but it was not forged. A person who allowed the court to submit it as evidence to the court as evidence was Nonindicted 7, and the defendant was not involved in the exercise, and the period for the submission thereof was five years after the expiration of the statute of limitations on the beginning of June 199.

(2) Defendant 2

(Supplementary name omitted) It is merely an employee of a church to receive money from Defendant 1 to use the work for the church, and it does not constitute a crime of acquiring the third party property.

(3) Defendant 3

Defendant 3 and Defendant 1’s contract companies related to the issuance of the instant advance payment guarantee certificates are governed by the construction contract agreement dated July 22, 1997, which is the original contract, and the construction standard contract in relation to advance payment guarantees is governed by the construction standard contract as of July 30, 1997, which is the principal contract. Unlike the standard contract, in the case where the contract is terminated under the original contract, the construction mutual aid association did not intend to deceive the construction mutual aid association. Since the construction mutual aid association believed Defendant 3 to be the true construction contract, it did not deliver one letter of advance payment guarantee and one copy of the contract guarantee, but did not deliver one letter of contract guarantee and one copy of the contract guarantee, and if it applies for advance payment guarantee in accordance with the number of units of contract pursuant to the limit of guarantee obligations agreement with the (name of the company omitted), it lacks causation between deception and disposal act.

Even if it is not a domestic case, it does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) because it is merely an advance payment guarantee and a contract guarantee which can not be calculated in value, and it does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). In addition, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes only applies the fraud crime under Article 347 of the Criminal Act, and Article 352 of the Criminal Act on the attempted fraud is excluded from the application,

(4) Prosecutor

(A) Of the first judgment, the fraud against Defendant 1 and the violation of the Labor Standards Act

Defendant 2’s false statement of education, experience, etc. on the ground that the rejection of the whole statement that Defendant 2 worked as the employee of the (name omitted) church is inconsistent with the logic of logic, and that he demanded the payment of wages to Defendant 1 on several occasions. Nonindicted Co. 8 was a company which was taken over by the (name omitted) church, and Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to do the work of Nonindicted Co. 8, along with the (name omitted) church, and carried out the work of Nonindicted Co. 8, as well as the work of Nonindicted Co. 2, along with the (name omitted) church. In light of the fact that Defendant 2’s statement was found to have been reliable, the lower court rejected Defendant 2’s statement without any reasonable ground and sentenced Defendant 1 not guilty of the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Labor Standards Act. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) Of the first judgment, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant 3's Gangnam Construction Company

(Name of Company) Even if the instant joint and several sureties was performed under the mutual guarantee agreement between the Company and the Gangseosan Construction Company, it is evident that Defendant 3 did not provide the joint and several sureties if he knew of the imminent circumstances of the Company (name omitted). Defendant 3 did not notify even if (name omitted of the Company) the Company did not have any capacity to perform construction work any longer due to the aggravation of financial standing, and thus, it is sufficiently recognized as a deceptive act.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 asserted that the sentence of the lower court against the above Defendants is too unreasonable in light of the various circumstances of the instant case. On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the lower court against the said Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Among the original judgment of the first instance, each third party delivery to Defendant 1

(1) As to KRW 30 million around August 23, 1996

(A) Summary of the facts charged

On August 23, 1996, Defendant 1 transferred the church to a non-indicted 1 corporation located in Dobong-gu Seoul (detailed omitted) as promoted by the above church at the time at the planning office of the church (the name omitted of the church), and on the 5th day of the same month, Defendant 1 delivered KRW 30 million to Defendant 2, who was working as the head of the above church, for the purpose of gathering the special tax accountant’s check from the Dobong Tax Office under his jurisdiction by Nonindicted 9 et al., who was the head of the above church, to use it as a street fund solicited by tax officials.

(B) The judgment of the court below

The court below recognized the charged facts and applied them to the third-party brain delivery crime as stipulated in Article 133(2) of the Criminal Act.

(C) Judgment of the court below

1) First, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the fact that Defendant 1 delivered cash of KRW 30 million to Defendant 2 at the date and place specified in the above facts charged is clearly acknowledged. However, the issue is whether the act constitutes the crime of delivery of third-party brain.

2) Accordingly, the following facts are examined in light of the related person’s statements concerning the particulars of the delivery of the above KRW 30 million and the facts acknowledged by the evidence employed by the lower court.

① Defendant 1: (a) Nonindicted 10, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, who, around July 23, 1996, demanded that Nonindicted 10 enter a temporary tax office by seizing the company’s documents; (b) Defendant 2 would have been aware of the Doidebook; (c) Defendant 2 would have been aware of the Doidebook; and (d) Defendant 2 would have been aware of the Doidebook by Nonindicted 11, who was the head of the Doide District Tax Office and was aware of the National Tax Service; and (d) Defendant 2 would have been able to receive a face-to-face tax accountant check at around August 23, 1996. Nonindicted 12 sent cash KRW 30 million to Nonindicted 12 and Nonindicted 6, who was sent money to Nonindicted 12 and Nonindicted 2; and (d) Defendant 2 and the head of the tax office stated that he was able to deliver money to Defendant 2 and the head of the tax office.

② Unlike the circumstances, Defendant 2: (a) from around May 195 upon the request of Defendant 1 to request the work of a church; (b) from around May 23, 1996, Defendant 1, while serving as the secretary general of the office of a church and as the planning office of a school foundation promoting the establishment of a church, requested Defendant 1 to inspect the tax accountant for Nonindicted Company 1 in the Dobong Tax Office; and (c) in a shopping bag, he sent the funds to Defendant 1 at the newspaper; (d) he was aware of how much the money was paid, but (e) was confirmed to include 10 million won in the shopping bag when he made a statement at the prosecutor’s office on November 28, 200; and (e) the head of the Dobong Tax Office and the head of the school foundation planning office working for the establishment of a church; and (e) around August 23, 1996, Defendant 2 issued the KRW 1 to Defendant 350,500,000.

③ Based on the above statement of Defendant 2, the prosecutor prosecuted Nonindicted 13 on the charge that he received a bribe of KRW 35 million from Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted 13 on the charge of receiving a bribe of KRW 35 million (Seoul District Court Decision 2000Gohap1402). Although Nonindicted 13 consistently denied the receipt of money and valuables at the prosecutor’s office and court, the above court acknowledged the acceptance of the acceptance of bribe, but the appellate court, which was the appellate court, received KRW 30 million from Defendant 1, and deposited KRW 20 million on August 26, 1996, which was the first day of August 26, 196, which was the first day of the day after Defendant 2 received KRW 30 million from Defendant 14, which was the first day of his wife, deposited KRW 10 million in cash and KRW 30 million in cash, which was the first day of the next day of September, 200, which was the first day of the second day of the second day, and did not have been acquitted Defendant 160 million won.

3) The circumstances before and after the delivery of money and valuables to Defendant 2, the credibility of Defendant 2’s statement that Defendant 2 delivered KRW 30 million to Nonindicted 13, was very doubtful. Defendant 1 merely knew of Defendant 2’s fact to the Commissioner of the Provincial Tax Office or the National Tax Service’s public official in charge of the tax investigation of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1, and had Defendant 2 negotiate with the public official in charge of the tax investigation of the Provincial Tax Office or the Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 and deliver the bribe to Defendant 2 without having the other party collect information on the other party, the amount of the bribe, and the amount of the bribe. Defendant 2 cannot be seen as having delivered money to Defendant 1 to the same effect as the delivery of money and valuables to Defendant 2 without having the other party to the tax investigation (which is the amount requested by Defendant 2, and there is a difference in statement as to whether Defendant 1 voluntarily provided the above money and at his own discretion. Defendant 2 cannot be seen as having delivered money and valuables to Defendant 1, who is an employee of the Provincial Tax Office or the National Tax Service.

Thus, although the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles on delivery of third parties, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground for appeal on this part by Defendant 1 is justified.

(2) As to 5,2350,00 won around September 20, 1996

(A) Summary of the facts charged

On September 20, 1996, Defendant 1 was also examined as to whether a tax accountant's bid for Nonindicted Co. 1 was conducted and the above church was disguisedly divided into the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the planning office of the (name omitted) church conference, and the construction of the above church building continues to be a new and opposing demonstration due to non- religious problems, and there is a problem in adjusting the station area, etc., at the competent office, Defendant 1 issued KRW 5,2350,00 to Defendant 2 at his request to the public officials in charge, and issued KRW 5,2350,000 to the public officials in charge, for the purpose of using the building permit and authorization for university establishment.

(B) The judgment of the court below

The court below recognized the charged facts and applied them to the third-party brain delivery crime as stipulated in Article 133(2) of the Criminal Act.

(C) Judgment of the court below

1) According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is clearly acknowledged that Defendant 1 delivered KRW 52,350,000 (one cashier's checks and one cashier's checks KRW 52 million) to Defendant 2 at the time, place, and place indicated in the above facts charged. However, it is a matter of issue in this case whether the act constitutes the crime of delivery of third-party brain.

2) Accordingly, the following facts are examined in light of the related person’s statements concerning the particulars of the delivery of KRW 5,2350,000 and facts acknowledged by the evidence employed by the lower court.

① In promoting the procedure for which the establishment of a school juristic person is permitted by the school juristic person’s association at the time, Defendant 1 stated that, if Defendant 2 wants to obtain the permission, Defendant 1 ought to pay the expenses to the Ministry of Education. Defendant 3.50,000 won should be a gift to the employees of the Ministry of Education. Defendant 1 demanded the Ministry of Education to make a gift to the employees of the Ministry of Education. Defendant 1’s withdrawal of KRW 5,2350,00 as a check, but did not indicate that he did not ask anyone to whom the said money was paid, and that Defendant 2 did not ask any person to whom the said money was paid.

② Defendant 2 stated otherwise that Defendant 1 should be additionally engaged in the Dobong Tax Office, and KRW 50,000 among which KRW 50,350,000 was given to Nonindicted 13, and the KRW 20,000 was delivered to Nonindicted 15 in connection with the permission for the new establishment of the church, and the amount of KRW 10,000 was used to provide entertainment to the employees in charge of the Dobong-gu Office, and the amount of KRW 16,00,000 was used to pay for the obligations of Nonindicted 16, and the remaining KRW 7,00,000 was individually used to pay for the obligations of Nonindicted 16, but did not pay for the public officials of the Ministry of Education.

③ Based on the above statement of Defendant 2, the prosecutor prosecuted Nonindicted 13 that he received a bribe of KRW 35 million as seen earlier, and prosecuted Nonindicted 15 on the charge that he received a bribe of KRW 20 million in connection with his duties in response to a request to grant a building permit for the church building as soon as possible. Nonindicted 15 also denied the receipt of money and valuables in accordance with the prosecutor’s office and court, the court acknowledged the acceptance of acceptance of bribe. However, the appellate court, which was the appellate court, issued Defendant 1’s statement on the particulars of delivery of KRW 52350,000,000, at the time of the appellate court’s statement, had already filed an administrative appeal seeking the cancellation of the disposition of the said request for building permit by the Administrator of Dobong-gu Office on August 26, 1996, upon receiving a favorable ruling on October 30, 1996, it could have been determined that the above request for the building permit could have been granted even if it did not accept any special solicitation from the Dobong office.

3) In light of the circumstances before and after the time when Defendant 1 delivered money to Defendant 2, the credibility of Defendant 2’s statement that Defendant 2 delivered KRW 5 million to Nonindicted 13, and KRW 20 million to Nonindicted 15, the credibility of Defendant 2’s statement that Defendant 2 gave to Nonindicted 13, and KRW 30 million to Nonindicted Company 1 for the purpose of a tax investigation, but does not appear to have any circumstance to add money for the same purpose after the lapse of one month, the issue of construction permit was already resolved by filing an administrative appeal. The issue of the construction permit was already resolved by the administrative appeal, and even Defendant 2 himself stated that Defendant 1 used KRW 17 million as an individual among the money received from Defendant 1; Defendant 1 did not ask Defendant 2 for what much he had given to Defendant 2, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 did not transfer the tax investigation permit, establishment permit, or establishment permit to Defendant 2, or deliver it to a public official who is closely related to the above affairs.

Thus, although the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles on delivery of third-party brain, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, this part of the appeal by Defendant 1 is justified.

B. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) against Defendant 1 of the first judgment

(1) Summary of the facts charged

While Defendant 1 promoted a plan to relocate and build the school site to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1, Defendant 1 still held the entire shares of the church from May 1995 to October 1 of the same year in order to avoid obligations as an oligopolistic shareholder by means of lending 17 the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1, which in fact the said church held 100% of 10% of 10% of 10% of the shares, and from May 1995, Defendant 1 distributed shares by means of writing materials from the church to the list of the members who are the nominal shareholders, and preparing for the transfer of shares in the manner of preparing for the transfer of the shares at the time of the above 196 to the 3rd anniversary of the acquisition and construction of the above shares, Defendant 1 again submitted the list of the above shares issued by Nonindicted Incorporated Incorporated Company 1 to the 196th anniversary of the acquisition and disposal of the shares in the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Incorporated Company 1, 300 million won (the list of shares issued by Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1, 196008.

(2) The judgment of the court below and its key issues

The lower court recognized the facts charged and applied the same to crimes falling under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

(3) Judgment of the court below

(A) Issues

Defendant 1 asserts that the shares were transferred by a genuine transfer contract between the members. However, in the trial, even if the church held a title trust with the members, it is necessary to examine whether (i.e., the name omitted) the secondary liability for tax payment as an oligopolistic shareholder for the whole amount of the prosecuted tax, and whether the said tax evasion has reached the expiration of the deadline for filing the tax base of the above corporate tax.

(B) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the following facts are recognized.

① On October 9, 1996, Nonindicted Co. 1 transferred the company’s site and building amounting to KRW 3.8 billion to the Diplomatic Association (i.e., the school name omitted), but the special surtax and corporate tax resulting therefrom were reported and paid by the due date.

② Around the end of November 200, the prosecution conducted an investigation with regard to Defendant 1 on the same suspicion as the above facts charged, and demanded the director of the Dobong District Tax Office to file a complaint on the evasion of the secondary tax liability of the above accused on December 14, 2000, and prosecuted Defendant 1 as the above facts charged on December 16, 200. In calculating the evaded tax amount, Nonindicted Co. 1’s transfer of the above real estate to the 3.8 billion won to the Do branch of the (School Name omitted), deeming that the transfer of the said real estate to the 3.8 billion won in transactions with a person with a special relationship with the juristic person constitutes a case where it is deemed that the income of the juristic person was unjustly reduced in the transaction with the juristic person, by applying the provisions of Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5581, Dec. 28, 199); applying the provisions of Article 5,376,050,40 won at the market price and the amount of the special surtax;

③ Meanwhile, based on the transfer price of Nonindicted Co. 1’s above Nonindicted Co. 1’s 3.8 billion won, the head of the Dobong District Tax Office calculated approximately KRW 709,776,00, about KRW 513,760,00 in total, about KRW 1,223,539,80 in total, and KRW 1,223,539,80 in total, and KRW 61,50 in additional dues ( KRW 671,50,50) under the National Tax Collection Act, and increased additional dues ( KRW 671,50 in total) under the National Tax Collection Act, designated the school meeting as the second person liable for tax payment for KRW 1,956,218,40 in total, and notified the school meeting of KRW 1,95,218,40 in total, on February 1, 201.

(C) Judgment on the issue

1) Part of the tax amount due to a wrongful calculation omission

The system of wrongful calculation of a taxpayer’s act or calculation is consistent with objective facts and is legally effective and lawful, and accounting is accurate. However, it is a system that denies it under tax law and imposes tax on a taxpayer by deeming it as having been an income or a calculation of an act which is objectively reasonable by the tax authority, unless the tax authority calculates the amount of income or the amount of transfer. The second tax liability is based on the premise that the existence of the original tax liability exists unless there is an original tax liability.

However, in this case, in calculating the corporate tax amount and special surtax amount of non-indicted 1 corporation for the business year 196, the head of the provincial tax office did not apply the provision of wrongful calculation, and calculated the income amount and transfer value based on the transfer price of non-indicted 1 corporation 3.8 billion won. Thus, the non-indicted 1 corporation did not have any tax liability for the portion of the tax amount prosecuted for additional evasion under the premise of applying the above provision, and accordingly, there is no room to impose any secondary tax liability for the said portion of the tax amount charged, the portion of the tax amount due to wrongful calculation (the portion exceeding 1,23,539,800 won based on the transfer price of non-indicted 1 corporation) cannot be deemed to have evaded the tax (In addition, even where the tax office imposes tax by applying the provision that is wrongful calculation method, Article 9-2 subparag. 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act does not constitute the transfer price of non-indicted 1 corporation without the presumption that the transfer price of the tax amount constitutes an unlawful calculation method and other than the transfer price.

2) Whether the secondary tax liability is evaded or not

Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that "any person who evades a tax, obtains a refund or deduction of taxes by fraudulent or other unlawful means" shall be punished, except for the case of evasion of liquor tax (proviso to the above provision), and Article 9-3 provides that "in the case of taxes imposed and collected by a taxpayer's report, the government makes a decision or investigation on the tax base of the relevant tax item and the time limit for payment expires after the Government makes a decision or investigation on such tax base: Provided, That in the case of taxes imposed and collected by the taxpayer's report, where the Government is unable to make a decision or investigation on the tax base of the relevant tax item due to the failure of the taxpayer to report the tax base pursuant to the Act for the purpose of tax evasion (Article 1) and "where the time limit for filing the tax base of the relevant tax item expires (Article 2)" and "in the case of taxes not falling under the provisions of the preceding subparagraph (Article 1).

However, while Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the secondary liability for tax payment, it does not provide any provision concerning the establishment and determination of the secondary liability for tax payment, and Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that if a taxpayer intends to collect national taxes, additional dues, etc. from a person liable for secondary tax payment, a notice of payment stating the taxable year, tax item, and amount to be collected to the person liable for secondary tax payment, such as national taxes and additional dues, the basis for calculation, payment period, place of payment, the amount to be collected from the person liable for secondary tax payment, the basis for calculation, and other necessary matters shall be notified by the notice of payment. In light of the nature and contents of the secondary liability for tax payment and the above provision, the secondary liability for tax payment is abstractly established by the occurrence of an event meeting the requirements such as the delinquency of the person liable for secondary tax payment and it becomes final and conclusive by the notice of payment (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu632, Sept. 15, 195).

Thus, the timing of the act of evading the secondary tax liability shall be based on Article 9-3 subparag. 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act concerning taxes in the method of imposition. Since the obligation to report the tax base or the deadline for filing the tax base cannot be established to the person liable for secondary tax payment, the proviso of subparag. 1 does not fall under the same, and ultimately, it should be deemed that the period of payment after the lapse of the time limit of payment notice under Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act

In this case, the second liability for tax payment of a church, which is an oligopolistic shareholder, is established abstractly, and the second liability for tax payment of a church, was determined on January 4, 2001 by giving notice of the delinquent tax amount and additional dues of the non-indicted 1 corporation to the Dobong branch (the name omitted), and the number of the second liability for tax evasion did not reach the number of the members of the public prosecution (the name omitted), and even if the non-indicted 1 corporation held a title trust with the members of the church, the second liability for tax payment of the company was not established as an oligopolistic shareholder, and as long as there is no provision on the attempted tax evasion under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the punishment of the crime is not established unless there is a provision on the attempted tax evasion under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of evading tax, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, Defendant 1’s appeal on this part

C. Among the judgment of the first instance, perjury and perjury against Defendant 1

Comprehensively taking account of the various evidences duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts constituting the crime in this part of the judgment below, and there is no other error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below, and therefore there is no reason to issue this part of the appeal

D. Among the original judgment of the first instance, each third party acquisition on Defendant 2

(1) As to KRW 30 million around August 23, 1996

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “Defendant 2, at the planning office of the school (name omitted) around August 23, 1996, had no tax accountant check with the tax officials in charge from around the 5th of the same month when the special tax accountant check with Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation from around the 1996 office; Defendant 1, upon the request of the tax officials in charge of the above company’s land to be taken over by the school (name omitted) to delayed taking measures such as seizure, etc., he was knowingly delivered KRW 30 million to the public officials in charge of the Dobong tax office with the knowledge that he would deliver the above facts charged, and the court below recognized it as the above facts charged, and decided it as the third party brain acquisition crime under Article 133(2) of the Criminal Act; however, Defendant 2 cannot be deemed as having received money from the above public officials in charge or 30 million won, and it cannot be deemed as having received money from the above public officials in charge of the above criminal investigation to the effect that he received money from the above Defendant 1 corporation or 200 million won.

Therefore, the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of a crime. Thus, the judgment below which found the guilty guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the third party brain acquisition, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, this part of the appeal by the

(2) As to 5,2350,00 won around September 20, 1996

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: "Around September 20, 1996, at the planning office of the school association (name omitted), Defendant 2 was investigated as to whether the tax accountant's report for the non-indicted corporation 1 was extended at the time and the above church disguisedly divided the shares of the non-indicted corporation 1, and the issue of permission for the above church building was also likely to be delayed by the competent office of Dobong-gu due to new demonstration due to the inter- religious problems and adjustment of the station area, and the problem of permission for the establishment of the school foundation which was being promoted together at the church was not easy. Further, the issue of permission for the establishment of the school foundation which was being promoted at the church was also difficult, upon request of the public official in charge of the above affairs from the defendant 1 who was entrusted with the above affairs, delivered the above affairs to the public official in charge of the above affairs and received permission for the establishment of the private teaching institute as a bribe with knowledge that it would be offered as a rain to the public official in charge of the office of Dobong and the Ministry of Education." The court below acknowledged the above facts charged as follows.

Therefore, the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime. Thus, the judgment below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles on the third party brain acquisition, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

However, in the case of the trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to add the charges that Defendant 2 received KRW 52 million in the name of Defendant 1 to the public official of the Ministry of Education in order to obtain permission to establish a school juristic person at the same time and place as above, because Defendant 2 stated that it is necessary to do so in order to obtain permission to establish a school juristic person. As a result of this court's permission, the above ancillary charges were added to the subject of this court's judgment.

E. Of the first judgment, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) to the construction mutual aid association by Defendants 1 and 3

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court as a comprehensive consideration of various evidence duly admitted and the fact-finding results of the construction mutual aid association, namely, the original contract on July 22, 1997, which was concluded by the Defendants that the Defendants were merely 30 billion won of the construction contract, and that there is no provision on settlement of advance payment pursuant to the completed payment contract, unlike the standard contract on July 30, 1997, the advance payment remains without settlement. Under the standard contract, there is strict restriction on the grounds for exercising the right to rescind the contract. However, the original contract does not simply start within 21 days of the date of the contract, or if it is impossible for the Defendants to complete the construction work within the air including insolvent construction or long-term civil petitions under the construction contract, the employees of the Korea Development Bank to unilaterally refuse the request of the Korea Development Bank to submit the standard construction contract without any justifiable reason to the effect that the Defendants would be able to enter into the construction contract without the consent of the Korea Development Bank (the Korea Development Bank).

F. Of the first judgment, Defendant 1’s fraud and violation of the Labor Standards Act

(1) Summary of the facts charged

On January 4, 1995, Defendant 1: (a) performed the duties of the office director of a church who is in office as a teacher; (b) performed the duties of planning office of the school juristic person in office as a teacher; (c) paid 3.5 million won per month; and (d) paid 600% per annum for bonus; (b) 2.7 million won per annum from March 1995 to April 200; (c) acquired 7.7 billion won per month’s total of 9 billion won and paid 9.7 billion won per month to Defendant 2; and (d) paid 2.7 billion won per month from the date of payment to the date of 4.7 million won per annum; and (e) acquired 7.7 billion won per month’s annual profits from the date of payment to the date of 4.7 billion won per month; and (e) paid 9.7 billion won per month’s annual profits from the date of payment to the date of 2.7 million won per month’s paid.

(2) The judgment of the court below

피고인 1는 수사기관 이래 일관하여 피고인 2에게 위 공소사실 기재와 같은 명목 및 액수의 금원지급 약정을 한 일이 없다고 주장하며 각 공소사실을 부인하였는데, 원심은 적법하게 조사, 채택한 여러 증거들에 의하여, 피고인 1가 1994. 가을경 공소외 18의 소개로 피고인 2를 알게 된 후 (교회명 생략)교회 신축 등에 관하여 도움을 요청하고 1995. 7.경 피고인 2에게 (교회명 생략)교회 사무처장 명함을 새겨 주며 대외적인 업무를 처리하도록 한 사실, 피고인 2가 1996. 8. 30. 교육부에 (교회명 생략)교회의 학교법인설립허가신청을 하였고, 1996. 9. 10. 피고인 1로부터 (교회명 생략)교회 건축허가신청에 관한 권한 일체 및 도봉구청장의 건축허가신청서반려처분취소에 관한 사건처리 권한을 위임받은 사실, 그 후 1996. 12. 5. 교회신축허가를 받았고, 같은 달 6. 학교법인설립허가를 받았으며, 1998. 1. 12. 학교법인의 명칭을 공소외 19 학교법인에서 공소외 20 학교법인으로 바꾸는 정관변경인가를 받은 사실, 피고인 1는 1998. 3. 3. 피고인 2를 교회신축공사 현장의 감독관리직으로 임명하였고, 피고인 2가 그 무렵부터 2000. 1. 15.까지 위 공사현장에 거의 매일 출근하여 감독관리직으로서의 업무를 수행하였으며, (교회명 생략)교회는 피고인 2에게 1998. 7.부터 2000. 3.까지 매월 200만 원씩을 판공비 명목으로 지급한 사실 등을 인정하면서도, 과연 피고인 1가 피고인 2에게 위 공소사실 기재와 같은 명목 및 액수의 금원을 지급하기로 약정하고 (교회명 생략)교회의 직원으로 채용하였는지 여부에 관하여 살피면서, 우선 그에 부합하는 가장 직접적인 증거인 피고인 2의 진술은 그가 평소 말하여 온 학력, 경력 등이 근거가 없는 점, 그가 피고인 1로부터 받은 로비자금으로 공소외 13과 공소외 15에게 뇌물을 교부하였다는 진술도 그대로 믿기 어렵고, 피고인 1로부터 로비자금으로 받은 5,200만 원 중 1,700만 원을 자신의 개인적 용도에 사용하였다고 하는 점, 그 외에 피고인 1로부터 1996. 11. 1. 학교법인설립허가에 필요한 경비조로 1,300만 원을, 같은 해 12. 6. 학교법인설립허가를 받은 데 대한 수고비조로 3,650만 원을 받아 간 점, 1998. 7.에 이르러 매월 200만 원의 판공비를 받은 것 외에 그가 주장하는 임금을 받은 일이 없음에도 2000. 6. 전까지 임금체불에 대하여 별다른 조치를 취하지 않았던 점, 피고인 2 스스로도 공소외 8 주식회사의 업무서류에 자신의 결재란이 있는 등 이사 직무를 수행하였다고 진술한 바 있고, 그의 처와 동생이 공소외 8 주식회사의 이사로 등재되어 있었던 점, (교회명 생략)교회가 1997. 2. 21. 공소외 8 주식회사와 도급금액을 286억 원으로 한 교회신축공사도급계약을 체결하였다가 피고인 2의 요청에 따라 같은 해 2. 27. 공소외 8 주식회사와 일성종합건설을 공동시공사로 하는 계약을 다시 체결하였으나 보증보험회사에서 공소외 8 주식회사가 그 무렵 부도난 회사임을 알고 선급금보증서 발급을 거절하자, 피고인 2와 공소외 8 주식회사의 실제 경영자 공소외 21이 (교회명 생략)교회 대표자 직인을 임의로 새겨 수급인이 일성종합건설 단독 명의로 된 공사계약서를 위조하고 이를 보증보험회사에 제출하여 보증보험증권을 발급받은 후 1997. 5. 29. (교회명 생략)교회로부터 선급금 4억 원을 지급받았는데, 그 무렵 피고인 2가 공소외 21에게 공사 수주 사례비를 요구하였던 점 등에 비추어 피고인 2가 (교회명 생략)교회에 전속하여 임금을 목적으로 종속적인 관계에서 근로를 제공하였다고 보기 어렵고, 그 밖에 위 각 공소사실에 부합하는 공소외 9, 공소외 14의 진술도 그들과 피고인 1, 피고인 2의 관계 등에 비추어 믿기 어려우며, 피고인 1가 작성하여 준 것이라고 하는 1998. 5. 6.자 급여지불각서, 1998. 12. 10.자 약정서를 진정한 것으로 보더라도 공소사실 기재와 같은 급여지급약정이 있었다고 인정하기에 부족하다고 판단하여, 위 각 공소사실은 범죄의 증명이 없다는 이유로 각 무죄를 선고하였다.

(3) Judgment of the court below

In comparison with the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, there is no erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below.

그에 덧붙여 원심이 적법하게 조사, 채택한 증거들과 당심에서 제출된 주민등록초본, 보험료납입증명서, 자유저축예금거래내역명세표, 창립총회회의록, 학교법인설립허가서의 각 기재를 종합하면, 피고인 2가 1992. 3. 13.부터 1995. 3. 30.까지 진주시 정촌면에서 거주하다가 1995. 4. 1. 서울 송파구 잠실동 소재 아파트로 이주한 사실, 피고인 2가 오래 전부터 알고 지내던 건설업자 공소외 21을 1995. 7.경 피고인 1에게 소개시켜 주었고, 공소외 21이 장래 (교회명 생략)교회 신축공사 및 대학교 신축공사를 시공할 계획으로 1995. 11.경 공소외 22 주식회사를 인수하였는데, 피고인 1가 이사, 피고인 2의 처 공소외 14가 감사로 등재된 사실, 그 후 위 업체가 부도나자 공소외 21이 다시 공소외 23 주식회사(후에 공소외 8 주식회사로 변경)를 인수하였고 피고인 2의 처 공소외 14와 동생 공소외 16이 이사로 등재된 사실, 공소외 14 명의 예금계좌에 1995. 10. 2. 100만 원, 같은 달 24. 200만 원, 1995. 11. 8. 300만 원, 1995. 12. 6. 4,000만 원, 같은 달 8. 500만 원, 1996. 4. 10. 400만 원, 같은 달 18. 100만 원이 입금되는 등 피고인 2가 피고인 1로부터 로비자금을 받기 전에도 상당한 예금거래가 있었고, 1994. 10.부터 1년간 매월 80만 원씩 신용부금을 납입하기도 한 사실, 1996. 7. 10. 학교법인 공소외 19 학교법인 창립총회에서 공소외 14가 참석하여 자신 소유의 공소외 23 주식회사 주식 40%를 학교법인의 기본재산으로 기증하겠다고 한 사실, 1996. 12. 6.자 교육부장관의 학교법인설립허가서에 학교법인 공소외 19 학교법인의 설립당초 임원으로 공소외 14가 감사로 되어 있는 사실이 인정되나, 한편으로 이 사건 기록에 나타난 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 피고인 2가 피고인 1에 의하여 채용된 (교회명 생략)교회의 직원에 불과하다면 공소외 21이 인수한 건설업체에 피고인 2의 처와 동생이 임원으로 등재될 합리적 이유를 찾기 어려운 점( 피고인 2는 피고인 1의 지시에 의한 것이라고 하나 그와 같은 필요성이 납득되지 않고, 한편으로 피고인 1는 피고인 2가 공소외 21과 실질적으로 공동운영한 것이라고 진술한다), 공소외 21은 피고인 1를 공소외 22 주식회사 이사로 등재한 이유는 피고인 2가 피고인 1가 아들을 유학보내려고 하는데 회사에 속해 있는 것이 좋다고 하면서 이사 등재를 요청하여 수락한 것이고, 피고인 2의 처를 감사로 등재한 이유는 피고인 2가 교회 신축공사를 수주하게 해 줄테니 이익금을 달라고 하여 처를 임원으로 등재한 다음 이익이 생기면 나누어 갖기로 하였기 때문이라고 진술하는 점(서울지방검찰청 2001년 형제91248호 수사기록 352면), 피고인 2는 수사과정에서 피고인 1가 1999. 3. 5. 자신을 공소외 20 학교법인 기획실장으로 임명하였다고 하면서 공소외 20 학교법인 이사장 명의의 임명장을 제시하였는데(위 수사기록 29면), 이는 피고인 1가 피고인 2를 교회신축공사 현장의 감독관리직으로 임명한다는 내용의 1998. 3. 3.자 임명장(위 수사기록 31면)과 달리 성명과 직함이 수기(수기)가 아닌 워드프로세서를 이용하여 기재되고, 발급번호도 “제 호”가 아닌 “제1회”라고 되어 있으며, 임명장 상단의 십자가 옆 좌우 봉의 길이가 우측 봉이 더 긴 1998. 3. 3.자 임명장과 반대로 좌측 봉이 더 길고, 1998. 3. 3.자 임명장은 우측 문양 포도송이 가운데에 점이 찍혀 있는데 반하여 위 제시한 임명장에는 좌측 문양 포도송이 가운데에 점이 찍혀 있는 등 진정하게 작성된 임명장으로 보기 어려운 점 등과 원심판결이 적시하고 있는 제반 정황, 특히 피고인 1로부터 받은 로비자금 중 상당액을 개인적 용도로 사용하였고, 1996. 11. 1. 학교법인설립허가에 필요한 경비조로 1,300만 원을, 같은 해 12. 6. 학교법인설립허가를 받은 데 대한 수고비조로 3,650만 원을 받아 간 점, 공소외 21에게 공사 수주 사례비를 요구하였던 점, 피고인 2 스스로도 공소외 8 주식회사에서 이사 직무를 실제로 수행하였다고 진술하였던 점, 공소외 21과 함께 임의로 (교회명 생략)교회의 직인을 새겨 공사계약서를 위조한 일이 있었던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 앞서 추가로 인정한 사실에 의하더라도 피고인 2의 진술은 여전히 그 신빙성을 배척할 충분한 사정이 있다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, it is reasonable for the court below to hold the defendant not guilty on the ground that the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and there is no reason to discuss this part

G. Of the first judgment, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendant 3's Gangseo Construction Company

In comparison with the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the judgment of the court below that it is not possible to recognize that Gangwon Construction Co., Ltd. provided joint and several suretys in both the original contract and standard contract as the guarantor in accordance with the mutual guarantee agreement with (name omitted) Co., Ltd. according to the circumstances indicated by the court below, and that it was difficult to recognize that there was an error due to Defendant 3 or (name omitted of the company) by deception on the part of the Co., Ltd., and there is no error of misconception of the facts. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal on this part is without merit.

H. Fraud in the second judgment of the lower court

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1, around March 16, 1992, purchased shares from six persons, such as Nonindicted 2, etc., who had a 6,631 share out of 51 share of the company at the time of acquisition of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 at the above Victoria coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul around that time, and attempted to newly build a church on the land. As part of the purchase of shares from 6, such as Nonindicted 2, etc., who had 6,631 share of the above company's 51 share amount, the price of shares shall be KRW 60 million, and the cost of the purchase of shares shall be KRW 90 million, including that of the above company, KRW 20 million, and KRW 90 million, KRW 300 million,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and KRW 1,500,000,00,000,00 shares were paid for the remaining shares within 300,0,00,00.

(2) Issues and the judgment of the court below

The key issue of the instant case is whether Defendant 1, even though he did not have the intention or ability to pay KRW 500 million out of KRW 800 million of the share purchase price to Nonindicted 2, etc. 6, Defendant 1 entered into the said contract and demanded transfer of ownership, and whether he belongs to Nonindicted 2, etc., and the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged with each of the statements made by Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 9 as its main evidence.

(3) Judgment of the court below

(A) First of all, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of Nonindicted 2, 6, and the developments leading to the sale and purchase of shares between Nonindicted 2, etc. and the school (name omitted), as well as the records of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court and the copies of the judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2002Gahap37592) submitted by the defense counsel of the said Defendant at the trial.

1) around 190, Nonindicted 3, who was in office as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1, owned 21.75 shares of the said Co. 51 shares ( approximately KRW 785 shares per old unit, approximately 40,00 shares). Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 28 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 2, etc.”) owned one unit of shares of the said Co. 1, but more than 10 shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 1, including Nonindicted 2, etc. 6, including Nonindicted 2, etc. 3, were in violation of the prohibition provisions on the acquisition of treasury shares under the Commercial Act, and embezzled Nonindicted Co. 3’s tax evasion and embezzlement of public funds, and filed a criminal complaint against Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted 24, Seoul District Court’s claim for damages against Nonindicted Co. 3, 25, and the Seoul District Court’s claim for damages against Nonindicted Co. 3’s exercise of the provisional disposition against Nonindicted Co. 3, etc.

2) Defendant 1: (a) displayed the site for new construction of the church building in around 1991; (b) met Nonindicted 3; and (c) discussed that the church members would acquire the above company site by purchasing the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1; (d) based on this, Nonindicted 3 agreed on October 1, 1991 between Nonindicted 2, etc. and Nonindicted 29 and Nonindicted 3, to purchase the shares of the said company at KRW 100 million per unit; and (e) pay KRW 200 million for agreement equivalent to the costs of litigation incurred until that time; (b) Nonindicted 2, etc., Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 29, and Nonindicted 3 agreed to withdraw all criminal charges, accusations, civil litigation, and preservative measures filed against each other at the same time with payment of all the above funds (However, Nonindicted Co. 3 entered the shares of the said company as KRW 70 million per share from other shareholders in the contract to purchase the shares of the said company at KRW 100 million per share; and (c) the purchase price per share at KRW 7000 million per share.

3) On November 16, 1991, the church conference purchased all 51 shares of the company from Nonindicted 3 until April 30, 1992, and concluded a contract with Nonindicted 3 to transfer the company's 51 billion won to the church (the form was a real estate sale contract for the company's site and building). On January 1, 1992, Nonindicted 3 transferred its shares to the church and arranged the church to acquire shares of other shareholders. On March 15, 1992, the church acquired shares under its name 21.75 shares from Nonindicted 3 on March 15, 1992, among the shareholders who own the remaining 29.75 shares, it first contacted Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, etc. who continued legal disputes, and decided to acquire their shares by taking over their shares.

4) Therefore, (School Name omitted) The Association had Nonindicted 9, the chairperson of the Building Promotion Committee, act on behalf of the church, and the six persons, such as Nonindicted 2, etc., made Nonindicted 2 to act on behalf of the church, and made an agreement with Nonindicted 2 on March 16, 192 as follows, (School Name omitted) the Association paid KRW 150 million as down payment to Nonindicted 2, etc. and paid KRW 60 million thereafter.

(1) A church shall purchase from six shareholders six equity shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, Ltd. 6 amounting to KRW 100 million per unit and KRW 600 million in total.

(2) A church shall determine expenses of KRW 200 million and pay the money to six shareholders to be incurred in a civil or criminal lawsuit filed against Nonindicted 3, etc. over five years with the said six shareholders as agreed money.

(3) A church shall pay 1/2 of the purchase price of shares to six shareholders simultaneously with the receipt of a letter of withdrawal of the principal lawsuit filed by six shareholders against Nonindicted 3, etc. against the representative director, director, and auditor's resignation and six shareholders; and when the principal lawsuit and provisional disposition filed by six shareholders against Nonindicted 3, etc. have been fully withdrawn, the remaining purchase price of shares shall be paid.

(4) The church shall pay the above agreed money simultaneously with the receipt of the certificate of stock transfer and the written request for a change of holders for the company from six stockholders, and the church thereafter shall accept the letter of resignation of the representative director, director, and auditor on the part of six stockholders who were received and kept in custody in advance from six stockholders.

(5) However, in preparation for a case where the church purchases shares of the company from other shareholders in the future, the agreement shall state the purchase price per share of the company as KRW 50 million and the agreement that the church shall pay to the shareholders who are six in the future, as KRW 50 million.

5) After that, while Nonindicted Party 6, Nonindicted Party 2, etc. withdrawn the principal lawsuit against Nonindicted Party 3, Nonindicted Party 3 did not withdraw the provisional seizure decided upon application for the Seoul District Court’s North Korea branch on January 12, 1990 on the aggregate of Nonindicted Party 3,140 shares, including Nonindicted Party 3’s shares, 9,224 shares (the provisional seizure decision was revoked by the judgment of the above court on January 12, 1994).

6) Meanwhile, on October 16, 1990, Nonindicted 3 transferred 15 shares of Nonindicted Company 1 to Nonindicted 4 on the same day. Nonindicted 4 filed a lawsuit against Nonindicted 4 on the 15 unit of shares transfer from North Korea Branch of the Seoul District Court on October 1991, and Nonindicted 6, including Nonindicted 2, participated in the lawsuit for assisting the company to the effect that the acquisition of shares by Nonindicted 4 with respect to Nonindicted 15 unit of shares was null and void. However, on June 24, 1992, Nonindicted 3 was sentenced to the favorable judgment of Nonindicted 4 on June 24, 1992, and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time, the said 15 unit of shares were transferred to Nonindicted 4.

7) As a result of the above lawsuit, when the plan of the (name omitted of the church) church seeking to purchase all the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 was interrupted, Nonindicted Co. 2 arranged for the (name omitted of the church) church to purchase shares from Nonindicted Co. 4, and transferred the shares of Nonindicted Co. 26 to the church on August 25, 192 between Nonindicted Co. 2, etc. and Nonindicted Co. 9 (name omitted of the church) church’s representative to the church on September 1992. The church attended the general meeting of shareholders until the total amount of KRW 590 million and the cost of the lawsuit is fully paid, and the right of other shareholders was not exercised. When the above remaining shares and the cost of the lawsuit were not paid by March 16, 1993, Nonindicted Co. 2 entered into an agreement with Nonindicted Co. 96’s transfer name on the remaining shares (name of the above six shares was returned to Nonindicted Co. 16, 194).

8) In addition, in the presence of Defendant 1 on September 19, 192, when the transfer of a title to the church is made on the remaining 20.5 shares of Nonindicted 4 other than the 30.5 shares owned by Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 4 shall hold a temporary general meeting within 30 days and appoint Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 34 as full-time directors for the church, and the executive director shall be appointed as full-time directors for the church, and the church shall be replaced by the board of directors as a paid adviser. The church shall enter into a sales contract on the shares owned by Nonindicted 4 within 30.5 billion won after the general meeting of shareholders is held, and the remaining 30.5 billion won was paid for the shares, and the sales contract was concluded on the shares for which KRW 300 million was to be paid at KRW 300,000,000,000 for the remaining 300,000 won and KRW 300,000,00 won.

9) Meanwhile, the lower court reversed the judgment on the grounds that there was a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the prohibition of acquiring the shares of Nonindicted 3 in the Supreme Court on February 23, 1993, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years and six months on July 2, 1993 by finding the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Commercial Act by Nonindicted 3 as the proviso to the complaint by Nonindicted 2, etc., and the Defendant was indicted at the North Branch of the Seoul District Court on charges of violating the Commercial Act and the Commercial Act. Accordingly, the ownership of the shares of Nonindicted 2, etc. disputed against Nonindicted 3 was punished again in the situation where the ownership of the shares of 15 old shares becomes a problem.

10) On March 12, 1993, immediately after the decision of the above Supreme Court was rendered, Nonindicted 25, a person who was acquired by Nonindicted 6, such as Nonindicted 2, etc. on behalf of 6, on behalf of 6, and Nonindicted 4, it was revealed that Nonindicted 4 acquired the shares of 15 shares from Nonindicted 3 in violation of the Commercial Act by the decision of the Supreme Court, and thus, it is possible to re-examine the transfer claim lawsuit that Nonindicted 4 won in violation of the Commercial Act. As such, Nonindicted 4 notified Nonindicted 4 that he would not transfer the shares of 15 shares in the above 15th class, and that he would not transfer the shares of 15th class (the name omitted) to the (the (the name omitted) school association, as it was acquired in violation of the Commercial Act from Nonindicted 31, 32, etc. among the remaining shares of Nonindicted 4, and thus, it was impossible to inform the transfer of ownership because the provisional attachment was made. As such, the transfer of shares was suspended on May 13, 1993.

11) In addition, around August 193, Nonindicted 2 submitted to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office a petition on behalf of 6 shareholders to punish Nonindicted 4 as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, etc., and 4 of Nonindicted 27 among 6 shareholders, etc., Nonindicted 4 against Nonindicted 4, etc. on September 21, 1993, who was transferred from Nonindicted 4 to North Branch of the Seoul District Court on September 21, 1993, by Nonindicted 4, against Nonindicted 3, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act by asserting that the act of transfer is null and void, and filed a lawsuit seeking provisional disposition against Nonindicted 4 on October 27, 1993, upon filing an application for provisional disposition against the transfer of shares to Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 24, etc. on October 30, 1993, and the present order of revocation of the sales contract against Nonindicted 1, 494.

12) Ultimately, on July 23, 1994, Nonindicted 4 was indicted on the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, interference with business, the invalidation of indication of official duties, fabrication of private documents, and the use of the above investigation document to the Seoul District Court. Nonindicted 4 agreed upon the following with 6 persons, including Nonindicted 2, etc. on August 31, 1994 and Nonindicted 4 on September 15, 1994:

A) Agreement between Non-Indicted 4 and (Non-Indicted 4 omitted) church ( August 31, 1994)

① The church shall determine the remaining amount of the share trade which was not yet paid to Nonindicted 4 as KRW 1.35 billion, and where Nonindicted 3 won in a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit between Nonindicted 2, etc. and Nonindicted 4, which was brought about by Nonindicted 3 with respect to the 15-old shares transferred doublely to Nonindicted 4, and in the lawsuit related thereto, Nonindicted 4 shall pay the above KRW 1.355 billion and interest on the delay thereof to Nonindicted 4, and where Nonindicted 4 loses against Nonindicted 4, the church shall pay the above KRW 850 million, excluding KRW 50 million, and interest on the delay thereof, and the remainder KRW 50 million shall be kept by the church.

② Nonindicted 4, irrespective of the outcome of the above lawsuit, performed the transfer procedure for Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares 30.5 shares to the church, and waived the right to KRW 300 million that the church would have paid to Nonindicted Co. 4 as a monetary reward when paying the remainder for purchase of shares to Nonindicted Co. 4.

B) Agreement between Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 2, and six others ( September 15, 1994)

① With respect to the case in which Nonindicted 2 and 6 persons, etc. filed a complaint against Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 4, who were transferred from Nonindicted 3, shall be paid KRW 50 million to 6,000,000,000 to the agreed amount of all the issues, such as ownership disputes over the 15 old shares of Nonindicted Company 1, which Nonindicted 4

② At the same time, Nonindicted Party 2, etc. received KRW 550 million from Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 6, etc., the said complaint and petition were withdrawn; Nonindicted Party 1, in connection with Nonindicted Party 1, no longer file a civil lawsuit; and withdrawal of all civil applications, principal lawsuit, criminal charges, and criminal charges filed against each other.

13) In accordance with each of the above agreements on November 194, 194, the school conference paid KRW 550 million out of the agreed amount to be paid by Nonindicted 4 to Nonindicted 2, etc. 6, etc. , by the agreement on September 15, 1994, to Nonindicted 2 who represented him. Nonindicted 4 paid the remainder of KRW 50 million as prescribed by the above agreement to him. Nonindicted 6, including Nonindicted 2, etc., voluntarily withdrawn all criminal complaints against Nonindicted 4 around that time (after that, Nonindicted 4 was convicted of all the charges charged by the Seoul District Court on January 19, 196, but the appellate court found him guilty only on the crime of interference with business and was pronounced guilty on the remainder of the charges that were not guilty).

(B) As revealed by the above facts, it was decided to purchase all the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 by means of acquiring the new site of the church building. As part of the decision, Nonindicted Co. 2 and other 6 were to purchase the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1. As part of the agreement, it was concluded on March 16, 192 with the intention of resolving a serious dispute over the ownership of Nonindicted Co. 3’s 15 shares, and it was decided that Nonindicted Co. 26 did not reach an agreement on the title of the lawsuit cost, including the acquisition of the shares, for the purpose of acquiring the entire shares of Nonindicted Co. 5’s 60 billion won (the title omitted) without any agreement with Nonindicted Co. 6, Aug. 25, 192 (the title omitted), and that the remaining shares were not acquired by the Nonindicted Co. 5’s transfer agent, including Nonindicted Co. 2 and other 6’s new shares, and that the remaining shares were not acquired by the Nonindicted Co. 15, supra. 23, 1993.

(C) If so, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, but the court below found the defendant guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this part of the appeal by

(i) Of the judgment of the second court, the fabrication of each private document and the uttering of the relevant private document

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 received a request from six persons, including Nonindicted 2, etc., to submit a sales contract for the shares of the said company from the head of the competent provincial tax office, on the ground that there was a division between Nonindicted 2, etc. and others, surrounding the payment of the purchase price, and whether the meeting of the said company should pay corporate tax as the oligopolistic shareholder of the said company due to the fact that there was a problem as to whether the said person should actually pay corporate tax as the oligopolistic shareholder of the said company;

(A) For the purpose of exercising the right, at the Dwork Process at the Down on the lower end of September 1996, the seller column stated, “The stock sales contract”, “The number of Non-Indicted Party 1 Co. 1 Co., Ltd. 50,000,000”, “The purchaser (the name omitted) purchased the above shares from Non-Indicted 2 on March 18, 1992 from Non-Indicted 2 and paid KRW 50,00,000 in the purchase price.” The seller column stated, “The Seoul Special Metropolitan City New-ro 9, 254-206-206 Non-Indicted. 2”, and printed it, “The Non-Indicted Party 1’s name at the right end of the name of Non-Indicted Party 2, including Non-Indicted Party 1’s sales contract, forged the above shares in the name of Non-Indicted Party 2, Non-Indicted Party 26, 275,000, and paid KRW 50,00.

(B) In the case of the Dobong Tax Department, a forged sales contract shall be submitted to the public official in charge who may know of the fact as if the 6th head of the sales contract was genuine.

(2) Issues and the judgment of the court below

Defendant 1 recognized that there is no way to prepare a share sales contract as described in the above facts charged with Nonindicted 2 and 6, and the chief of the general affairs division of Nonindicted 1 Co. 5 prepared a share sales contract under the name of Nonindicted 6, including (i) the church meeting and Nonindicted 2, in preparation for a tax investigation, and (ii) requested Nonindicted 6 to affix the official seal of the church, and Nonindicted 6 requested the church employees to affix the official seal of the church after obtaining the consent of Nonindicted 7 from the representative of the church, and copy of the church after obtaining the consent of Nonindicted 6 affixed the official seal of the church and affixed the original copy to Nonindicted 5, and keep the copy of the copy of the above share sales contract to submit the documents related to the share sales from the Domine book, with other materials attached to the above shares sales contract being kept. The issue of this case is whether Defendant 1 had to prepare and submit the above share sales contract, and there is no change in the contents of this case. The court below found Defendant 1 guilty on the basis of the above facts charged.

(3) Judgment of the court below

(A) First, the court below's purpose of each of the reliable statements as to the above issues is as follows.

① Nonindicted 5: There was no request for the issuance of the above share sales contract and the official seal affixed to Nonindicted 6, which is the first time after being investigated by the prosecution. The above contract was made on a computer, and only the former was used by Nonindicted Company 1 with no computer as of September 1996. There was no document related to the share sales contract. There was no document related to the share sales contract in the Dobong.

② During the tax investigation with respect to Nonindicted Co. 13: (a) received a reply from Nonindicted Co. 1, which confirmed the details of the shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 1, which are owned by the church (contest omitted); and (b) a sales contract in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2, etc. with six persons, including Nonindicted Co. 1, attached to the reply received at the time. From Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 38 was submitted six copies of the shares sales contract that became a seller.

③ Nonindicted 9: Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10 asked Nonindicted 5 to make a statement at the prosecutor’s office that they had committed the act of forging the instant private document, but Nonindicted 5 rejected Nonindicted 5’s refusal. The official seal of the church was affixed with Defendant 1’s permission.

(B) The purport of Defendant 1’s statement is as follows.

① Around September 196, Nonindicted 5 demanded that Nonindicted 5 take 10 copies of the share sales contract and submit it to the company for a tax investigation. A request was made to affix the official seal of the church. In addition to Nonindicted 2 and other six contracts in the name of Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 35, in addition to Nonindicted 2 and other six contracts, the seal of their names was already affixed at the time. As such, Nonindicted 7 said that Nonindicted 7 made a horse, and Nonindicted 7 confirmed the contents, affixed the official seal, affixed the seal to Nonindicted 5, and stored the original copy to the church, and then stored the copy to Nonindicted 5, and then sent the copy to the church. From the end of September 1996, Nonindicted 5 used a computer.

② Nonindicted 7: Nonindicted 5 brought Chapter 7 on the share sales contract and submitted it to the tax office, and signed the church’s official seal and affixed it to Nonindicted 6. Nonindicted 6 kept the copy, and attached it by sending it to Nonindicted 6.

③ Nonindicted 10 (former Representative Director of Nonindicted Co. 1: around May 1996, Nonindicted 5 and 10 Dogdogs were newly inserted. Nonindicted 2, etc., prepared a personal contract in order to prepare for a tax investigation with respect to the share sales contract in the joint name of Nonindicted 2, etc.

(C) According to each entry of each share sales contract (8 to 18, 69 to 72) and accounting account book (246 pages) which are bound to the investigation records (Seoul District Prosecutors' Office No. 27262, 200), the following facts are recognized.

① Chapter 6 of the share sales contract as indicated in the facts charged is as follows: (a) for each chapter, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 28 are indicated as a seller; (b) the church is indicated as a buyer; and (c) on March 18, 1992, the preparation date was made to the effect that the share sales contract for the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 was made in the purchase price of KRW 50 million; and (d) the so-called door is stamped by each buyer’s name.

② 위 각 주식매매계약서의 내용 중 큰 글자체의 “주식매매계약서”라는 제목을 비롯하여 주식매매계약을 체결한다는 취지, 매매대금, 계약금, 중도금 등의 항목 표시와 계약의 일반적 내용 부분은 워드프로세서에 사용되는 명조체 유사의 글자체로 작성되었고, 표시란에 “ 공소외 1 주식회사“, 매수자란의 ” (교회명 생략)교회“, 매도인란의 “ 공소외 2” 등 각 명의자, 매매대금란의 “오천만 원(￦50,000,000)”, 계약조항 중 “오천만 원”, 명의자 부분의 각 주소와 명의인 표시 부분은 모두 고딕체로 작성되어 있는데, 고딕체의 매수자와 매도자란 표시가 명조체로 작성된 연결 문구와 줄이 맞지 않고(특히 공소외 24 명의의 계약서), 작성일자의 “1992년”부분도 뒤의 “9”와 “2”가 겹쳐 있는 것이 있으며(특히 공소외 26, 공소외 28 명의의 계약서), 공소외 2 명의의 계약서는 상단과 하단의 각 “ 공소외 2” 표시 중 “백”의 “ㅐ”부분 획이 약간 비뚤어져 있다.

③ In addition to the share sales contract in the name of six persons, such as Nonindicted 2, etc., attached to the reply of the contents of the share transaction sent to the Doidebook, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 35, as well as the written contract in the name of six persons, including Nonindicted 2, etc., are written in the name of Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 35, and also in the form of a letter used in the Doidebook, and the letter is stamped. However, the letter of contract in the name of Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 35, which was requested by the Doidebook to Nonindicted Company 1, was written by the Doidebook, is consistent with all the terms of the contract, such as the sale

④ On May 30, 1996, the accounting books of Nonindicted Co. 1, 1996, a seal of 10,000 won is recorded.

(D) The following facts revealed in the above recognition: (a) each share sales contract in the name of six, including Nonindicted 2, etc., appears to have been made using wheel chairs of the previous body in the form of a contract made on March 16, 192; and (b) it appears that the contract in the name of Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 35 appears to have been made on the previous form of contract (so, it cannot be readily concluded that it was not written in the above company merely because there was no computer in the Nonindicted Company 1); (c) the purchase price of each share sales contract in the name of six, including Nonindicted 2, etc., including Nonindicted 6, including Nonindicted 2, etc., is the same as the price for the share sales contract written on March 16, 192; and (d) it is difficult to recognize that Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 35, etc., made a statement to the effect that there is no reasonable reason to believe that there was any lack of evidence to prove the above Defendant 1’s statement or accusation.

Therefore, since each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the court below found the defendant guilty, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a ground for appeal.

(j) The point of exercising the above-mentioned document at the third lower judgment

(1) Summary of the facts charged

On June 29, 199, at the court of Seoul District Court No. 557 on June 29, 199, Defendant 1 exercised a forged private document by submitting a copy of “written confirmation” in the name of Nonindicted 3 and a copy of “the details of payments for the purchase of stocks (Nonindicted 3)” that Nonindicted 9 forged by using the former himself in accordance with the direction of the defendant at the time of March 1995 with respect to the case of the said court (case number omitted) agreement between the Plaintiff 2 and the Defendant Young-ro Association of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “SIS”) as evidence of the above case to the staff in charge of the above court who may know that it was actually formed.

(2) The defendant's lawsuit and the judgment of the court below

Defendant 1 demanded a written confirmation on the unclaimed amount because part of the purchase price of shares paid to Nonindicted 3 was not returned. However, around June 1994, Nonindicted 3 was released from the hospital to Nonindicted 3’s house, and Nonindicted 3 was given to Nonindicted 3’s prior written confirmation and attached documents, “the present status of Nonindicted 3’s obligations.” The attached documents did not match the contents of “the current status of Nonindicted 3’s obligations” and “the details of payment of purchase price of shares for real estate purchase”, which Nonindicted 12 had Nonindicted 3 receive several copies of the attached documents, with Nonindicted 3’s seal affixed thereon. At that time, Nonindicted 3 was affixed at that time, and Nonindicted 3’s seal affixed thereon was not affixed with a seal imprint. The lower court rejected this, and found Defendant 1 guilty on the basis of the aforementioned facts charged.

(3) Judgment of the court below

(A) Since Defendant 1 contests the forgery of the above document, the first time, the purpose of the statements made by Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 2, which the court below made, is as follows.

① On March 195, 195, after the death of Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 9: (a) Nonindicted 1 instructed the Nonindicted 3 to prepare a written confirmation as to the facts charged; (b) he prepared two copies of his written confirmation; and (c) affixed one of them to Nonindicted 3’s seals which Defendant 1 had; and (d) he had one of them by Defendant 1’s instructions, stating the date as if it was written before the death of Nonindicted 3.”

② Nonindicted 2: Nonindicted 9 testified that he was present at the court as a witness and prepared the above confirmation document under Defendant 1’s order.

(B) However, according to the statement of each written confirmation filed in the investigation records (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office No. 2004, No. 36058, No. 29, 2058) and the written confirmation on the facts charged, it is recognized that Nonindicted 12 consistently made a statement to the same effect as that of Defendant 1’s appeal, and that Nonindicted 3’s personal seal impression is affixed on the same paper. In light of the fact that Nonindicted 3’s personal seal impression is affixed on the same paper, if Defendant 1 prepared two copies as Nonindicted 9’s statement and sealed each other, it is equally difficult for him to have the same location as that of his personal seal impression affixed on the same paper, and that Defendant 1 kept another written confirmation with Nonindicted 3’s personal seal impression affixed on the non-indicted 3’s personal seal stamp, it is difficult to acknowledge that there is no other reliable evidence to prove the forgery of Nonindicted 9’s statement and the written confirmation on the facts charged.

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime without examining the other facts, but the court below found the defendant guilty. Thus, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, it is reasonable to discuss this part of the appeal by the defendant 1.

C. Whether there is an unreasonable sentencing

(1) Examining the following circumstances with regard to whether the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant 3 is unreasonable, on the grounds that: (a) the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, intelligence and environment; (c) family relationship; and (d) the statutory punishment for the instant crime is deemed reasonable; and (b) the Defendant’s appeal and the Prosecutor’s appeal on this part are without merit.

(2) On the other hand, as to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, there are grounds for reversal of each judgment of the court below, and thus, it is not separately determined whether there is an unreasonable sentencing.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the first judgment of Defendant 1, each third party brain delivery among the third party judgment, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax), six-party frauds in the second judgment of the second judgment, forgery of each private document and use of the above-mentioned investigation document under the name of non-indicted 1 corporation 6, etc., the third judgment of the third judgment of the court below, and appeal against the first judgment of the defendant 2 as to the use of the above-mentioned investigation document concerning the confirmation document under the name of non-indicted 3, and the second judgment of the court of the third judgment of the court of the first instance are justified. Since the third party brain delivery against Defendant 1 among the first judgment of the court of the first judgment of the first instance, the third party brain delivery, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) and the remaining guilty part cannot be exempted from the whole reversal of the guilty part against Defendant 1 among the first judgment of the court of the first judgment, the second judgment and the third judgment of the judgment of the court of the first instance are reversed and dismissed pursuant to Article 364(6).

The criminal facts of Defendant 1, which the court acknowledged, are the same as those of Article 1-4(d) and (3) of the original judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing them as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the criminal facts of Defendant 2 are

Defendant 2, around September 20, 1996, after hearing from Defendant 1, who operated the above church at the time at the planning office of the (name omitted of the school) church, Defendant 2 received money and valuables from Defendant 1 to request the Ministry of Education to grant permission for the establishment of a school foundation in order to establish the university, and “it is necessary to collect expenses from the Ministry of Education in order to obtain permission for the establishment of the school foundation”, and received money and valuables from Defendant 1 to the public officials of the Ministry of Education by receiving KRW 52 million from Defendant 1 as expenses for the public officials of the Ministry of Education.

[Defendant 1's perjury and perjury (defendant 1-D of the first instance judgment)]

1. Defendant 1’s partial statement in the trial records of the first instance court No. 2000 Gohap1402 case No. 3

1. In the fourth protocol of the trial of the court of first instance No. 2000 Gohap1402, the witness’s partial statement is written;

1. Statement made by Nonindicted 39 in the fourth trial record of the first instance trial No. 2001 Highest 1380, the fourth trial of the case No. 1380

1. Statement made by Nonindicted 40 in the sixth protocol of the trial of the first instance court No. 2001 High Court Order No. 1380;

1. Each protocol of examination of suspect suspect against Defendant 1 by the prosecution (including part on the interrogation of suspect against Defendant 2);

1. Each description of the copies of each protocol of examination of witness;

1. Each statement of a contract for construction works, building work standard contract, and each statement of each judgment; and

[Defendant 1's acquisition of the profit of joint and several sureties equivalent to KRW 300,000,000 (criminal facts of the first instance judgment No. 3)]

1. In the first trial records of the court of first instance No. 2001 High Court Decision 2001 High Court Decision 1380, some statements made by Defendants 1 and 3;

1. Among the trial records of the first instance court, the respective statements made by the witness 2, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 45, and Nonindicted 40

1. Indicating part of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant 3 by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor on Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 21, and Nonindicted 46

1. Each description of a letter, a copy of a civil judgment, a construction contract, a standard construction contract, a waiver note, and an advance payment guarantee;

【Defendant 2’s acquisition of KRW 52 million

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement in part of the trial court

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement as a witness of the political party;

1. The written statement made by each prosecutor against Defendant 1 (including the part of Nonindicted 12’s statement)

1. Applicable provisions of Acts and select of punishments for criminal facts;

(a) Defendant 1: Articles 152(1), 31(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 152(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 152(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc

(b) Defendant 2: Article 111 (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant 1);

Article 37 (Aggravation of Punishment in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant 1);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act)

1. Calculation in the number of detention days before sentencing;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Whether to collect additional dues from Defendant 2

The value of money and valuables acquired due to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act in accordance with Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall be collected. However, in this case where only the above defendant appealed, a more severe punishment than that of the judgment of the court below cannot be sentenced (Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, the above collection

As seen above 2. A-1 (1), (2), (h), (i) and (j), each third party delivery to Defendant 1; (6) fraud of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1; (3) fabrication of each private document and exercise of the above investigation document concerning a sales contract in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2; (4) facts charged concerning the exercise of the above investigation document in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3; and (4) as seen in Article 325 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, since the acquisition of the third party brain material around August 23, 1996 by Defendant 2 constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime; and as seen in Article 325 of the former part of the Criminal Procedure Act, it constitutes a case where the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) with respect to Defendant 1 is not a crime; and (4) there is no evidence to prove that Defendant 2 was not guilty as to each of the above facts charged under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Ho-won (Presiding Judge)