[1] Whether the representative director's act of appropriation of the company's money held by the company for payment to the company's own account constitutes a self-transaction (negative), and whether the above act of appropriation of payment to the company constitutes embezzlement without the procedure such as approval of the board of directors (negative)

[2] In a case where the defendant, who is a director and a de facto representative of Gap corporation, arbitrarily used Gap corporation's funds to repay his/her own debt and was prosecuted for violation of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the case holding that the defendant is not guilty on the ground that it is probable that he/she performed his/her debt with Gap corporation's funds

[1] Since the representative director, who has personal claims against the company, uses the company's monetary act for the repayment of his/her own claims in conflict with the company's interests, it does not constitute an act of self-transaction. Thus, even if the representative director pays his/her claims against the company without following the procedure of approval by the board of directors, such act is valid as an act of performing the company's obligations within the representative director's authority, and thus, cannot be held liable for the crime of embezzlement.

[2] In a case where the Defendant, a director and a de facto representative of the Company A, arbitrarily used Company A’s funds to repay his/her own debt, and was prosecuted for violation of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012), the case holding that the Defendant acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that it is difficult to deem that he/she had used Company A’s funds at his/her own discretion or had the intent of unlawful acquisition on the grounds that in light of all the circumstances, the Defendant had been duly holding the claim against Company A, and that the Defendant performed his/her debt as part of the method to appropriate the claim against Company A

[1] Articles 355(1) and 356 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012); Articles 355(1) and 356 of the Criminal Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Do2296 delivered on February 23, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 600) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5459 delivered on July 26, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2136)

Defendant

Both parties

Jeju District Court Decision 200

Law Firm LLC et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gohap726 Decided April 12, 2013

The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) shall be acquitted, respectively, by using 1.5 billion won of the transfer price of the project implementation right and using 700 million won of the loan specified in the attached list

The appeal against the acquittal portion by the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

(1) misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by issuing promissory notes

Although the Defendant did not participate in the issuance of a promissory note in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) and even if participation was recognized, the Defendant’s personal obligation is limited to KRW 852 million, and the remainder is the Defendant’s obligation, and the crime of breach of trust is recognized only for KRW 852 million, not in its entirety, since the remainder is the obligation of Nonindicted Co. 1. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) through voluntary use of KRW 1.5 billion of the transfer proceeds of project implementation right

The defendant did not arbitrarily use the funds of the non-indicted 1 for the repayment of his personal debt, but the defendant paid his personal debt with the funds repaid by the non-indicted 1, but the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(3) misunderstanding of facts concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by arbitrarily using a loan amount of KRW 700 million as stated in the attached list of crimes

Although the Defendant did not arbitrarily use the funds borrowed from Nonindicted Company 1 for the repayment of interest on personal debt, but the Defendant repaid the funds as a provisional deposit with Nonindicted Company 1, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the fact.

(4) Fact-finding regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by transferring the right to claim ownership transfer registration

As the Defendant transferred to Nonindicted Co. 2 KRW 3.788,980,000, the amount of KRW 1.9 billion to Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, Nonindicted Co. 1 Company was offseted by cash, the remainder was offset by the Defendant’s provisional payment, and thus there was no act of breach of duties or damage to Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, and even if there was a case, the part of KRW 1.9 billion should be excluded. However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in matters of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts.

(5) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (three years of imprisonment and four years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by participating in the purchase price loan for the land located in the original

Although the Defendant actively participated in the examination of loans related to the purchase of the original project site by Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank”) in the old room to support the acquisition of treatment construction by ○○○○ Group, the lower court was unlawful to acquitted this part of the facts charged.

(2) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by participating in illegal loans by Nonindicted Co. 4

Although the Defendant actively participated in an improper loan to Nonindicted Co. 4, the lower court’s finding the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(3) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (three years of imprisonment with prison labor and four years of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

(1) As to the assertion on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by the issuance of promissory notes

The lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged on the following grounds: (a) around October 26, 2006, the Defendant acquired 100% of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 from Nonindicted 5 in the name of another person, and practically operated Nonindicted Company 1, and (b) the Defendant had his agent Nonindicted 6 make an additional agreement with Nonindicted 5 to issue the Promissory Notes in compliance with the additional agreement; (c) the Defendant did not dispute over the issuance of the Promissory Notes in the civil litigation with respect to the Promissory Notes in the instant case under the name of Nonindicted Company 1; and (d) on such premise, acknowledged the fact that the amount unpaid under the said additional agreement was 2.4829 million won.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are acknowledged. ① The Defendant, on October 26, 2006, took over 100 million won (2.5 billion won + KRW 500 million) of the management right and shares of Nonindicted Company 1 from Nonindicted 5 to 3.7 billion (the transfer price of KRW 2.7 billion + KRW 500 million) and the Defendant, on the part of Nonindicted Company 2, paid KRW 70 billion to Nonindicted Company 5 billion (the first agreement) at KRW 70 billion on the part of the Defendant’s debt payment of KRW 1.7 billion and KRW 2.7 billion on the part of Nonindicted Company 3, 700,000,000, KRW 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 705,000,000,000,000).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) As to the assertion on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by voluntarily using KRW 1.5 billion for the transfer price of the project implementation right and using KRW 700 million for the loan amount.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the charge of voluntary use of KRW 1.5 billion of the proceeds of project implementation was “The Defendant borrowed KRW 2.5 billion from June 20, 2007 to September 3, 2007 on eight occasions on the condition that Nonindicted 8’s representative director of Nonindicted Company 2’s company redeems the total amount of principal and interest KRW 3.5 billion from December 25, 2007. Meanwhile, around October 2008, Nonindicted Company 1 decided to transfer the right of project implementation to Nonindicted Company 9 by the method of asset acquisition, and in return, the cash amount of KRW 2 billion and the sale price of KRW 3.788 billion were to be paid to Nonindicted Company 1’s money and KRW 1.5 billion were to be returned to Nonindicted Company 200 million in the name of Nonindicted Company 1’s company’s new bank’s money transfer KRW 3 billion to Defendant 1,500,000,000,000.

In addition, among the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the facts charged of discretionary use of KRW 700 million is as follows: “The Defendant was liable to Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank for a total amount of KRW 6.3 billion, but cannot pay interest properly. On December 31, 2008, the Defendant borrowed from Nonindicted 3 Savings Bank an amount equivalent to KRW 700 million in the name of Nonindicted 1 Company, which the Defendant was engaged in the overall management of funds and management as the president and representative, and embezzled the same amount by arbitrarily paying the interest, etc. from the above date to July 31, 2009, as shown in the attached list of crimes.”

With respect to the Defendant’s assertion related to each of the charges of embezzlement, the lower court held that: (a) it is inappropriate for the Defendant to conduct accounting of the acquisition price paid or to be paid in person by transfer from Nonindicted Co. 5 to Nonindicted Co. 1; (b) it is deemed that the Defendant’s assertion differs from the subject of liability; (c) it can be deemed that the Defendant’s assertion was made with a large portion of the accounts in 2007, and (d) it is possible to view that the Defendant’s payment was made in duplicate when he re- handled the borrowed money in 2008; and (c) Nonindicted Co. 10 in the court of the lower court did not conduct accounting of the borrowed money from Nonindicted Co. 5 to his withdrawal as its representative director; (d) it is difficult to view that there was no particular problem in the accounting process until Aug. 2, 2007, when Nonindicted Co. 1 retires; and (d) it is difficult to view that there was a considerable amount of KRW 1300,000 for each of the Defendant’s account.

On the other hand, it is necessary for a prosecutor to prove that an act of embezzlement is an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value sufficient to make a judge not having any reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if the defendant is suspected of guilty, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do637, Sept. 4, 2002; 200Do637, Sept. 4, 2002; 200Do637, Apr. 26, 2005). Since the representative director who has personal claims against the company does not constitute an act of self-transaction in which the interests of the company and directors conflict with each other, even if the representative director repaid his claim against the company without following the procedure such as approval of the board of directors, it is valid as an act of performing the company's obligation within the authority of the representative director, and therefore, the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be held liable for the crime of embezzlement (see Supreme Court Decisions 298Do296562, Feb. 26, 296, 200.

In this case, the court below was duly adopted and examined, and the following facts found by the evidence of the non-indicted 100 million won, i.e., the non-indicted 1's loan in the name of the representative director who is not the name of the company 1 for the interest of the non-indicted 2, 100 million won, i.e., the non-indicted 1's disposal of the loan in the name of the non-indicted 3, 2000 won, and 1's disposal of the loan in the name of the non-indicted 1's account 40 billion won, and the non-indicted 1's disposal of the loan in the name of the non-indicted 1's account 40 billion won, and the non-indicted 2's disposal of the loan in the name of the non-indicted 1's account 100 billion won, i.e., the non-indicted 1's disposal of the loan in the name of the non-indicted 1's account 1's non-indicted 1's redemption.

In full view of these circumstances, there is sufficient reason to view that the Defendant, as a director of Nonindicted Company 1 and a de facto representative, was legitimately holding the claim of KRW 3.1 billion against Nonindicted Company 1, and on this basis, Nonindicted Company 1 paid KRW 1.5 billion deposited by Nonindicted Company 9 to Nonindicted Company 2 by paying the Defendant to Nonindicted Company 2 as part of the method appropriated to repay his claim of provisional deposit money, and repaid his obligation to Nonindicted Company 2. In addition, it is sufficient to view that Nonindicted Company 1 paid the money borrowed by Nonindicted Company 1 from Nonindicted Company 3 Savings Bank to Nonindicted Savings Bank as part of the method appropriated to reimburse his claim of provisional deposit money and repaid the interest on his obligation to Nonindicted Bank 3 Savings Bank.

Therefore, even if there are some parts of the accounting of Nonindicted Company 1 and Defendant’s provisional payments, and the contents are inconsistent with the schedule of partial funds, and it can be acknowledged that Defendant used the company’s funds on the basis of such unclear accounting accounts, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant used Nonindicted Company 1’s funds at will or that there was an intent to obtain unlawful profits from the Defendant in such use to the extent that it is beyond reasonable doubt.

In the end, although each of the embezzlement charges constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion.

Therefore, each part of the defendant's argument is justified.

(3) As to the assertion on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by transferring the right to claim ownership transfer registration

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant did not deduct the amount from the amount of damages for breach of trust on the ground that it did not ex post facto compensate or compensate part of Nonindicted Company 1’s damages, on the ground that it was acknowledged that the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonindicted Company 2 with respect to the assets of Nonindicted Company 1 in order to repay his own debt, while it was not acknowledged that there was any provisional amount claimed by the Defendant.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above KRW 1.9 billion, which was paid by Nonindicted Company 1, is part of KRW 3 billion, which was loaned to Nonindicted Company 2 as collateral, and the registration of ownership transfer of Nonindicted Company 2 and the registration of ownership transfer of Nonindicted Company 3 as collateral security bank, was made continuously on the same day). In this regard, the above KRW 1.9 billion was directly related to the above transfer of ownership and should be deducted from the amount of damages, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having to include KRW 1.9 billion in the amount of breach of trust.

Meanwhile, the facts acknowledged by the court below related to provisional receipts are identical to those recognized by this court. In light of the remaining factual relations recognized by the court below, the Defendant’s assertion on provisional receipts and provisional payments is difficult to accept, as seen earlier, if the Defendant, at the time when the Defendant transferred the Gllldong ▽▽▽▽▽▽△ (dong name omitted) to Nonindicted Co. 2, the Defendant had a claim for provisional receipts and payments against Nonindicted Co. 1, 210 million won.

Therefore, the defendant's 1.9 billion won deduction argument is reasonable, and this part of the remaining arguments are without merit.

B. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) As to the assertion on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by participating in the purchase price loan for the site located in the original state

The lower court determined that ① Nonindicted 17, 18, 19, and 20 made a statement but it is not recognized that the Defendant either cooperates with, or promised specific assistance in, the acceptance of treatment construction; ② even if the Defendant made a request for a loan to Nonindicted 21 and made a statement to the effect that ○○○○ Group would help him take over the treatment construction, this appears to have been a formal and social meaning of the charges of giving a loan request; ③ the Defendant was not a situation to directly raise funds to ○○○ Group because it was not good financial standing at the time, and even through a third party, Nonindicted 17 did not seem to have been capable of raising a large amount of funds worth KRW 10 million; ④ The Defendant was merely an ordinary speech about the construction of treatment construction, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was able to take over the construction of △△△△△△△△△ Group’s business or was not aware of the need for the Defendant’s prior to the Defendant’s taking over the construction of △△△ Group’s breach of trust.

The above judgment of the court below is just because it is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was sufficient to prove that the active participation in the prosecutor's assertion was beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the trial, and such judgment of the court below is not legitimate. Therefore, the prior prosecutor's assertion on different premise is without merit.

(2) As to the assertion on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by participating in illegal loans by Nonindicted Co. 4

The court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that: (a) based on the statement made by Nonindicted 8 and 17 alone, the Defendant did not recognize that the Defendant provided an opportunity to invest in the golf course business with Nonindicted 21 or offered a construction right to execute construction works to Nonindicted 21; and (b) Nonindicted 21 does not seem to have invested in the golf course business after the said loan; and (c) even if Nonindicted 21 made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 21 would invest in the golf course business by borrowing money from Nonindicted 8, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant would induce Nonindicted 8 to invest in the golf course business; and (d) the Defendant was not deemed to have actively participated in the act of breach of trust due to Nonindicted 21’s participation in the process prior to Nonindicted 21’s act

The evidence presented by the Prosecutor at the original trial alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that the active participation in the prosecutor’s assertion was beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is legitimate to make such determination by the lower court on the grounds that there is no evidence submitted by the Prosecutor in the first instance trial on this issue, and the prior prosecutor’s assertion on this different premise is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant and the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows. The prosecutor’s appeal on the acquittal portion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Since Articles 1, 2, and 4-2 of the facts constituting the crime of the lower court acknowledged by this court are identical to the facts constituting the crime of the lower court, it is accepted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Paragraph 3 of the same Article is to change the facts constituting the crime of the lower court as follows.

3. From June 20, 2007 to September 3, 2007, the Defendant lent KRW 2.5 billion on eight occasions on condition that Nonindicted 8’s representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 was repaid the sum of the principal and interest from December 25, 2007 to December 25, 2007. Meanwhile, around October 2008, Nonindicted Company 1 decided to transfer the business implementation right to Nonindicted Company 9 by the method of asset acquisition, and in return, the cash amount of KRW 2 billion and the sales amount of KRW 3.788,98 million were to be paid to Nonindicted Company 1 to Nonindicted Company 2 as KRW 80 billion. The Defendant demanded Nonindicted Company 8 to repay KRW 3 billion to Nonindicted Company 1 as a director of Nonindicted Company 1, who actually engages in overall business of managing funds and management, and the Defendant faithfully performed his duty to protect Nonindicted Company 2’s property interest in the name of Nonindicted Company 1, 2000,000 won and received KRW 19.

The summary of the evidence recognized by this court is as follows: (a) in the summary of the evidence [paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, the "agreement, details of passbook transactions (21 pages of investigation records)" shall be deleted; (b) [Article 4-A] shall be deleted; and (c) the "paragraph (b) of the judgment of the court below [Article 4-B] shall be changed to "[Article 4-4(4) at the time of sale]"; and (d) it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure

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

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (the issuance of a Promissory Notes, the guarantee of personal loans, and the transfer of the right to claim ownership transfer registration) , Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact of occupational embezzlement to companies other than public prosecution 22, the choice of imprisonment)

[However, the upper limit of each of the above imprisonment shall be 15 years of imprisonment provided for in the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259 of April 15, 2010)]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered as favorable to the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration into Consideration the favorable circumstances to be Considered in the Grounds for Sentencing below)

In the process of acquiring and operating Nonindicted Company 1, the Defendant committed embezzlement or breach of trust that may cause damage to the company in the course of carrying out various projects, and the amount of such embezzlement or breach of trust is not significant, and the Defendant’s operation of the company without clarifying the legal or economic responsibilities between the company and the individual, resulting in confusion between the parties concerned and the transactional system, etc. is an unfavorable sentencing factor against the Defendant

On the other hand, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s overall mistake is divided into two parts; (b) the Defendant has no criminal records exceeding the suspension of execution; (c) the instant case does not cause serious damage to Nonindicted Company 1 or other creditors; and (d) other various sentencing conditions such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment or circumstances after the crime, etc., it is reasonable to postpone the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendant in this case.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by voluntarily using KRW 1.5 billion for the transfer proceeds of the project implementation right and KRW 700 million for the loan proceeds of the attached list of crimes is as stated in the corresponding part of Article 2-2-A (2), and each of the facts charged constitutes “when there is no proof of crime” as stated in the same part.

Therefore, each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 325

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the facts charged regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) through the transfer of the right to claim ownership transfer was “The Defendant borrowed KRW 2.5 billion from Nonindicted 2’s representative director from June 20, 2007 to September 3, 2007 on eight occasions on the condition that he redeems the principal and interest of KRW 3 billion from Nonindicted 8’s representative director up to December 25, 2007. On the other hand, Nonindicted 1 Company decided to transfer the right to manage its business to Nonindicted 9 Company by the method of asset transfer and, in return, the amount of KRW 2 billion and KRW 3.78 billion were to be paid to Nonindicted 20 million in cash to Nonindicted 3 Company, and Nonindicted 200 million was to receive KRW 3.3 billion in cash from September 20, 2007 to KRW 200,0000,0000,000,000.

As seen above 2-A (3) of the above facts charged, the part of KRW 1.9 billion out of the amount in breach of trust of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) by transferring the right to claim transfer registration of ownership as stated in a single crime, so

[Attachment] Crime List: Omitted

Judges Kim Dong-ok (Presiding Judge)

(1) 3 of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap19077 Decided February 13, 2009, 355-356 of the trial records and 355-356 of the trial records

Note 2) 57-58 pages, 345 pages of the trial records

Note 3) 65-71 pages, 345-346 of the trial records

Note 4) Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap19077 Decided February 13, 2009, 4-5

Note 5) Evidence records 185 pages

Note 6) 377-380 pages, 383-384 of the trial records

Note 7) Statement 247 of the trial record, Nonindicted 10’s statement on the third day of this Court

Note 8) Court records 251 pages

9) Statement by Non-Indicted 10 on the third day of this Court

Note 10) Each statement on the 269 pages, 395-396 pages, witness Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 6’s third day of this Court

Note 11) Each statement made by Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 6 on the third day in this Court.

Note 12) The trial records 288 pages

Note 13) Trial Records 245-247 pages, 250-251

Note 14) 249-252 Public Trial Records

Note 15) Trial Records 287-288 pages, 294-295

Note 16) Court records 299 pages

Note 17) Trial Records 284-285

Note 18) Statement in this Court by Non-Indicted 6 of Non-Indicted 6 of the trial record 320 and the witness of the trial court

Note 19) 320 pages, 322 pages, 332-33 of the trial records

Note 20) Evidence Record 461 pages, 2613 pages (the name on the registry of the above real estate is omitted)

Note 21) Evidence Record 1320 pages