Defendant 1 and five others

Defendants

Kim Jong-chul et al.

Law Firm Barun Seoul, Attorneys Park Jong-ju et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008 Gohap1383, 1438, 1440, 1445, 1447, 209 Gohap4555 (combined), 689 (Consolidated) Decided September 16, 2009

1. Of the lower judgment, the part on Defendant 1, 2, 4 (Joint Defendant in the lower judgment), 5 (Defendant 4 in the lower judgment), and 6 (Defendant 5 in the lower judgment) of the lower judgment is reversed, respectively.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two and a half years, and a fine of thirty billion won, by imprisonment for a term of five years, and by imprisonment for a term of four years, respectively.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 30 million into one day.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 4 shall be suspended.

5,168,165,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 2.

The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant 2, and Defendant 5 and Defendant 6, respectively, shall be acquitted.

2. Defendant 3’s appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the evasion of tax on global income related to APC (crime 2. A. part of the judgment of the court below)

In order to secure the profit of Nonindicted Co. 3, Defendant 1 inevitably did not submit a report under tax law to Hong Kong without accompanying active acts in the process of establishing the name omitted of the company. Therefore, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have committed a “Fraud or other unlawful act”.

(2) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the evasion of capital gains tax with respect to the sale and purchase of borrowed stocks (the crime No. 2. B. of this case)

(A) Defendant 1 did not hold stocks of ○ Securities in 2004, which was immediately preceding the fiscal year 2005, the capital gains from the transfer of ○ Securities due to the purchase and sale of ○ Securities. Thus, Defendant 1 does not constitute “large stockholders” under the Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

(B) The mere fact that a stock transaction was conducted under the name of a borrower does not constitute “Fraud or other unlawful act.”

(3) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the offering of a bribe to Defendant 2 (the crime No. 2.C. of the original judgment)

Since the amount of KRW 2 billion and USD 2.5 million granted by Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 is the money that was granted regardless of the sale of Nonindicted Co. 1, it is not related to duties.

(4) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the offering of a bribe to Nonindicted 4 (the part on the crime No. 2 D. 2 of the original judgment)

In order to encourage the Defendant 1’s KRW 5 million gift certificates 20 million granted to Nonindicted 4, the KRW 300 million was delivered in good faith at the request of the event expenses, and it was not the money given to Nonindicted 4 in relation to his duties, so there is no relevance to duties.

(5) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the receipt of evidence in breach of trust against Nonindicted 5 (the crime of 2. D. (4) in the original judgment)

Defendant 1 merely asked Nonindicted 5 to write out any cruel article without any basis, so it cannot be said to be “illegal solicitation.”

(6) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to interference with bidding (the crime No. 4. portion in the original judgment)

(A) Defendant 1 did not give any instruction to the practitioners regarding the bid for the sale of Nonindicted Co. 1, and only received reports on the outline of the progress.

(B) As Nonindicted Co. 1 was sold through a lawful procedure through an open bid, and there was no situation where there was no undue influence on the adequate price formation through fair competition, it cannot be said that there was an act detrimental to the fairness of bidding.

(7) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment and 30 billion won of fine determined by the court below against Defendant 1 is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acceptance of bribe from Defendant 1 (the part concerning the crime of March 1, 200 in the original judgment)

(A) Since the amount of KRW 2 billion and USD 2.5 million received by Defendant 2 from Defendant 1 is the amount received regardless of the sale of Nonindicted Company 1, Defendant 2 is not related to duties.

(B) As Defendant 2 returned KRW 2 billion received from Defendant 1, Defendant 2 had no intention to obtain it, Defendant 1 offered USD 2.5 million. Thus, Defendant 2’s receipt of USD 2 billion and USD 2.5 million cannot be evaluated as a separate crime of bribery.

(2) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to interference with bidding (the crime No. 4. portion in the original judgment)

Defendant 2 did not participate in the process of selling Nonindicted Co. 1, and did not instruct Defendant 3 to help Nonindicted Co. 3 take over Nonindicted Co. 1.

(3) misunderstanding of facts as to the receipt of KRW 5 billion with respect to the sale of ○○ Securities (the criminal facts in the original judgment 5.0 billion)

There is no fact that Defendant 2 received KRW 5 billion in connection with the sale of ○○ Securities, and there is no fact that Defendant 5 instructed Defendant 5 to receive KRW 5 billion in connection with the sale of ○○ Securities.

(4) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of 10 years of imprisonment and the penalty of additional collection, which the court below decided against Defendant 2, is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant 3, 4

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Since Nonindicted Co. 1 was sold through an open bid, and there was no occurrence of a situation that unfairly affected the formation of a reasonable price through fair competition, it cannot be said that there was an act detrimental to the fairness of the bidding. The three instances of reduction of the price after the bidding were determined through legitimate procedures for reasonable grounds.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, and three years of suspended execution, which are determined by the court below against Defendant 4, is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant 5

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(A) Defendant 5 received KRW 5 billion from Defendant 6 in accordance with Defendant 2’s instruction and delivered it to Defendant 2. As such, Defendant 5 was merely a paper offender, and voluntarily surrenders himself. Defendant 5 was in a separate crime for which imprisonment was finalized in March 3 and June, and the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, there are legal grounds for mitigation.

(B) Defendant 5 did not enjoy the benefits accrued from the water supply of KRW 5 billion, so it cannot be collected from Defendant 5, and KRW 460 million paid from the tax payment of KRW 5 billion should be excluded from the additional collection.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of imprisonment with prison labor of five years and the penalty of additional collection, which the court below decided against Defendant 5, is too unreasonable.

E. Defendant 6

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant 6 did not have any intention on the fact that the amount of KRW 5 billion offered to Defendant 2 and 5 was a bribe paid in return for the acquisition of ○○ Securities by ○○○.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of imprisonment with prison labor of the court below against Defendant 6 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to Defendant 1’s assertion of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant 1’s evasion of global income tax related to APC

Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that "Fraud and other unlawful acts" refers to deceptive schemes or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and it does not constitute a mere failure to file a tax return or making a false report without accompanying other acts. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, Defendant 1 established APC and transferred profits to APC by manipulating the transaction stage as if APC were to act as intermediary, as well as the transfer of profits to APC by operating APC as if APC was to act as a broker. Even if he invested in full in APC’s establishment capital, Defendant 1’s act constitutes a fraudulent scheme or other active and active act that makes it considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes.

On the other hand, since the crime of tax evasion constituted by fraudulent or other unlawful act is not an intentional crime, it does not require Defendant 1 to evade or evade tax (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1851 Decided September 24, 2004). According to the above facts, it cannot be said that Defendant 1 had no intention to evade this part of the comprehensive income tax by fraud or other unlawful act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the defendant 1's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. As to Defendant 1’s assertion of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant 1’s evasion of capital gains tax on the trading of borrowed stocks

(1) As to the assertion that a shareholder does not constitute “large shareholder” under the Income Tax Act

(A) Provisions of the statute

Article 94 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005)

(1) Transfer income shall be the following incomes generated in the concerned year:

3. Income accruing from transfer of stocks or investment shares falling under any of the following items (including preemptive rights; hereafter referred to as "stocks, etc." in this Chapter):

(a) Transfer of stocks, etc. of a stock-listed corporation under the Securities and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as a "stock-listed corporation") by a major stockholder prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as a "major stockholder") in consideration of the ratio of stocks owned, total market value, etc., and transfer of stocks not by transaction in the securities market under

Article 157 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21301 of Feb. 4, 2009)

(4) The term “major shareholder prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 94 (1) 3 (a) of the Act means a person falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. In case where one stockholder or one investor (hereafter in this Chapter, referred to as “one stockholder”) possessing the stocks or equity investment shares of a corporation (including the preemptive right, and hereafter in this Chapter, referred to as the “stocks, etc.”) and his relative or a person under special relation with him under Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereafter in this Chapter, referred to as the “other stockholders”) possess not less than 3/100 of the total sum of stocks, etc. of the relevant corporation as of the end of fiscal year immediately preceding that whereto belongs the transfer date of stocks, etc. as of the fiscal year immediately preceding that whereto belongs the transfer date of stocks, etc.: relevant one stockholder and other stockholders. In this case, while the number of stocks, etc. of a venture business under Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Businesses traded pursuant to Article 84-27 (5) of the Securities and Exchange Act is short of 3/100 as of the end of immediately preceding fiscal year, but thereafter possess not less than 3/1/100 stockholders and other stockholders after the acquisition date;

(b) the sales board;

Defendant 1 asserted that ○○ Securities did not hold ○○ Securities in 2004, which is the business year immediately preceding the business year to which the transfer date of ○○ Securities belongs, and therefore, it does not constitute “large stockholders” under the above Income Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. However, the phrase “not less than 3/100 as of the end of the immediately preceding business year” in the latter part of Article 157(4)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act cannot be interpreted as not including “cases where one does not own 3/10 or more as of the end of the immediately preceding business year” and “cases where 3/10 or more of stocks are transferred (at the end of the immediately preceding business year, 1/100 or more as of the end of the immediately preceding business year)” and “cases where 3/10 or more of stocks are owned and transferred after the end of the immediately preceding business year,” and there is no reasonable ground to deal with the same (at the end of the immediately preceding business year, 3/100 or more shares are not owned.”

(2) As to the assertion that the act does not constitute “Fraud or other unlawful act”

Defendant 1 and the defense counsel in the original instance also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. It is acceptable to accept the fact-finding and judgment of the lower court, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, this part of the allegation by Defendant

C. As to Defendant 1 and 2’s assertion of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the sale of Nonindicted Co. 1 and 2’s KRW 2 billion and USD 2.5 million, and Defendant 1’s assertion of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the offering of a bribe to Nonindicted Co. 4

(1) Relevant legal principles

The legal interest of the crime of bribery is the fairness of performing duties, the public trust in society, and the impossibility of performing duties. Since the crime of bribery does not require any solicitation or unlawful act, it does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribe of money and valuables received. It is sufficient that money and valuables have been received in connection with the duties, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of duties. Whether certain profit received by a public official constitutes a bribe as an unjust profit with a quid pro quo relationship, shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official's duties, the relationship between a public official and a benefit provider, the degree of interest, the process and timing of receiving benefits, etc. If the crime of bribery is a special relationship between a public official and a private person, and the public official received money and valuables from a public official with a view to the fairness of performing his duties, trust in society, and the impossibility of purchasing such duties, and thus, it is not clear that the public official received money and valuables from a public official with a view to 90 minutes of duties or other benefits.

On the other hand, the term "duty" in the crime of bribery includes not only the duty prescribed by the law, but also the duty related to it, the duty that can assist or influence the person who has been in charge of customs or de facto processing in relation to such duty, or the duty that is not actually in charge according to the division of duties in the past or in addition to the duty to be in charge in the future, all duties that a public official, such as a duty under the law, shall take charge of official duties according to such position (Supreme Court Decision 97Do2609 delivered on December 26, 1997).

(2) As to Defendant 1 and 2’s offering and receipt of USD 2 billion and US$ 2.5 million with respect to the sale of Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 1

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is true that Defendant 2 stated that the fourth interrogation of the prosecution of March 31, 2009 that this part of the 2 billion won and the 2.5 billion US dollars were honorariums to help acquire the non-indicted 1 corporation on March 31, 2009, and that the non-indicted 1 corporation was sold to the non-indicted 1 corporation for the following reasons: (a) although it was argued that he received money from Defendant 1 without any justifiable reason until the previous interrogation, it would be said that he would be 2 billion US dollars, 2.5 billion US dollars, and 2.5 billion US dollars. (b) It was true that the non-indicted 2.5 billion US dollars was sold to the non-indicted 1 corporation in return for the acceptance of the non-indicted 1 corporation by Defendant 1 (Article 2009No465277 of the evidence record).

On the other hand, Defendant 2 did not use KRW 2 billion for the next 2 billion account from February 2006. However, on May 10, 2006, Defendant 2 was arrested and detained as a case involving bribery to Nonindicted Company 9, and returned the above KRW 2 billion to Defendant 1 on October 17, 2006, which was released as bail ( August 11, 2006). After the first 'not guilty' ( February 5, 2007), it was again received KRW 2 billion from Defendant 1 to June 2, 2007, and deposited KRW 2 billion in the second 2 billion account and the second 2 billion account after the second 2 billion account after the second 205 billion account was received from Defendant 2,50 billion from the end of 200 billion to the second 205 billion account after the second 205 billion account received from Defendant 25 billion.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the defendant 1 and 2's assertion on this part is not accepted.

(3) As to the offering of bribe to Defendant 1’s non-indicted 4

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the President Lee Jong-chul, ① the chief secretary for personnel affairs, senior secretary for civil society, chief secretary for economic policy, senior secretary for the National Tax Service, etc., Nonindicted 4 was a member of the personnel recommendation committee at the name of the chief secretary for the National Tax Service, and Nonindicted 6 was a member of the personnel recommendation committee at the end of 204 or from the beginning of 2006 to the middle of 206, and Nonindicted 1 was a member of the personnel recommendation committee, and Nonindicted 2 was a member of the personnel promotion committee at the time of 10 billion won, and Nonindicted 1 was a member of the personnel promotion committee at the time of 10 billion won, and Nonindicted 4 was a member of the personnel promotion committee at the time of 205, which was well known that Nonindicted 10 was a member of the general secretary for personal affairs, and that Nonindicted 2 was a member of the personnel promotion committee at the time of 200 million won.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the defendant 1's allegation in this part is without merit.

C. As to Defendant 1’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to giving rise to breach of trust

Defendant 1 and the defense counsel in the original instance also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. It is acceptable to accept the fact-finding and judgment of the lower court, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, this part of the allegation by Defendant

D. As to the assertion of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the obstruction of bidding by Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4

The crime of interference with tendering under Article 315 of the Criminal Act does not require the actual occurrence of the outcome as a crime of danger when the fairness of tendering is harmed by deceptive means, threat of force, or other means. Here, “act detrimental to the fairness of tendering” in this context means an act of causing a situation in which fair competition is likely to be impeded, that is, an act of causing an unreasonable impact on the formation of reasonable price through fair competition. It includes not only the determination of price but also the act of harming “fair and fair competition” (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8070 Decided May 31, 2007).

In light of the above legal principles, Nonindicted Co. 3 was aware that the instant NT unit price, which was already supplied by Nonindicted Co. 13 prior to the submission of Nonindicted Co. 1’s bid proposal, would be lower than 206, and thus, Nonindicted Co. 1’s profits would be reduced by Nonindicted Co. 1. In light of the aforementioned facts, it was not disclosed at the preliminary engineer phase prior to the tender (No. 208, No. 154039, No. 1979, No. 2008). In fact, Nonindicted Co. 3, after Nonindicted Co. 1 was selected as the highest bidder, requested the reduction of the sales price and supplied by Nonindicted Co. 13 to Nonindicted Co. 14 for reasons of the decline in the above DNT supply unit price in detailed company’s bidding process, was lower than that of Nonindicted Co. 11’s bidding process. In addition, Defendant Co. 231 and Defendant 265’s legitimate competition in the tender process were more likely to be unfair than that of Nonindicted Co. 1131.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4's assertion on this part is not accepted.

E. As to Defendant 2’s assertion of mistake of facts as to the receipt of KRW 5 billion related to the sale of ○ Securities

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 5 received a solicitation from Nonindicted 15, an advisor of ○○ Securities, who was known to the general public around springing 2005, to request Defendant 2, who was the president of ○○ Agreement, to sell the shares of ○ Securities held by Nonindicted 16, to ○○ Securities.

On the other hand, at that time, Defendant 2, the major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 16, and Defendant 2, the president of ○○ Securities Co., Ltd. (Defendant 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance), directly met with Defendant 6, the president of ○ Securities Co., Ltd., and was asked for the acceptance of ○ Securities

Defendant 5 was proposed by Nonindicted 15 and Defendant 6 to accept the ○○ Securities, and reported the above proposal to Defendant 2 on the face of the State. Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 5 to receive the case directly with Defendant 6.

As a result, on August 2005, Defendant 2, via Defendant 5, agreed to pay advisory fees to Nonindicted Co. 16 to the effect that ○○ Securities held by Nonindicted Co. 16 in return for purchasing KRW 11,659,689 (total issued shares 47.68%) of KRW 5 billion in return for purchasing ○○ Securities issued by ○○ Stock Co. 16 in return for Defendant 2’s purchase. However, Defendant 2 agreed to take the form of paying advisory fees from Nonindicted Co. 16 in order to conclude that it is a legitimate transaction.

Defendant 5, around October 2005, designated Nonindicted Co. 17 as the place where the said money is to be paid on behalf of Defendant 2, and thereafter, in order to pretend that Nonindicted Co. 17 was the adviser of Nonindicted Co. 16, Defendant 5 prepared the advisory contract and related materials with the co-defendant of the lower court.

Accordingly, on December 6, 2005, the basic agreement on the trading of ○ Securities was made between ○○ Stock Co., Ltd. and Nonindicted Co. 16. On the 27th day of the same month, a memorandum of understanding was made, and on January 31, 2006, a contract was made for trading 11,659,689 shares of ○○ Securities with KRW 11,460 per share total amount of KRW 9,10.3 billion.

Defendant 2 and Defendant 5 were delivered KRW 1 billion on December 16, 2005, KRW 4 billion on February 17, 2006, and KRW 5 billion on December 17, 2006, to the account in the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 17 in return for the acceptance of ○○ Securities by the joint Defendant 6 and the lower judgment.

As a result, Defendant 2 and 5 conspireds to purchase ○ ○ ○ ○ negotiable stocks, and accepted a bribe of KRW 5 billion in relation to the duties of the Chairperson of △ Mag Magna, a government-managed enterprise.

(2) The judgment of the court below

원심은 그 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 후, ① 피고인 5가 주위에서 피고인 2의 측근으로 여겨질 정도로 피고인 2와 가까운 관계였던 점, ② 피고인 2의 지시에 의하여 ○○증권 인수업무가 중단되었던 시기에 피고인 5가 피고인 6 등을 직접 만나 인수대가 지급문제 등을 논의하였고, 그 후 다시 피고인 2의 지시에 의하여 인수업무가 재개되었던 점, ③ 피고인 2는 ○○증권 인수업무에 깊숙이 관여하였고, 사실상 최종적으로 ○○증권 인수를 결정하였던 점, ④ 피고인 6, 원심공동피고인은 □□□의 최종 의사결정권자인 피고인 2를 설득하기 위하여 지속적인 로비를 하였던 점, ⑤ 피고인 2는 기본합의서를 작성한 직후 해외출장 중인 피고인 5에게 전화하여 ○○증권 인수 업무를 잘 챙기라는 지시를 하였던 점, ⑥ 피고인 2는 50억 원이 모두 지급된 직후인 2006. 3. 9. 피고인 5의 중개로 피고인 6을 만나 점심식사를 하였던 점 등의 사정을 종합하면, 피고인 5가 피고인 2의 반대에도 불구하고 피고인 6, 원심공동피고인, 공소외 15를 속이고 중간에서 50억 원을 받아 가로챘다는 피고인 2의 주장은 도저히 받아들이기 어려운 사후적 변명에 불과한 것으로 보이고, 이 사건은 피고인 5의 일관된 진술과 같이 피고인 2가 피고인 5에게 지시하여 피고인 6, 원심공동피고인으로부터 ○○증권 인수와 관련하여 자문수수료 명목으로 가장한 사례금 50억 원을 교부받은 것이라고 충분히 인정된다고 판단하였다.

(3) Judgment of the court below

(A) Review of the credibility of Defendant 5’s statement

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is acknowledged that the defendant 6, the co-defendants of the court below, the co-defendants of the court below, and the non-indicted 15 and 18 of the ○ securities agreed to pay the advisory fee of KRW 5 billion to the non-indicted 17 corporation in return for the cooperation in acquiring ○○ securities as the representative of the defendant 5, and that there was no discussion about the direct payment with the defendant 2. Ultimately, the statement of the defendant 5 billion by the defendant 6, the co-defendants of the court below, the non-indicted 15, and the non-indicted 93 of the ○ securities was due to the direct evidence that can recognize the functional control over the defendant 2's functional act with regard to the receipt of KRW 5 billion, and the statement by the defendant 6, the co-defendants of the court below, the non-indicted 15, and the non-indicted 93 are merely the full text or con

(1) The fact that Defendant 5’s statement concerning the situation after receipt of KRW 5 billion is inconsistent with that of Defendant 5’s statement, and that there is an essential disagreement that cannot be viewed as arising from the date of birth of memory due to the passage of time (see the following table):

On November 208, 2008, Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 1 written statement (No. 208-type 154013 and no. 692-type 2) included in the main text, and Non-Indicted 2 were kept in custody of Non-Indicted 19 out of the amount of 3.8 billion won after deducting taxes from Non-Indicted 2’s 200 million won, and the remaining amount of 2.7 billion won was issued and kept in the bank. Defendant 2 did not know that Non-Indicted 2 had to be kept in custody of the entire amount of 3.8 billion won. Defendant 2 did not ask Non-Indicted 2 for the remaining amount of money to be kept in custody of Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 3’s 3.7 billion won. Defendant 2 did not ask Non-Indicted 2 to the remaining amount of money to be kept in the bank.

② Defendant 5’s signature in a letter that the money he received is irrelevant to Defendant 2 (Defendant 5’s legal statement made by Nonindicted Party 21 as a witness of the Political Party, 3rd page 1370 of the above evidence record)

피고인 2는 공소외 9 주식회사 관련 뇌물수수 사건으로 유죄가 확정(2007. 11. 30.)된 이후 ★★★병원에 입원 중이던 2008. 1. 7. “본인이 회장님께 주어야 한다고 그래야만 일이 성사된다고 핑계를 하여 받은 금액( )은 회장님과는 아무런 어떠한 관계도 없음을 확인하고 회장을 팔아서 본인이 받았고 회장은 보지도 못하였고 그 사람( )을 만나지도 아니하였으며 오직 본인이 회장을 핑계하여 처리한 것입니다. 회장님께서는 회장과 관련하여 받은 거라면 즉시 반환하라고 하였으나 사실 아무 일 없음니다.라고 말씀드렸고 오늘 아직도 반환하지 않고 갖고 있다면 공소외 21 실장과 동행하여 회장은 즉시 반환하라고 하였음. 그러나 향후 어떤 문제가 있드라도 회장은 이 문제와는 관련 없음을 본 각서로 확인하고 민형사적인 모든 책임은 본인에게 있음을 각서하면서 본인 책임 하에 처리하기로 각서로서 확인합니다”라고 기재된 각서에 피고인 5의 서명을 받았다.

③ The use of KRW 5 billion is related to Defendant 5, and Defendant 2 does not have any money obtained by Defendant 2 (the above evidence record Nos. 5, 2532 pages)

As seen below, there is no money delivered to Defendant 2 among KRW 5 billion, while Nonindicted Co. 17, which was used as a means to receive KRW 5 billion, is a corporation established by Defendant 5, and Defendant 5 continued to have been involved in the management even after the resignation of the director of Nonindicted Co. 17 (No. 2008Dahap1440).

(C) On December 19, 2005, the amount of KRW 400 million out of the KRW 1 billion paid out to the account in the name of Non-Indicted 17 Co. 2, 2005 (the account number of the branch office in Dolsung Masung) was transferred to the securities consignment account in the name of Non-Indicted 22, Defendant 5, and KRW 500 million was used for Defendant 5’s repayment of loans. Of the remaining KRW 100 million, KRW 80 million was used for Nonindicted 23, a creditor of Non-Indicted 20, the representative director of Non-Indicted 17 Co. 20 (the above evidence of KRW 50 million), KRW 20 million, respectively, was deposited into the account in the name of Non-Indicted 24 of the wife of Non-Indicted 20.

Financially caused a disaster, on February 17, 2006, KRW 1 billion was paid to Nonindicted 19 on April 12, 2006, out of KRW 4 billion paid in the account under the name of Nonindicted 17 Co., Ltd. (the account number of the branch office in Magsungsung), and approximately KRW 300 million was used for the additional tax payment of Nonindicted Co. 17 billion. Of the remaining KRW 2.7 billion, KRW 1.2 billion and KRW 1.3 billion were transferred to the account of Nonindicted Co. 25 billion, which operated the apartment project in Ulsan, and was used in the traffic impact assessment service cost, land down payment, acquisition price of the right to operate the Ulsan apartment project, design service cost, etc., and KRW 100 million was remitted to Nonindicted Co. 27’s account, and KRW 100 million was transferred to Nonindicted Co. 23’s account for the repayment of the debt of Nonindicted Co. 28 (the foregoing evidence record No. 2096).

On February 24, 1998, Nonindicted Co. 17 was a corporation established by Defendant 5 on February 24, 1998, and was appointed by Nonindicted Co. 29, Defendant 5, and Defendant 30, who was the senior of Defendant 5, as the representative director, the director, and Nonindicted Co. 31, who was his wife, as the auditor. Defendant 5 and Nonindicted Co. 29 resigned on July 1, 1998, and Nonindicted Co. 30 and Nonindicted 31 resigned on August 14, 1998. Nonindicted Co. 20, who was appointed as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 17 upon the resignation of Nonindicted Co. 29, who was the senior director of Nonindicted Co. 28 Co. 25, who was conducting apartment business in Ulsan, and Defendant 5 stated that “The representative director of Yangsan apartment is also a director of Nonindicted Co. 28, who was the senior director of Nonindicted Co. 200, who was the senior director of the public trial, as 1401.”

On October 8, 2003, upon Defendant 5’s recommendation, Nonindicted 19 agreed to invest KRW 1.7 billion in the Gyeyang apartment project implemented by Nonindicted Incorporated Company 28, KRW 300 million in the shares transaction of Defendant 5, KRW 2 billion in the principal after six months, and receive a profit of KRW 2 billion after one year (the 5th page of the evidence record, KRW 2563), and the subsequent payment of principal and profit was delayed, Nonindicted 19 made a provisional attachment of the real estate owned by Defendant 5. The above KRW 1 billion paid on April 12, 2006 is the money paid as part of the debt under the above agreement.

④ The use behavior of KRW 5 billion in this part is different from that of Defendant 2’s other bribery charges.

Defendant 2: (a) around February 2006, near this part of 5 billion won, received a bribe of KRW 2 billion from Defendant 1; (b) opened a borrowed account with Nonindicted 32 and Nonindicted 3, a human relative, and deposited the above KRW 2 billion; (c) returned the money again, and (d) deposited the money in the borrowed account with Nonindicted 32 and Nonindicted 33’s name from May 2007 to June 3, 2007 (Evidence 6: (6) evidence record No. 1522, 154016, 3609, 3856, and 2.5 billion U.S. dollars from June 4, 2007, Nonindicted 34, a human rights holder of USD 2.5 billion from this part of the crime of bribery against Defendant 2, a human rights holder of USD 500,000,000,000,000 from this part of the evidence evidence No. 250,000.

5. The fact that Defendant 5 was prosecuted for other facts constituting the crime at the time of the first statement about this part of five billion won and is waiting for a pronouncement of a judgment in the first instance.

On November 20, 2008, Defendant 5 was indicted due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery), and the date of pronouncement was designated on December 5, 2008.

(b) Defendant 5, who was investigated as a witness on two occasions after the preparation of the above statement, made a detailed statement on the background leading up to the receipt of KRW 5 billion in this part, and exercised the right to refuse to make statements on November 21, 2008, by exercising the right to refuse to make statements on the ground that it would be a suppression of being investigated as a co-principal with Defendant 2 on the interrogation of suspect (No. 4 right to record the above evidence 2118 pages).

(B) Other review of the circumstances of the lower court’s recognition

For the following reasons, there is insufficient reason to recognize Defendant 2’s functional control over the receipt of KRW 5 billion only with the circumstances shown in the judgment of the court below that correspond to this part of the facts charged.

① On June 2005, at the time of the suspension of the underwriting of ○○ Securities by Defendant 2’s instruction, Defendant 5 discussed the payment of the price for Defendant 6, etc. directly with Defendant 6, etc. or the payment of the price for the cooperation to acquire ○○ Securities, and thereafter, Defendant 2’s order re-consigned the underwriting of ○ Securities on or around September 2005.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is acknowledged that the acquisition of securities by Defendant 2’s instructions was suspended on or around June 2005, and the acquisition was resumed by Defendant 2’s instructions again on or around September 2005, but at the same time, according to the prosecutorial statement of Nonindicted 35, who held office in the Agricultural Structure Policy Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the director of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (record 4, 1776 et al. of the above evidence record), the Agricultural Structure Policy Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Agricultural Structure Policy Bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which are the department in charge of guiding and supervising the credit business sector and the economic business sector, came to know of the plan for the acquisition of securities company of Cheongsung on or around April 2005 through the press report, and the position of the competent department was also acknowledged to continue to exist until the time when the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had a need to enter into the securities business in order to enhance the credit competitiveness of Masung Do.

Therefore, it cannot be said that Defendant 2’s suspension of the acquisition of securities company was the purpose of receiving the promise to pay the price from Defendant 6, etc.

② On December 6, 2005, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Co. 16 instructed Defendant 5 who is traveling overseas to call to Defendant 5 and give an instruction that ○○ Securities business is an essential point after preparing a basic agreement on the acquisition of ○○ Securities.

이에 관한 피고인 5의 진술은, 2005. 12. 2.부터 같은 달 11.까지 인도네시아 관광 중이었는데 피고인 2로부터 전화가 와 “빨리 귀국하여 ○○증권 인수가 잘 되었으니 챙겨보라”고 말했다는 것이고, 피고인 5와 동행한 공소외 37의 진술은, 일정 중 ♠♠♠에 이틀간 체류할 때 피고인 5의 휴대전화 로밍에 문제가 있어 자신의 전화번호를 피고인 5가 공소외 38 주식회사 비서실에 알려주었는데, 피고인 2 또는 그 비서로부터 전화가 와 피고인 5를 바꿔주었고, 통화가 끝난 후 피고인 5로부터 “회장님한테서 온 전화인데 인도네시아는 너무 멀어 대만이라고 거짓말했다”는 말을 들었다는 취지이다(위 증거기록 5권 2975쪽 이하).

However, Defendant 2’s final decision made on November 2005 at the time when the acceptance of ○○ Securities was actually confirmed on the basis of the Defendant 2’s final decision. (3rd 1727 pages of the above evidence record) As such, Defendant 2 did not seem to have been necessary to give instructions to Defendant 5, who was on the first order of December 2005, to the effect that he is well able to give a bribe even during the call. Moreover, at the time, Defendant 5 was in the outside of Korea with the persons related to the supplier of raw materials to Nonindicted Co. 38, who was in office as the representative director, for the purpose of tourism, such as golf and fishing. In such a situation, it is difficult to understand that Defendant 5 notified Defendant 5 of the phone number of the supplier’s personnel in preparation for temporary contact.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the fact that Defendant 2 called a bribe to Defendant 5 on the outside party immediately after the preparation of the basic agreement to the effect that he was well able to give a bribe.

③ On March 9, 2006, immediately after the ○○ Securities paid 5 billion won in full, Defendant 2 and 6 together with Defendant 5’s brokerage

원심이 적법하게 채택·조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인 2, 5, 6이 2006. 3. 9. ■■■호텔 일식당 ‘ ▲▲▲’에서 점심식사를 같이 한 사실은 인정되나, ○○증권 인수의 양쪽 당사자인 공소외 16 주식회사와 □□□의 최고의사결정권자가 인수 작업 종료 후에 만나 점심식사를 함께 하는 것이 이례적인 일이라고 할 수 없고, 피고인 6으로서는 □□□의 ○○증권 인수라는 목적이 달성된 이상 그와 같은 자리에서 자신이 공여한 뇌물이 잘 전달되었는지 여부를 피고인 2에게 직접 확인할 리도 없을 것이며(실제로 피고인 6은 위 점심식사 자리에서 뇌물과 관련된 대화는 나눈 적이 없다고 진술하고 있다), 피고인 2로서는 피고인 6과 직접 대면하지 않더라도 전화 등 다양한 방법으로 뇌물의 공여 여부, 그 액수, 전달방법 등을 확인할 수 있었을 터이므로, 피고인 2, 5, 6이 점심식사를 함께 한 사실이 피고인 2와 피고인 5의 상반되는 진술의 신빙성을 판단하는 결정적인 정황이 될 수는 없다고 할 것이다.

④ As to the fact that Defendant 5 was nearest to Defendant 2’s side, Defendant 2 was involved in the underwriting of ○ Securities, and the fact that Defendant 2 was finally decided to accept ○○ Securities.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, Defendant 5 was known as Defendant 2’s side in Dolsung, and Defendant 2 was the chairman of Dolsung’s board of directors, and was actually determined to underwrite ○○ Securities. However, the above facts are basically an indirect fact of value neutrality in the recognition of this part of the facts charged (it is also acknowledged that Defendant 2 continued to receive ○○ Securities from Nonindicted 39 upon request of the co-defendant of the court below).

(C) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, Defendant 5’s statement, consistent with this part of the facts charged, is difficult to believe, and the remaining evidence and circumstances recognized by the lower court alone are insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, but the lower court found Defendant 2 guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. This part of the allegation by Defendant 2 pointing this out is with merit.

F. As to Defendant 5 and 6’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principle

The defendant 5 and 6's judgment on this part of the grounds for appeal shall be examined ex officio prior to the judgment.

The prosecutor prosecuted Defendant 5 on the charge that Defendant 5 received a bribe of 5 billion won in collaboration with Defendant 2 who is deemed as a public official (the brain) and brought a public prosecution on the charge that Defendant 6 gave a bribe to Defendant 2 and 5 as above. As seen earlier, Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 5 to give a bribe of 5 billion won, unless there is any evidence to prove that Defendant 2 received a bribe of 5 billion won in collusion with Defendant 5, Defendant 5 cannot be a principal offender of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery). For the same reason, Defendant 6’s act that provided 5 billion won to Defendant 5 does not constitute the elements of the crime of offering a bribe.

Therefore, although the facts charged against Defendant 5 and 6 constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against Defendant 5 and 6, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

G. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant 1, 3, and 4

(1) Defendant 1

Defendant 1’s total amount of the tax evaded exceeds 28.6 billion won, and Defendant 2 offered a large amount of bribe of 2 billion won and 2.5 million US dollars upon Defendant 1’s request for cooperation in connection with Nonindicted Co. 1’s acquisition by Nonindicted Co. 3, which led to the success in the acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 1 in an unlawful manner, thereby achieving the purpose of the offering of a bribe, as well as obtaining profits much higher than the amount of the bribe granted, and Nonindicted Co. 11’s pro rata relationship with the former president and Cheong Dae-man and the Commissioner of the National Police Agency, etc. by providing a bribe of 28.6 billion won to the public who tried to eradicate the corruption of the public service society and eradicate the corruption of corruption and transit, and thus, Defendant 1 cannot be held liable for the severe punishment of Defendant 1, who was sentenced to punishment due to the negligence by many public officials, etc.

However, among the criminal facts of this case, tax evasion through the establishment of APC does not seem to have been the purpose of tax evasion because it occurred in the process of distributing net income to avoid the reduction pressure of the delivery price of the chip, and all the tax evasion amount revealed in the special tax investigation process in 2008 was paid in this case, and the fine for the tax evasion amount is required in this case, and the non-indicted 1 corporation awarded a bid price more than the expected bid price in △ City and did not incur damage to △ City due to the acquisition of the non-indicted 1 corporation, and led to the confession of most of the facts of the crime, and led to the confession of most of the facts of the crime in this case and the judgment of the related parties with 20 persons, which were faithful to the judgment of this case and 64 years old (in this case, the trial was conducted with the doctor and nurse facing the intermediary and facing the intermediate intermediate and with the high level of strength in the process of undergoing the investigation for a prolonged period of time due to severe mental harm, such as mental harm and shock, etc.

In addition to all other factors in the sentencing in this case, since the court below's punishment of 3 years and 6 months and 30 billion won, which the court below decided against Defendant 1, is deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable, the defendant 1's allegation of unfair sentencing is with merit.

(2) Defendant 3 and 4

Defendant 3 and 4 did not have any personal interest in the crime of interference with the tender of this case; they participated in the crime of interference with the tender of this case under the direction of the highest decision-making authority of the organization to which they belong; and in relation to competitors, they interfere with the fairness of bidding; however, although Nonindicted Co. 1 did not incur any loss due to the bid price higher than the scheduled bid price of △△, it shall be considered as a favorable circumstance to the above Defendants.

However, the crime of interference with bidding of this case is a matter of interest in which Nonindicted Co. 3, which was in a special relationship with Defendant 2, by unlawful means, made it possible for Nonindicted Co. 3 to take over Nonindicted Co. 1 Co., Ltd., a large bid price at KRW 154 billion, and made efforts to eradicate the confidence in fair competition of the competitors participating in the bidding and eradicate bid corruption, and is not highly likely to be subject to criticism.

In addition to all other factors in the sentencing in this case, the court below's sentence of one year and two years of suspended sentence as to Defendant 3 is within the proper scope of sentencing. However, from the standpoint of Nonindicted Co. 3, who wishes to take over the Nonindicted Co. 1, as it is reasonable to make an effort to take over the Nonindicted Co. 3 under favorable terms even if it is gold, it is not more likely that the possibility of criticism against Defendant 4 is greater than that of Defendant 3, and it is recognized that the sentence of one year and six months of imprisonment and three years of suspended sentence as set forth by the court below against Defendant 4 is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant 3’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit, and Defendant 4’s assertion of unfair sentencing is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 1, 2, and 4's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below against Defendant 5 and 6 is reversed ex officio as seen earlier, and the part of the judgment below against the above Defendants among the judgment below pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed, and it is again decided as follows. Defendant 3's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Except for Defendant 1, 2, and 4’s criminal facts and the summary of the evidence as indicated in the judgment of the court below, Paragraph 5 of this Article is deleted from among the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2, and the summary of the evidence as stated in the judgment of the court below is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, since Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is acceptable as it is, in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

A. Defendant 1: Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 7767 of Dec. 29, 2005); Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7767 of Dec. 29, 2005); Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9919 of Jan. 1, 2010); Article 8(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9919 of Jan. 1, 201); Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (each of the offering of a bribe; offering of a bribe to Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor; offering of a bribe to Defendant 2; offering of a bribe to Defendant 3);

B. Defendant 2: Articles 2(1)1, 4(1)2, and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 2 subparag. 48, and 3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (including each bribery; Defendant 1’s acceptance of bribe); Articles 315 and 30 (Interference with Tender; Selection of Imprisonment; Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant 4: Articles 315 and 30 (Interference with Tender and Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes and legal mitigation;

Defendant 2: The latter part of Article 37, Articles 39(1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act / [each of the crimes in the judgment of Defendant 2 and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) for which the judgment of November 30, 207 becomes final and conclusive]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1: Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to the imprisonment term prescribed by the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) due to a tax evasion in 2007 with the largest punishment and penalty), and the fine to be imposed concurrently on the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) shall be excluded from the application of Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes under the main sentence of Article 4 (1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010). Thus, a fine shall be separately imposed on each annual crime (Supreme Court Decision 94Do952, May 31, 1996).

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (only when a concurrent crime is committed with the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the acceptance of bribe from Defendant 1 with the largest punishment and criminal administration)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 1: Article 53, Article 55(1)3, and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act ( Taking into account the preceding favorable circumstances)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 1: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 4: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( Taking into account the favorable circumstances in the preceding part)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 2: Article 134 of the Criminal Act (In the case of a bribe received in US, applying the base rate of 1,160.50 won on December 31, 2009, which is close to the date of pronouncement of the judgment of this case)

2 billion won + ( US$ 2.5 million + US$ 2.3 million) ¡¿ 1,160.50 won = 5,168,165,00 won

1. Determination of fines against Defendant 1: As shown in the attached Form;

Defendant 2 received a bribe of KRW 2 billion and USD 2,50,000 in return for Defendant 1’s offering preferential treatment to Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 3 in connection with the sale of Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 1 in △△△, using his position, Defendant 2 received a bribe of KRW 2 billion in excess of KRW 5,000,000 in connection with Nonindicted Co. 40’s solicitation for the delivery of luminous, and received a bribe of KRW 2,30,000 in excess of KRW 5,00 in total. When receiving a bribe, it was detained as the case of bribery related to Nonindicted Co. 9, and was released as bail, and it was also a period until the appellate court is detained in the court.

However, in light of the fact that each of the crimes of this case was concurrent crimes with the crime of bribery related to Nonindicted Company 9 for which five years imprisonment has become final and conclusive, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Defendant 2 could have been tried at the same time, and comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing as indicated in this case, Defendant 2 shall be sentenced to the punishment as ordered.

Of the facts charged in this case against Defendant 2, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to five billion won water supply, the summary of the facts charged against Defendant 5 is as stated in the above 2. E. (1). The summary of the facts charged against Defendant 6 is as follows. Defendant 6 offered a bribe of five billion won to Defendant 2 and 5 as stated in the above 2.e. (3) and 2.f. on the same ground, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, Defendant 6 acquitted Defendant 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Judge)

(1) Defendant 5 also expressed “Non-Party 17, a corporation with which it has been placed,” (the foregoing evidence record 2/684 pages).

Note 2) On August 8, 2006, the trade name was changed from “Nonindicted 26 Co., Ltd.” to “Nonindicted 25 Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “Nonindicted 25 Co., Ltd.”) to “Nonindicted 25 Co., Ltd.”).

Note 3) However, there is a dispute as to whether the above KRW 1.7 billion is a loan for investment, or whether Defendant 5 is a principal debtor or a guarantor.

(4) The trial court ordered the prosecutor to review the legal relation in the case where Defendant 2’s public offering regarding the receipt of KRW 5 billion was not recognized on the third trial date, and whether to amend the indictments. However, the prosecutor explicitly expressed his intention not to amend the indictments on the fourth trial date, and further examined Nonindicted 21 on the fifth trial date by applying for evidence (the witness Nonindicted 21).