beta
Text
1. Of the judgment below, the guilty part concerning Defendant A, C, and B (including the innocent part in the grounds of appeal), Defendant E, F, and H.
Reasons
【Summary of Reasons for Appeal】
Ⅰ. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the remaining Defendants except Defendant G
1. Defendant A
A. Compared to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) An amount of KRW 68650,000,000,000, as listed in the [Attachment List of Crimes (1)] Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “N Savings Bank”) made the appearance of selling shares to the next buyer in order to conceal the loss in the process of purchasing non-listed shares and investing in the company, and made the appearance of selling shares to the next buyer in the name of the next buyer, and made the payment with the highest loan in the name of the next buyer. Since then, the next buyer continued to borrow the last loan in the future and repeated the purchase of the shares.
In 206, when the National Tax Service conducted the most recent loan listed in the table of crime (1) or 3 attached to the judgment of the court below and paid the gift tax as a substitute for the loan, when the gift tax was imposed on the next-name shareholder by deeming the above stocks as trust property and deeming the transfer of ownership to the next-name shareholder as a donation.
Therefore, this is not only embezzlement but also embezzlement, since the above loan is used for the business of the NF Savings Bank, it is not used individually, so the crime of embezzlement is not established because there is no intention of illegal acquisition.
B) While HA’s purchase of forest land and investment in the name of HA in 74,873,180 Nos. 5, 5, 5, 773, 180 in the attached list of crimes (1) of the lower judgment, it was delinquent in national taxes and seized the forest land from the National Tax Service in the National Tax Service, and it was paid the HA’s delinquent tax amount with the loan by implementing the most loan under the name of HA to avoid compulsory auction. Therefore, this is not an embezzlement, but it is not an embezzlement of temporary cash, and the above loan is not an individual use of the business of the NA bank, and thus, it does not constitute embezzlement as there is no intention of unlawful acquisition).