1. The degree of specification of the facts charged in the comprehensive one crime;

2. Requirements for establishing a deposit contract;

3. The gender of the co-principal of occupational embezzlement in cases where he/she illegally leaks bank deposits by gathering at a specified time and place, but not gathering them in sequence at cancer, in cooperation with each other;

4. The number of crimes of series of occupational embezzlements, the legal interests of which are a single and single criminal intent continuously created.

5. The validity of deposit acts contrary to the Banking Act or the Act on the Increase of savings and the support for workers’ property formation;

6. The meaning of the "illegal solicitation" in the crime of taking property in breach of trust;

7. Whether the procedure for preservation of evidence is lawful in cases where a statement is likely to be reversed by causing a change in the depth of the defendant's family life after his/her neighbors;

8. Whether the person in charge of affairs related to the acceptance of bribery is the requisite for the establishment of the crime of bribery.

9. Granting of money and expected amounts with the instruction of workplace employees;

1. For all-inclusive one crime, there is no need to indicate to the extent that it is possible to specify the individual acts constituting a part of one crime in detail, and the accused, i.e., the charges stated in the indictment by stating the time, completion period, place, total amount of damages, method of the crime, etc.

2. The deposit contract is established when a depositor provides a financial institution with money in expression of the intent of a deposit, and a financial institution obtains confirmation of the receipt of money according to its will, and even if an employee of a financial institution uses the money received to return it to another person, a legitimate deposit contract has been established between the bank and the depositor.

3. It is sufficient to recognize the fact that the bank’s agent received the money deposited by the customer and the seal and embezzled the deposit as an ordinary deposit, and then affixed the specified deposit procedure with the seal affixed to the deposit payment application form, and then embezzled the deposit by several ways such as withdrawing it at the same time. Since the business promoted by Gap after hearing the above facts from Gap, Eul used the money by requesting the continuous supply of the deposited money and then used the money, and if Byung became a member of Eul company upon Gap’s request and used the money directly for the surveillance of fund management or fund management, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that he was actively involved in the above recognized deposit embezzlement. Even if three persons were not gathered at a certain place at a certain time, they cannot escape from the business-related joint principal embezzlement as long as the business-related joint principal was comprehensively carried out under the intention of realizing the joint principal’s deposit which would be denied the bank deposit by mutual consent under the mutual relation.

4. Where the name of the crime is the same as the occupational embezzlement, and the legal interest is uniform as a Korean commercial bank, and the type of the deposit and the form of the criminal receipt of the criminal act is different depending on the type of deposit and the attitude of deposit principle, if the single criminal intent of deposit embezzlement continues to occur, it is justifiable to regard these so-called as a single crime of comprehensive occupational embezzlement.

5. The Banking Act or the Act on the Promotion of Savings and the Assistance to Workers’ Property Formation intends to ensure the smooth and efficient operation of internal automatic sources and contribute to the establishment of financial order, and acts contrary thereto are to disturb certain financial order. Therefore, it is intended to prohibit them from establishing financial order. However, it does not intend to deny the validity of deposits due to such violation.

6. Illegal solicitation in the crime of taking property in breach of trust is sufficient when there is a solicitation that goes against social rules or the principle of good faith.

7. Since it is difficult to see that there is a concern about the reversal of a statement by failing to appear in the court or by causing a change of the character after the day (A) in which a person who has assisted the defendant as the father or secretary of the defendant for a period of 16 years, who was in a human relationship with the defendant, who was on the part of the defendant, was on the part of the defendant, for the last 16 years, it is legitimate to preserve the evidence of the person who was

8. In light of the nature of the bribery, the legal interest of which is the process of public official’s duties and the trust in the society, it is reasonable to deem that the public official is in charge of the duties related to the bribery at the time of receipt of the bribe as long as the public official

9. Even if the act of giving money to a public official was conducted under the direction of a workplace company, it cannot be deemed that there was an inevitable circumstance where it was impossible to expect the public official to oppose the act of offering money other than the offering of a bribe.

1. Articles 111, 532, and 702 of the Criminal Procedure Act of February 2, 254, Articles 30, 356, and 356 of the Criminal Act of March 3, 200, Articles 37 and 356 of the Criminal Act of April 4, 356, Article 103 of the Civil Act of June 7, 2003 of the Criminal Act of Article 129 of the Criminal Act of Article 129 of the Criminal Act of September 8, 200, Article 129 of the Criminal Act of Article 129 of the Criminal Act, Article 29 of the Banking Act, Article 38 of the Act on Savings Increase and Assistance to Workers’ Property

Supreme Court Decision 4294Do646 delivered on April 12, 1962 (see Article 254 (14) of the Criminal Procedure Act), 67Do166 delivered on October 22, 1968 (see Article 254 (14) of the Criminal Procedure Act), 67Do1666 delivered on May 28, 1974 (see Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act), 73Da1538 delivered on May 28, 1974, Article 19 (1) 184DaKa10720 delivered on February 22, 1975, Article 75Do1680 delivered on November 11, 1975 (see Article 702 (1) of the Civil Act), Article 75Da1224 delivered on April 16, 197; Article 78Da16484 delivered on April 13, 1984).

Defendant 1 and 19 others

Prosecutor and Defendants

Seoul Criminal District Court (83 High Court Decision 875, 876, 995 (Joint Court Decision) and 84 Highest 1653)

Of the lower judgment, the part against Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and the part against Defendant 11 shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant 1’s imprisonment of 15 years and fine 7,930,000,00 won, Defendant 2 and 3’s imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, Defendant 4, and 5’s imprisonment of 1 year and 5 years, Defendant 6, and 7’s imprisonment of 5 years, Defendant 8’s fine of 3,910,00,000 won, Defendant 11’s fine of 5,00,000 won, Defendant 9, and 10 each fine of 50,000,000 won.

When Defendant 1 does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 10,000,000 won into one day.

Of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 130 days for Defendant 1, 115 days for Defendant 2, and 3, and 120 days for Defendant 4, 5, 6, and 7, respectively, shall be included in the above imprisonment (Provided, That with respect to Defendant 1, the above imprisonment).

The sum totaling KRW 9,345,000 from Defendant 4 to Defendant 5, and KRW 81,869,400 from Defendant 6, and KRW 53,702,00 from Defendant 7 shall be collected respectively.

Defendant 11’s illegal deduction of value-added tax for the first term of 1982 by the Company shall be acquitted.

Defendant 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 each appeal by Defendant 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 and the

The 110 days out of the number of days of confinement prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be included in the sentence of the original instance against Defendant 12.

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal

For convenience, the grounds for appeal by the Defendants concerned should be divided into occupational embezzlement and aiding and abetting, receipt of bribe, bribery and grant, violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the Building Act, the Tourism Act, the Natural Parks Act and the Forestry Act, and the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act.

1. The part concerning the occupational embezzlement of Defendants 1 and 12 and 2

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

(1) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel;

The first point is that the crime of occupational embezzlement was conducted for a long time and each act is not close, and the amount of acquisition by each of the defendants is different depending on the time of embezzlement, and the act is identical to the same crime. Even if the method is similar, each act must be specified in such a case. In such a case, the details of the charge should be specified in detail. In the case of joint principal offender, at least the public offering and the contents of the act should be specified. According to the indictment of this case, the first defendant 12 conspired to embezzled the bank deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000 to be embezzled in any way at any time, and there is no specific statement as to when the first defendant 12 was committed, and the amount of acquisition by each of the defendants is not clear, and the deposit owner is not identical to the defendant 12 who committed the act of embezzlement, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the money was given to the defendant 12, who committed the act of embezzlement and the method of embezzlement or embezzlement of checks, etc., and it cannot be viewed as a specific method of embezzlement or embezzlement.

According to the evidence adopted by the court below based on conviction, it is merely true that the statements made by the court below and the prosecutor's office of 12 out of this part of the facts charged are true. Each statement made by the court below and the prosecutor's office of 1 and 2 out of this part of the facts charged is denied, and the facts charged are that the court below and the prosecutor's office of 2 and 3 have stated about the transaction amount. The statements made by the deposit owners as witnesses are limited to the part related to the bank's deposit, and since the court below and the prosecutor's office of 1 and the defendant 2 did not know that the bank's act of acquiring the above 12, 1, 3, and the witness's act of selling the above 10-year bonds and the defendant 1 did not appear to have obtained the above 10-year loan's own funds as collateral, it is clear that the court below's judgment of 200-year loan broker and the defendant 1 had the above 20-year loan broker's own funds as well as the above 10-year loan.

Although Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's participation time were different in Defendant 12's crime, it cannot be viewed as a joint principal offender of occupational embezzlement, which is a comprehensive crime, even if Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's participation time was found guilty of domestic affairs, the court below's judgment is regarded as a single principal offense without 3 minutes, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of reasoning.

(2) Summary of Defendant 12’s appeal

Since a bond manager who acts as an agent or has ever been assigned to the defendant at the same time or at the same time with a view to the difference between interest on bonds and bank deposit interest rate, the original purpose of the fund management is to create a false deposit account issued under the name of the defendant, to which the defendant impliedly delegate the disposition of the fund management, to which the defendant was replaced by an advance promise change from the bond manager, and to which the defendant was given a thorough education, and to which 5.2 billion won was charged to the defendant at the same time as the defendant's business group regardless of specific duties, the 5.3 billion won was returned to the preceding owner through the bond manager through the bond manager, and 1.8 billion won was left at the same time as the bond manager's first time in the process of leaving the bank's interest and bank deposit interest, and as such, the court below obtained a simple disclosure of the fund to the defendant's 1 who used the fund for the purpose of using the fund more than 1.2 billion won as the defendant's new financial accident was found to have been closed by the defendant 1.

(3) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2’s defense counsel

The first point is that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged in the protocol of indictment in which the defendant conspireds to commit the occupational embezzlement, and even though it is clear that the time of participation and the amount of embezzlement are not specified at all, the first point is that the court below's judgment is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of the facts charged in the protocol of indictment.

The second point is that the evidence as shown in the facts charged against the defendant is limited to the statement at the investigative agency and the court of the court below as well as the defendant 12's investigative agency and the court of the court below's trial. The second point is that the defendant was aware of the contents of the crime by the defendant 12 or that the bank funds came into reputation, and if the investigative agency did not have any remuneration or any agreement on interest corresponding to the wall for the crime, it cannot be concluded that the defendant was recruited based on it. However, it cannot be concluded that the defendant 12 was recruited by the defendant. However, even though the defendant 12 was aware of the fact that the defendant 12 borrowed the money of the bond company against the bank to the defendant 1 and obtained the difference, it is nothing more than that of the defendant 1 and the defendant 12, and it is nothing more than that of aiding and abetting, the commercial defendant 1's workplace company, and the defendant's defendant 1's defendant 1's defendant 1's defendant 1's judgment.

The third point is that it was an opportunity for Defendant 12 to make a pro-friendly payment by concluding an agenda with Defendant 12 to become a member of the (title omitted) group, and thus, it was only allowed to use it thoroughly to Defendant 12 and Defendant 1. Therefore, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that no benefit was obtained, and that there was no benefit from it, and that the sentence of the court below is excessive, and thus, it is likely that the disposition would be biased.

B. Determination on the grounds for the above appeal

(1) As Defendant 1’s defense counsel and defense counsel’s first ground for appeal are examined, first of all, the original indictment and the statement of changes in indictment received by the court below on December 17, 1983, and the prosecutor’s explanation on the fifth public trial date, it is clear that the prosecutor prosecuted Defendant 1, 12, and 2 for an all-inclusive one crime of occupational embezzlement. In all-inclusive one crime, it is not necessary to specify the specific method of indictment to the extent that each of the acts constituting one crime is lawful, and there is no specific method of public prosecution, such as the time, time, place, total amount of damages, and method of the crime, and the facts charged, namely, the prosecutor’s statement on the indictment, which stated that Defendant 1 took part in the indictment by stating that Defendant 2 took part in the indictment was legitimate, and that there is no specific method of public prosecutor’s participation in the indictment at the time and place of public prosecution by the court below on December 16, 197.

(2) We examine the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel, the grounds for appeal by Defendant 12’s defense counsel, and the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2’s defense counsel.

일반적으로 예금계약은 예금자가 예금의 의사를 표시하면서 금융기관에 금전을 제공하고 금융기관이 그 의사에 따라서 그 금전을 받아서 확인을 하면 그로써 예금계약은 성립한다고 할 것이고( 대법원 1977. 4. 26. 선고, 74다646 판결 참조), 예금주가 은행창구에서 담당직원에게 예금할 의사를 표명하면서 금원을 제공하여 예금증서를 교부받았으나 그 직원이 은행의 업무과정에 따른 입금절차를 밟지 아니하고 이를 착복, 타에 유용하였다 할지라도 은행과 예금주 사이에는 적법한 예금계약이 성립되었다 할 것인바( 대법원 1975. 11. 11. 선고, 75다1224 판결 참조), 돌이켜 이 사건에 관하여 원심이 적법하게 조사 채택한 관계증거들을 종합 검토하여 보면, 전주들이 소정의 은행금리 외의 사채이자 상당의 차금이 있다하여 공소외 1, 4등 사채업자들의 소개로 상업은행 혜화동지점에 직접 나오거나 또는 심부름꾼을 보내면 창구에 제공되는 금원의 규모와 60일 내지 90일짜리 통장식 통지 또는 정기예금을 하러 왔다는 식의 표현으로 알아차린 동 지점 대리인 피고인 12가 직접 창구에 나서거나 또는 동 피고인으로부터 평소 지시를 받아 특별취급을 할 줄 알고 있는 창구 여직원 공소외 5 또는 피고인 13에 의하여 금원이 확인 수납되고, 은행업무가 전산화되어 단말기에 의해 예금통장이 기장 처리되고 있었으나, 1980. 1.경 통지예금마저 온 · 라인화되자 예금액을 손으로 기입한 이른바 수기식 통지 또는 정기예금통장이 교부되어온 사실을 인정하기에 충분하므로 이로써 그때마다 예금계약은 성립되었다 할 것이고, 전산화 이후 수기식으로 작성된 예금통장의 효력을 부인할 근거를 일건기록과 관계 법령을 정사하여 보아도 찾아 볼 수 없으며, 1979. 4.경부부터 동년 8.경까지는 공소외 1을 통하여 조성되는 금원을 보통예금으로, 그 이후부터는 공소외 4등을 통하여 조성되는 금원을 통지예금으로 취급해오다 1979. 9.경 은행업무가 전산화됨에 따라 통장식 통지예금으로 취급하였고, 1982. 6.경 통지예금이 폐지되자 통장식 정기예금으로 취급해온 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 한편으로 피고인 12는 그간 동 지점에서 담당업무를 바꾸어 맡아온 사실이 인정되나, 거액의 영동자금이 동 피고인을 통하여 예금으로 유치되고 있는 것으로 안 지점장이, 동 지점예금 제고실적을 감안하여 동 피고인의 담당업무와 관계없이 직접 취급함을 양해한 사정이 엿보일 뿐더러, 동 지점 지배인인 지점장의 권한을 포괄적으로 대리 행사하는 직책인 지점장대리의 직위에는 변함이 없었으므로 논지가 지적하는 바와 같이 예컨대 당좌계를 담당하면서 정기예금을 수납취급하였다 하여도 그 예금계약의 효력에 아무런 영향이 없다 할 것이고, 따라서 은행지점장 대리의 신분으로서 동 예금액을 인출착복할 경우 업무상횡령의 죄책을 짐이 분명하다 할 것이다. 나아가 전시증거들에 의하면, 1979. 4.경 피고인 12가 공소외 1로부터 금 3,000만 원과 인장을 교부받아 보통예금으로서 소정의 예입절차를 이천한 후 예금지급청구서에 동인몰래 날인하여 전액 인출하는 방법으로 이를 인출착복함을 시초로 범의 계속하여 동인 또는 공소외 4등의 소개로 찾아오는 예금주들을 맞아 거래신청서, 입금전표 작성등에 의한 통상의 입금절차를 이천함이 없이 그들이 제공하는 예금을 그래도 착복하거나 정상절차에 따른 입금절차를 밟은후 은행을 위하여 보관관리하면서 거래원장을 취소시키고 즉시 인출하는등 예금의 종류와 예금주의 태도 등에 따라 원심판시와 같은 여러가지 방법을 적절히 구사하며 1983. 7.말경까지 도합 106,650,758,000원을 횡령하고, 창구에서 교부받은 금원 또는 인출해낸 금원을 동 피고인의 별도 비축구좌에 입금시켜 두고 나서, 후에 예금주 명의로 제출된 거래신청서의 금액난에 100만 원을 기입해 넣고 이에 맞추어 예금주명의로 100만 원만을 정상 입금시키되 별도의 통장을 만들지 아니하고 이미 예금주에게는 전산처리에 의해 타점포에서의 조회가 불가능하게끔, 수기식 예금통장이 교부된 터이므로 동 지점에서 관리하는 예금통장 발급대장상의 숫자를 맞추는 한편 이자지급이나 예금해약시 인감대조의 편의와 동 피고인의 비망의 목적에도 부합하는 수법으로서 입금전표와 통장이 동시에 들어가면 확인없이 무조건 예입금액이 기장 처리되어 나오는 단말기의 허점을 이용하여 동 피고인이 별도 관리하는 통장에 연속적으로 예입금액이 찍히게 해두는 방법등에 의하여 은행과 예금주에게 횡령사실을 장기간 은폐해온 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 한편 전시증거들에 의하면, 피고인 1은 공소외 28 회사대표로서 그의 처인 피고인 20 명의로 1979. 3.경 동 지점에 개설된 당좌예금구좌관계로 알게 된 피고인 12에게, 사업자금의 조달을 부탁해오던차, 1979. 4.경 동 피고인으로부터 3,000만 원을 교부받는 자리에서 위 돈이 예금주의 예금을 부정인출 횡령한 것임을 설명듣고서도 추진하는 사업이 성공하면 인출금원을 입금시켜 범행을 은폐할 수 있으리라는 판단으로 그와 같은 자금의 계속적인 공급을 부탁하고, 피고인 2는 피고인 12의 중학교 후배로서 같은 은행에 근무하게 된 인연으로 친숙하게 되고, 원래 축구선수로서 은행업무가 적성에 맞지 않던차, 1980. 1.경 피고인 12의 부탁을 받아 동 지점을 그만두고 피고인 1의 자금운용을 감시하기 위하여 동 피고인 경영의 (명칭 생략)칸트리클럽에 입사 취업하다가, 1980. 4.경 (명칭 생략)그룹 본사에 전입하면서부터 위 공동피고인들이 은행예금을 빼돌려 (명칭 생략)그룹의 사업자금으로 쓰고 있는 사실을 알면서, 매일같이 동 지점에 출입하면서 교환결제자금 및 사업소요자금을 피고인 12에게 알리고, 그로부터 부정인출한 자금을 동 지점에 개설된 그룹계열회사 구좌를 통하여 전달받아, 마치 그룹계열자금인 양 가장하여, 동 지점으로 교환되어 오는 결제부족분을 충당하고, 피고인 1의 자금사용이 방만하여지자, 1982. 6.경부터는 동 피고인의 인감과 어음, 수표책을 인계받아 직접 자금관리에 나서는 등의 역할을 하는등 위 인정의 예금횡령범행에 적극 관여한 사실을 인정하기에 충분하고, 피고인 12, 1 및 피고인 2 3인이 일정한 일시에 일정한 장소에서 집합하여 모의한 바는 없었다 할지라도 위와 같은 상호관계하에서 암묵리에 서로 협력하여 은행예금을 부정유용할 공동의 범의를 실현하려는 의사 상통하에 포괄적으로 상호 동심일체가 되어 피고인 12에 의하여 이건 예금인출이 자행된 이상, 공동정범으로서 업무상횡령의 죄책을 면할 수 없다 할 것이다.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 12's statement at the court below and the court of the first instance stated that all of the preceding owners' waiting bonds procured from Defendant 12 were invested in the funds of the (title omitted) group operated by Defendant 1, and that the Act on the Assistance to Workers' Property Formation (Act No. 2890) was enforced only for convenience, but there are cases where the money is paid to the deposit owner by the financial institution or the lending business operator for reasons other than the specified interest rate in addition to the specified interest rate, it can be seen that there were 3 cases such as fact-finding at the court of the court below's 20th court's 3rd and the above 2nd 3rd 6th 6th 6th 6th 3rd 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 14th 14th 14th 14th 2nd 6th 2nd 14th 2nd 2nd 14th 2nd 2nd 2014th 2nd 14.

(3) We examine Defendant 1’s attorney’s third ground of appeal. The crime of this case duly recognized by the court below is identical to occupational embezzlement. Damage legal interest is a Korean commercial bank, and even if there are differences in the type of deposit and the attitude of the criminal law, the single criminal intent of embezzlement of deposit continuously occurred. Thus, since Defendant 12 embezzled KRW 30 million from April 1979 until the end of July 1983, since the embezzlement of KRW 106,650,758,000 as above, Defendant 1 did not accept the remaining amount of 106,620,758,000 won excluding the first 30,000 won, and Defendant 1 did not have any error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the joint principal embezzlement of KRW 106,600,758,000,000 as well as the joint principal embezzlement of KRW 98,985,989.98,000.

(4) Examining the three grounds for appeal by Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s three grounds for appeal, the circumstances of their arguments, and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records of the case, there are reasons to discuss this point on the ground that the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below against the said defendant is too unreasonable because the amount of the sentence imposed by the said defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The part concerning aiding and abetting Defendant 13 and Defendant 3’s occupational embezzlement

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

(1) Summary of Defendant 13’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal

The first point is that the criminal facts of the defendant, recognized by the court below, aiding and abetting the act of occupational embezzlement of Co-defendant 12. Thus, the issue of whether the defendant's so-called crime is a crime of embezzlement is premised on whether the crime of the defendant 12, who is the principal offender, constitutes the crime of embezzlement. It is assumed that the bond manager, who is a separate bond interest interest interest, is issued, and the deposit ledger is not deposited in the deposit ledger, and the deposit contract between the former and the commercial bank is not established in light of the characteristics of the money transaction, such as the fact that all related persons are aware that they are abnormal transactions. Furthermore, even if the deposit contract was approved as a external form of the domestic deposit contract, the deposit passbook was prepared in conspiracy with the bank agent, intermediary and the defendant 12, and the deposit contract was made with the intention of the defendant 12, and the former is traded with the interest rate of the above situation and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the formation of the bonds and the increase of the company's assets, or it did not violate the legal principles.

No. 2 is unreasonable in light of the overall circumstances such as the characteristics of the banking organization and the status of female employees at the bank, the circumstances and degree of participation in the crime of this case, and the fact that there was no benefit or remuneration from this, etc.;

(2) Summary of each of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 3 and his defense counsel

Since Co-Defendant 12 delivered money to the hospital by traffic accident around April 1980, the first place is that the defendant was familiarly aware of the fact that he was admitted to the hospital, and that he was able to receive cases of discount or loan brokerage, and that he did not know of the fact that he was able to receive any case of brokerage fees, since he was found around September of the same year, he was in need of finding and dealing with C/P bills, and entered the commercial bank beneficial interest branch from around October of the same year, but at that time, the head of the branch was well aware of the results of attracting large deposits by Defendant 12, and the head of the branch was more aware of the fact that he was able to assist the employees to maintain thoroughly security by emphasizing that he was a special fund for corporate bonds, and thus, he was able to comply with the above legal principles, such as embezzlement of money and embezzlement of money by the defendant from around 10, 197, and thus, the court below did not know the above fact that he was not aware of other employees' access to the company.

The second point is that in light of the fact that the social wave of this case is big, the second point is that the role of the defendant who was only used by the defendant 12 was excessively exaggerated, and that the sentence of the court below, which is too unreasonable, is too excessive to the defendant who is against the good's personality and character or mistake that has been cut off to the neighbor and society, and against the defendant who has not been able to be able to do so.

B. Determination on the grounds for the above appeal

(1) Defendant 13’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal were examined as follows: (a) prior to the argument that denies the establishment of a deposit contract between the former and the former Commercial Bank; and (b) prior to the argument that Defendant 13’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal would be rejected for the same reason; (b) even if the records of the case were to be drawn up, prior to the fact-finding, Defendant 12’s motive for this case’s deposit was for the following purposes, there is no evidence to readily conclude that Defendant 12 conspired with the bonds company among the private individuals was a bond transaction using only the bank counter without the intention of deposit funds; and (b) the Banking Act or the Act on Assistance in the Increase in Savings and Workers’ Property Formation is sufficient to ensure efficient operation and contribute to the establishment of financial order; and (c) contrary to the purpose of establishing the financial order, it does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Establishment of Financial Order, or an act of embezzlement or an act of violation of the Act on the Establishment of Financial Order through the examination of the facts in question.

(2) Examining the record on the first ground for appeal by Defendant 3 and his defense counsel, and the related evidence adopted by the court below were examined in comparison with the record. From March 1979, the defendant came to know that the defendant had access to the above Hymodong branch from the first instance court of Gomobu, who was in contact with Defendant 12 while handling deposit relations, and that he was using the deposit money of Nonindicted 1 on July of the same year. From September of the same year, it is difficult for Defendant 12 to do so, since it was difficult for Defendant 12 to do so, it was difficult for Defendant 12 to do so, and it was from that point of time at that point of time upon request of the above employees to prevent access by the employees, it is sufficient to recognize that other employees were able to have been exposed to a large amount of damage to the security of the employees, and that the defendant 12 and the vice head of the court below did not know that the deposit money of Defendant 1 and the vice head of the court below was missing.

(3) Examining all circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records of the case, with regard to the assertion of unfair sentencing, each of the second points, the court below did not think that the determination of the sentence imposed by the defendant against the defendant was inappropriate because the defendant 13's defense counsel is too inappropriate and too unreasonable, even though considering the circumstances under which the defendant 13's defense counsel issues, the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant 3 is considered to be inappropriate because the sentence imposed by the court below against

3. The part as to the receipt of a bribe in breach of trust by Defendants 4, 5, and 12

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

(1) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 4 and his defense counsel

Around April 1980, the Defendant discovered the illegal withdrawal of the deposits by Co-Defendant 12, and then tried to take care of the case by making efforts to prevent the public trust and good faith of the Bank in order to prevent the transfer to the principal office until August of the same year. However, even though Defendant 12 had obtained financial conveniences that occurred more than twice before and after Defendant 12, such as the time of original adjudication, the Defendant was unable to pay the principal by asking his interest on his own money in lieu of his own money, even though he was unable to collect the money so far from the debtor who did so, and was not exempted from the liability as an implied consideration for the illegal acts discovered as above, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and there was an error of misapprehending the legal principles on the exemption of liability, and by misapprehending the legal principles on the exemption of liability.

The second point is that the sentence of the court below is excessive and unfair in light of the overall circumstances, such as the motive for the crime of this case, where the defendant served as an exemplary officer over 23 years to the position of the vice head, and where the defendant has served in good faith as a result of the 23-year model, and where the defendant's body was to prevent any damage to a bank with less body and to remain silent at the end of the trial

(2) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 5 and defense counsel

The first point is that the court below's judgment that the above group's trading results and the above group's trading rights were received in early June 1980, and that the first point is that the defendant was not aware of the act of embezzlement of deposits and illegal withdrawals, and that the defendant was not provided as a case to the defendant's non-indicted 2's request for this act. However, on April 1980, the court below found that the first point was replaced with the second point of view that the above group's trading results and the defendant's credibility as bank members, and that the above group's employees were not trusted to the above group's trading and the second point of view that it was against the rules of the Bank's customer's trust, and that the court below's judgment that the above group's trading results and the defendant's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's name.

The second point is that the Defendant, as a financial person for a period of 20 years, has been engaged in exemplary work with a sense of duty, has been instructed to the extent that he is unable to lead a prison life, and the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 5, who is related to the Defendants, is excessively unreasonable in view of the balance of sentencing with the Defendants 4 and Nonindicted 5.

(3) The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 12’s attorney is that the delivery of the defendant to Defendant 4 and Defendant 5, who is a commercial person, was not granted during the course of occupational embezzlement. Since it was intended to conceal the falsity of the handbook, it cannot be subject to the crime of giving property in breach of trust, the court below did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the motive, circumstance, etc. of giving property in breach of trust and affected the judgment.

(4) Summary of the grounds for appeal against the prosecutor's defendant 4 and defendant 5

In light of the fact that Defendant 12’s disclosure of each of the above rules or criminal acts by Defendant 12, but it was easy to find the same person’s money and valuables, thereby causing a sudden damage to a commercial bank, which has to be raised, and the bank’s social responsibility, which requires high level of ethics and integrity, is prevented. However, even though the bank’s social responsibility for the centering of the modern credit society requiring high level of ethics and integrity, it was offered money and valuables from his subordinate employee for implied consideration, the court below’s excessive sentence against the said Defendants is unreasonable.

B. Determination on the grounds for the above appeal

(1) The defendant 4 and his defense counsel's first point of appeal is the position of supervising the business of the branch office by assisting the head office of the bank. The defendant, who had been the vice-head of the above-dong branch office, has the duty to report to the head of the branch office of the above 12 and to devise appropriate measures on the ground that the defendant's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 8's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1'8'

Therefore, the court below recognized that the defendant violated his duties and received the benefit of the discharge of the obligation provided under the illegal implied trust from the defendant 12, and there is no error of law as pointed out in the court below's charge of taking property in breach of trust.

(2) The defendant 5 and his defense counsel's first ground for appeal are higher than that of the defendant 12, as the vice head of the above beneficiary-dong branch, and the defendant also discovered violations of the regulations in the bank, such as the time of original adjudication of the defendant 12, a subordinate employee of the above beneficiary-dong branch, and reported the fact to the head of the branch office, and there is a duty to take measures such as identifying facts through customer information inquiry if requested to verify the contents of the deposit deposit. In light of the records, the court below's examination of the relevant evidence adopted by the court below in comparison with the records, the defendant 12 is fair in finding that the defendant 12 has already embezzled large amount of bank deposits at the time of the first above fact-finding, and it is hard to recognize that the defendant's improper solicitation was made in relation to the above provision because it is against the principle of trust and good faith and thus, it is hard to find that the defendant's property's above solicitation has been made in favor of the defendant's property or trust without any further opinion.

(3) In full view of Defendant 12’s grounds for appeal, and all relevant evidence of the adoption of the lower court, it is sufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s crime of giving rise to breach of trust, and there is no other error in the lower court’s fact-finding or legal application, and it is without merit.

(4) Examining the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 5 by each of the defendants 4 and 5, and all of the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, the lower court’s determination of the sentence imposed on the said defendants is deemed to be too somewhat somewhat somewhat somewhat less somewhat unreasonable, and thus, the said defendants’ objection is reasonable, while the prosecutor’s argument is groundless.

4. The part concerning the acceptance of bribe by Defendant 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, and 17 and the offering of bribe by Defendant 1, 18, and 19

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

(1) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 6’s defense counsel

The first point is that the defendant was guilty of the facts charged even though he was aware of the fact that Co-defendant 1 received any money other than US dollars 10,000 which he transferred prior to leaving the European order, and that he was ordered to immediately return the golf course and contact membership rights through his secretary Nonindicted 10 through his secretary Nonindicted 10. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged. However, even if the defendant 1's investigative agency and the court below's testimony adopted based on the finding of guilt was delivered to the Dong, it was not found that the check was delivered to 60,000 won, and it is difficult for the Dong to obtain the above statements about the reasons that he acquired prior to the issuance of the above check, and the court below did not have credibility, and it did not have any other credibility or credibility, and it did not have any responsibility for the defendant's own testimony or credibility as evidence, and it did not have any other facts that the prosecutor's testimony was prepared in violation of the purpose of the system, and it did not have any responsibility for the defendant's own testimony and credibility.

The second point is that even if domestic facts are recognized, the acceptance of money and valuables at the time of the original judgment is not related to the defendant's duties, and the money received as a policeman on June 1, 1982 in the judgment of the court below was after retirement from the office of the Minister of Construction and Transportation on May 1982, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements of the crime of bribery as to the whole facts charged.

The third point is that the sentence of the court below is excessive and unfair in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the 30-year service in the military and has contributed to the development of the nation through a lot of public services and air force Chief, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, etc.

(2) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 7 and his defense counsel

The first point is that the defendant did not receive a check as a bribe related to his duties. However, when he strongly rejected the examination of the defendant in the construction division, he was transferred to the vice president of the Korea National Housing Corporation, and the golf course membership right is merely a change of name upon request of the Dong from among the members of the golf course (title omitted) golf course, which is a telegraph of the golf course, but the court below erred in finding facts as it is in violation of the rules of evidence in the protocol of indictment. In other words, the defendant's statement prepared by the court below, which was adopted as evidence of conviction, is prepared as if it were in violation of the rules of evidence in the investigation agency's illegal confinement under the illegal confinement. The suspect examination of the defendant in the construction division was prepared under the continuous state such as suppression, and the designation of the construction tourism and recreation division was not discretionary, and it was made public after consultation with the related agencies, but it was not possible for the defendant to make a report on the fact that there was no credibility of the construction division's official duties and the evidence of the court below's decision that it had not been made.

The second point is that even if the defendant was guilty of domestic affairs, the acceptance of each of the money and valuables can not be a single comprehensive crime in light of the time and circumstances, duty relationship, etc., and there is a substantive concurrent relation. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes committed by misapprehending the applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Crimes Act") and applying the law accordingly.

The third point is that the sentence of the court below is unreasonable in light of the circumstances such as the fact that a construction official is a public official and faithfully entrusted with the duties for 22 years as an independent source of national land planning-related work.

(3) Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 14

The first point was already determined and announced by the Construction Division No. 42, Jan. 30, 1981, which was the plan for installing cable cables between Gunlsan's company and No. 13 auditors of the (name omitted) group, who entered the natural park in which the defendant belongs, and when the defendant company applied for the installation plan to the Jeonnam branch around November of the same year as part of the implementation of a park project, the administrative measure which was finally permitted by the Minister of Construction and Transportation on March 17, 1982, which was consistent with the above public notice, is not just the contents of the above public notice, but also the fact that the defendant received 14-year amount from the non-indicted 13 auditors of the (name omitted) group, who entered the natural park in which the defendant belonged to the natural park in question, and the fact that the court below did not have any error in the rules of evidence preparation as to the remainder of the suspect interrogation plan, which was written by the prosecutor as evidence against the defendant.

The second point is that the sentence of the court below is unreasonable in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case and the amount of money received and the purpose of use, etc.

(4) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 15

The first point is that the defendant received KRW 50,000 each 50,000 won from Defendant 18 to the vice president of the (title omitted), but this is merely a fact that the Dong, who was in common and well-friendly, received the expenses of the office, and did not receive specific solicitation for offering convenience in the course of the approval of the business plan for the Gisan Tourist Hotel business. The guidance and supervision of the golf course, which was delegated to each City/Do on July 20, 1976, was much more than before the defendant received the money, and was not in the position of offering the convenience of the defendant, who is the chief of the traffic division, regardless of the fact that the court below determined the defendant as a crime of bribery, and was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on job relationship, which constitutes the elements of the crime of bribery, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, was not in the position of offering the convenience of the judgment.

The second point is that the sentence of the court below is excessive in light of the circumstances such as that the second point was already removed from office as a result of the end of the 22-year salary period, and that the depth of the prison life over 4 months has been reflected in the prison life.

(5) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 16

(The grounds for appeal by the counsel are examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds for appeal by the counsel after the lapse of the period for submission)

The first point is from 14 to 1982 from 14 of the first place of the first place of the above Group, which was known as a courtesy gift with only 100,000 won at the actual market price in September 1982, which was the only 100,000 won of the first place of the first place of the above Group, and the first day and three times before and after the first day of the first instance trial. Although it was sufficiently revealed by all evidence that it was going to work in the business consultation or educational training vehicle, Seoul and the second place of the judgment that received, the first place of the first place of the first place of the above Group was prepared in the suppression atmosphere, and it was proved that the defendant was guilty of the facts charged, and it was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements of the crime of bribery by admitting the remaining facts, and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the elements of the crime of bribery.

The second point is that the second point is a public official for 24 years, who has served in good faith while serving as a public official, and has been recognized as having contributed to various marks, and the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances, such as the family form, etc., which is considered as the breath sentence.

(6) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 17

Although the court of first instance received money from Defendant 18 on two occasions from the above group executive officers, this was known to the effect that the defendant was able to know that he was able to know that he was able to take care of the working mine situation of employees who were extremely open to the end of the year or employees mobilized to carry out local maintenance and repair work, and he was able to take part in the purchase cost of meal expenses and scrap, and that he was able to take part in the purchase cost of meal expenses and scrap, and was not provided under the solicitation related to the defendant's duties, the court below recognized the defendant as a crime of bribery, and therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of bribery.

The second point is that taking into account the circumstances of the court below, such as the process and place of receiving this money, and the fact that the second point is faithfully engaged in one-way administrative officer over the period of 22 years, and the fact that the second point is trying to take a more favorable measure than the court below.

(7) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 18

In light of the overall circumstances, such as the circumstance that the defendant completed military service in good faith for 18 years until he was transferred to the Army Order, and the defendant 1, the chairperson of the above group, was merely delivered money and valuables to the relevant public officials, the sentence of the court below is excessive, and therefore, he is in tolerance.

(8) Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 19

The first point is that the defendant is not directly involved in the company's business operation as a director in charge of planning the headquarters (name omitted) and the defendant is merely a sealed envelope with the commercial defendant 1 or the non-indicted 15 who is a public official under the instruction of the defendant 1 or the defendant 18, and the first point is that the contents are delivered to the non-indicted 16, and the second point is nothing more than that of the first place, and that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements of the crime of mistake of facts or the crime of bribery and the ability to assume responsibility, in the case where the court below concluded that the defendant who was not likely to expect legitimate acts in the circumstances of the organized society

The second point is that the sentence of the court below is excessive and unfair in light of the circumstances of the crime of this case.

(9) Summary of the grounds for appeal on this part of Defendant 1’s defense counsel;

Although the defendant made his employees to co-defendant 6, 7, 43, 15, and 14, he donated several money and valuables to co-defendant 6, 7, 43, 15, and 14, this is merely a donation within the private school scope, and his duties are no more closely related to the defendant's business and there is no further relation with the defendant's direct or close relation with the defendant's business, and the defendant 6, who left the Minister of Construction and Transportation, received guidance and encouragement as to the direction of the ordinary school business, cannot be a bribe. However, the court below acknowledged the defendant as the crime of offering a bribe without sufficient deliberation on the defendant's business contents and the duty of the above defendants, and recognized the defendant as it is, without any evidence, by putting emphasis on the receipt of money and valuables only on the defendant's money and valuables

(10) Summary of the grounds for appeal against the Prosecutor’s Defendant 6 and Defendant 7;

Defendant 6, who was in charge of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, has a position to take a initiative in the government's will to achieve a clean public service society, but he has been harshed and pushed down with Defendant 1, while continuously pushing ahead of his seled business, and in consideration of the facts of this case which accepted a large amount of bribe exceeding KRW 80,000,00 in return, and the attitude of denying the amount of money and valuables received as a result of a large amount of bribe exceeding KRW 80,000,000, in depth, the sentence of the court below is more light, and Defendant 7 also has a position to actively use the national land use plan for a long period of time in the high public service called the Director General of the National Land Planning Bureau, and even if he is in a position to respond to the needs of social purification, he is not aware of the plan to use the national land, and in light of the fact that Defendant 1 is the person with authority to resolve his duties, he does not seem to be able to accept all the circumstances and information of the court below in consideration of the prescribed procedure and its opinion.

B. Determination on the grounds for the above appeal

(1) Defendant 6’s defense counsel’s first ground for appeal is examined, for a period of 16 years, and it is difficult to see that Non-Indicted 10, who has been in human relations with the defendant as assistant or secretary, was absent in the court after the last day, or caused minor changes and thus, it is likely to reverse the statement. Thus, the procedure for the preservation of evidence is legitimate, and it is consistent with the statements made by the prosecutor at the prosecutor’s request and the contents in the above procedure, and it is consistent with the statements made by the defendant as witness at the same time and the prosecutor’s own testimony and the protocol of statement prepared by the defendant and his wife or the protocol of examination of evidence prepared by the court below, and it is hard to find that there is no consistency in the records other than the original statement made by the defendant in the court below and the court of first instance, and there is no evidence to be found that there is no consistency in the prosecutor’s statement and the prosecutor’s evidence to be delivered to the defendant in the process of fact-finding and any other evidence found by the court below.

The second point is that each money and valuables received by the defendant belongs to the scope of duties as the Minister of Construction and Transportation who takes charge of the affairs related to the land transportation, aviation, maritime affairs and tourism. In addition, in light of the provisions of Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases, Article 20 and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases, the defendant still has the authority to receive and accept the bribe from the public official in light of the purpose of the Act on Special Cases, and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases, and Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases, and Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases, Article 2 (2) of the Act on Special Cases, and Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases, it is reasonable to view that the defendant still has the authority to receive and accept the bribe from the public official at the time of the receipt of the bribe as a public official.

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1 by Defendant 7 and his defense counsel are as follows: (a) the defendant's oral statement prepared by the defendant and the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor about the defendant; (b) the defendant's unilateral statement was made at the court below and the trial court court; and (c) no further data was found in the records; (c) so the court below's examination of the evidence preparation selection protocol prepared by the court below is legitimate; and (d) the evidence was compared to the records, the defendant is in office as the Director General of the National Land Planning and Planning Office of Construction from June 21, 1976 to April 8, 1983; and (d) it is sufficient that the court below's examination of the plan on the public notice of the tourism and recreation area, sexual proposal, report, consultation with related ministries, and other national land use planning throughout the time of original trial, and it is sufficient to recognize that the defendant's additional name and additional name as a tourism and recreation zone for the new land and subsequent public notice were given in the process of fact-finding.

The second point is that the defendant received money and valuables equivalent to 53,702,00 won in total from the same person during several times, such as the time of the original judgment, as a bribe, can be deemed as a so-called comprehensive crime. Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the court below's judgment was subject to the punishment under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the number of crimes, and thus, this argument also cannot be accepted.

(3) In light of the records, there is sufficient evidence that Defendant 14’s defense counsel, Defendant 15’s defense counsel, Defendant 16, and Defendant 17’s grounds for appeal together, Defendant 14’s defense counsel, and Defendant 16’s defense counsel and Defendant 16’s ground for appeal cannot be found from the point of view of the records as well. Thus, there is no reason to see this point. In light of the records of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, Defendant 14 is an administrative officer belonging to the National Land Planning Division and natural park, and it is sufficient that part of the court below’s duties such as the establishment of park planning, public announcement, permission for implementation of park projects, etc., were submitted to Defendant 15 from November 14, 1979 to January 14, 1983; Defendant 15 cannot be recognized as Defendant 1’s official duties such as approval of a business plan, etc. as a tourist hotel operator from around 15, 1983 to 198, etc.

(4) The grounds for appeal by Defendant 19’s defense counsel No. 1 and Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s reasons for appeal are as follows: Defendant 1 had already judged the bribe of the money and valuables provided to the public officials concerned, or sufficient to recognize it by the related evidence at the time of the original trial; therefore, there is no reason to discuss the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to Defendant 19. In full view of all the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to Defendant 19, it is sufficient to recognize that the Defendant was in contact with Nonindicted 15 and 16, who is a public official of the relevant administrative agency, and was given money in connection with his duties at the time of the original trial, and it is sufficient to accept the facts that the Defendant committed the act of offering a bribe under the direction of Defendant 1 or Defendant 18, a workplace company or Defendant 18, who was a public official. However, it cannot be viewed that there is no inevitable objection to the act of offering a bribe other than the act of offering a bribe.

(5) The grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 18 of the defense counsel of the defendant 6 and his defense counsel are examined together with the grounds of appeal of the defendant 14, the defense counsel of the defendant 15, the defense counsel of the defendant 19, the grounds of appeal of the defendant 16 and the defense counsel of the defendant 17, the grounds of appeal of the defendant 18, and the grounds of appeal against the defendant 6 and 7 of the public prosecutor. In full view of all the circumstances and arguments that form the conditions of sentencing specified in the records, the court below's determination of the sentence against the defendant 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and the defendant 18 is too appropriate and too unreasonable. Thus, all of these defendants and their defense counsel's arguments are without merit, and the court below's sentencing against the defendant 6 and 7 is too unreasonable.

5. Parts concerning the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc. by Defendants 1, 20, 8, 11, 9, and 10

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

(1) Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 1 and 8 and the defendant 11

The first point is Defendant 8’s disposal of KRW 2,985,00,00 in relation to the filing of the tax base and amount of corporate tax and special surtax in January 18, 1982. Defendant 1 began to conduct a small contact business around 1981, and Defendant 1 did not establish business practices or authorities’ instruction and regulatory policies, and used money in advance accounts for the purchase of membership fees received from the son’s members for the purpose of reserving the operation of the membership fee system, but the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of the total amount of the subscription fees collected or returned to the 50,000,000, based on the newly established terms and conditions, for the purpose of establishing the membership fee system to a certain extent for the company’s container construction business on January 18, 1983. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the total amount of the subscription fees received from the 1982,000,000 from the 190,000 won tax evasion account, and thus, it did not err in the judgment.

The second point is to find out the actual amount of construction cost and to D 6,60,00 won for each of the above-mentioned construction work groups' construction work units' 1,64,40,00 won and to 1,397,20,000 won for each of the above-mentioned construction work units' construction work units' 1,397,20,000 won for each of the above-mentioned construction work units' 1,70,000 won for each of the above-mentioned construction work units' 1,70,000 won for each of the above-mentioned construction work units' 1,70,000 won for each of the above-mentioned construction work units' 1,70,000 won for each of the above-mentioned construction work units' 4,70,000 won for each of the above-mentioned construction work units' 1,50,000 won for each of the above-mentioned construction work units' 1,805,000 won for each of the above construction cost.

The third point is with respect to the design cost of KRW 56,70,000. (Name omitted) Defendant 8 Company, the owner of the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the construction work of the (name omitted) Group Industrial Complex, requested the construction work institute of the construction work without drawing up a service contract. The construction work was changed from time to time in the process of performing the construction work and requested and received each time thereafter the construction work was requested. The above design cost was clearly proved to be the total design cost of C and D as completed in July 1, 1982 of the publication of the research institute. However, the court below rejected the above statement as a trade book, which is naturally admissible, and accepted the prosecutor's assertion that there is a difference between the construction cost stated in the construction account book of the Defendant 8 and the completion design cost stated in the settlement of accounts, and found the remainder of this part of the judgment below guilty on the premise that the sales increase tax evasion is false.

The fourth point is that when Defendant 8 filed a tax return with the competent tax office on March 16, 1983 with respect to the construction cost of 1,059,310,485 won for the New Year’s Integrated Recreation Site, the amount was included in the construction cost of 1,362,00,000 won for the combined construction cost of 1,362,00,000 won for the year 1982, which was paid as the comprehensive resort site in the settlement of accounts that prove the calculation of the tax amount, and 2,00,000 won for the combined construction cost of 1,05,000 won for the combined construction cost of 1,059,310,485, the above amount was mostly included in the construction cost for the ancillary facilities and convenience facilities for users, but this is also included in the indirect construction cost of the next year’s indirect construction cost to meet the proportional distribution and balance with the indirect construction cost of the second year, and the court below accepted the concept of indirect construction cost allocation without fault.

The fifth point is that the purchase price of the container container and the equipment and the installation cost of the resort site shall be deemed as the ownership of the container user and the equipment, and the purchase price shall be included in the container seller's price. It is not merely a retroactive performance of the obligation under the contract with the container user, which was sold under the former terms and conditions, and it is reasonable that the use of the resort site is a legitimate ground. Since the use of the resort site is paid for the access road construction cost, which is an auxiliary facility related to the building of the new container, or for the installation of the steel tower for the installation of the steel tower installed on the Adong or D rooftop rooftop, the investment cost or the combined cost that will be divided to the entire construction cost should be treated as the issue, even though the court below recognized the facts charged that the cost of the company's property does not include the expenses of the nature of the container sale, and therefore, it is a disposition that misleads the fact that this disposition is a tax evasion act.

Point 6: Defendant 11’s disposal of wage of KRW 14,793,80 at the time of filing the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax in 1982; that wage was actually paid to the company (title omitted), Han-si and 129 employees employed in executing the construction of a contact-based model housing in Gangnam-gu, and the construction of a new-based model housing in Gangnam-gu, and Non-Indicted 20, 21, and 22; Defendant 11’s subcontracting of each wage was paid to Non-Indicted 20, 21, and 22; Non-Indicted 23, a group of companies (title omitted); Non-Indicted 23, a group of companies, for which Non-Indicted 23 calculated wages for each working hour; Non-Indicted 23, a group of companies, and for which Non-Indicted 4, a new-use model of new-use housing was paid for each of the two companies; and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the actual amount of the new-use housing paid for 100, the total amount of the new wage paid.

The first point is that Defendant 1’s non-indicted 25, 26, 23, and 27 violated the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in relation to the above company, and the said Defendant was also aware of the omission of entry, omission of declaration, etc. in the above company as to the above company’s business operations. However, the above Defendant was unaware of whether the representative director or the majority shareholder and the actual manager were the above facts in relation to the above company’s business operations, and even though he was ordered to commit the act of tax evasion, issuance of false statements, or failure to withhold taxes, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or applying the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, even though he was punished as a tax offense in violation of Article 13 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(2) Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 20’s defense counsel

The first point was that the defendant, a non-profit corporation, in the sense of religious mission, accepted the newspaper's name in the name of co-defendant 1, which is the husband, and set the basic direction for issuing the newspaper. In addition, the defendant was not involved in the accounting-related affairs, and the construction work management of the tourist hotel in the name of the non-indicted 28 company was limited to the representative director in the name of the company, and the construction work of the tourist hotel in the name of the company was carried out by the organization of the (title omitted) group, and the defendant was entirely involved in the management of the construction work of the tourist hotel in the (name omitted) group, which was carried out in the name of the company.

The second point is that even if a person is guilty of domestic affairs, the second point is that the sentence of the court below, which dealt with by the type of imprisonment, is too unreasonable, so it is tolerance.

(3) Summary of the Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal

The lower court acquitted Defendant 1, 8, 11, 9, and Defendant 10 as to the whole or in part of the facts charged on the ground that the said Defendants recognized objective facts that did not pay taxes as stated in the indictment, but did not constitute fraud or other unlawful acts.

However, in the current tax law, corporate tax, value-added tax, etc. is a tax subject to tax return and is not a procedure for investigating data by the tax authorities in the process of imposing the tax, and the taxpayer voluntarily files a tax base return based on the data, such as the books and tax invoices, etc., so if the taxpayer commits an active act, such as preparing double books or omitting bookkeeping for the purpose of tax evasion, and thereby evading part of the tax by filing a tax return, such act constitutes an active act under Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on wrongful act under Article 9(1)

B. Determination on the grounds for the above appeal

(1) We examine the first ground for appeal by Defendant 1, Defendant 8, and Defendant 11’s defense counsel.

According to the former Terms and Conditions of 15-1, 3 members of the 2nd 4th 2nd 2nd 6th 2nd 8th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 8th 2nd 3rd 2nd 8th 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3nd 2nd 2nd 3nd 2nd 2nd.

In addition, according to Article 9 of the Contact Use Management Regulations established around February 1, 1982 (the former Management Regulations were enforced around July 1, 1981, but there was no change in the definitions of the Contact Association and its members added thereto) that all members can use nationwide containers constructed by companies affiliated with (title omitted) group and use other tourist leisure facilities, etc. It is possible to receive treatment equivalent to members. According to Non-Indicted 30's statement, this is premised on the membership fee system. If the membership fee system was developed under the company's policy, if the membership fee system had already been developed under the company's policy, the Korea Condo Co., Ltd., which is the same Condo, or the Jinan Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd., the same Condo Co., Ltd. or the Jinan Industrial Co., Ltd., the acquisition price of the land and building shares of the Do, and the deposit money for the use of facilities, other than the purchase price, can be claimed separately and presented to Defendant 1's membership fee.

In addition, according to Defendant 1’s statement, although the new member has a benefit of return after the expiration of the period of container management (which seems to be 30 years under the management regulations) under Article 6 of the new terms and conditions, there is no ground to apply such benefit retroactively to the former member who was not granted at the time of the sale contract under the former terms and conditions, and the authority that had been through the necessity of regulation on container business was enacted with the Ordinance No. 751 (f) of June 28, 1983, and enacted a provision, such as the classification of the shared system and the membership system, the classification of the membership system, and the rate thereof, and the provision on the collection of the operating deposit to the business entity that began to sell in lots and invite members at the time of the enforcement of these guidelines, it shall not be subject to the provisions on the collection of the operating deposit, which provide that the amount of payment under the former terms and conditions shall not be applied retroactively to the sale in lots and the subscription deposit.

Furthermore, in full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, Defendant 8’s (title omitted) agreement was completed in part of the container around the end of 1982, among the cases where the sale in excess of 11.1 billion won was carried out, Defendant 8’s (name omitted) agreement was made, and it was due to settlement of accounts and tax returns at the end of the year 1982, established new terms and conditions for membership fees in addition to the purchase in lots at the beginning of the year 1983, informed the relevant employees through a meeting, and, accordingly, urged the buyer to renew the contract; accordingly, it was sufficient that the amount equivalent to the membership fees of the former members would be deducted into the ledger of the sales amount by making it possible to recover the amount equivalent to the membership fees of the former members from the purchase in excess of 30 years of or of the former terms and conditions; in light of the above circumstances, it was sufficient to acknowledge that there was a reasonable ground to receive a refund of the total amount of corporate tax and special surtax corresponding to the total amount of value-added tax paid for 1980,00.

(2) We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to Article 17(2) of the Corporate Tax Act, the year in which a domestic corporation sells a product, product, or other product in each business year shall be deemed to be the business year to which the date of delivery belongs: Provided, That if the product, product, or product is not delivered or can be delivered, it shall be the business year to which the date of delivery belongs. In light of the fact that the sales situation of Defendant 8’s company in the year of 1982 shall be the business year to which the date of delivery belongs. The sales situation of the company shall be the sales of the container after the completion of the same year, with only the amount of payment for the container, sold in the same year, after deducting the construction cost equivalent to the former unit.

However, after reviewing the evidence of the court below's adoption, this case (name omitted) is composed of 30 billion won or more for Defendant 8 company's owner and Defendant 11 company formed a contract for construction work. In particular, if each of the above two companies entered into a contract (see 15-1 book 15-1, 176, 178, 179) with each of the above two companies, with respect to the first of the above contact, the amount of 2,385,40,00 won for 2,60,000 won for 2,00,000 won for 2,000,000 won for 2,00,000 won for 20,000 won for 2,000 won for 30,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 30,000 won for 20,000 won or more for 30,000 won for each of the contract.

Meanwhile, in the construction cost of Defendant 8’s company’s assets account (Evidence No. 39), the container construction cost is 2,779,00,000 won in the year 1981, and 5,145,640,640,000 won in the year 1982 and 7,924,640,000 won in the aggregate of 7,640,000 won in the contract amount is paid to Defendant 11. This is obvious that the construction cost of the company’s assets account is 4,958,40,000 won in the contract and the date of completion of A through Ddong on the certificate of completion inspection. Thus, it is evident that the additional construction cost of the company’s assets account is 2,966,240,000 won in the entry account and the additional construction cost of the company’s 200,000 won in the account is 140,000 won in the account and 20184,06,01,000,000 shares in the account.

피고인 1은, 원심 및 당심을 통하여 위 양 회사는 다같이 (명칭 생략)그룹 산하회사로서 그룹본부에서 경리를 통합 운영하고 있던 관계로 장부상 처리만 하였으되 실제 공사비가 상호간 수수된바 없으며, 위 계약서도 건설협회보고용으로서 형식상 작성된 것에 불과하므로, 실제투입된 공사원가를 산정해야 할 것이라고 변소하고 있으나, 피고인 8 회사는 종합휴양업 등을 목적으로, 피고인 11 회사는 토목건축공사업 등을 목적으로 각 설립된 법인으로서(공판기록 2826 내지 2849정 법인등기부등본 참조), 비록 피고인 1을 다같이 대표이사로 하여 경영되고 있다 할지라도 각자 독립적인 재무구조하에 운영되어야 함이 당연한 법리이므로 위와 같은 변소는 받아들일 수 없으며, 위 인정과 같은 장부상 처리와 세무신고 경위에 비추어 원심이 이 부분 유죄로 인정한 조처는 정당하고 논지 이유없다.

(3) Examining the records, the court below found 3 points 0.1 to 0.2 of 198 and found 10.2 of 0-1-2 of 198-2 of 198-2 of 0-2 of 0-2 of 0-2 of 0-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-4-2-3-7-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-7-1-7-2-3-3-4-7-1-2-3-4-2-3-4-7-19-7-7-2-19-7-2-10-7-2-19-7-2-197-2-3-10-7-2-197-2-1982.

Nevertheless, it is sufficient to recognize by the evidence of the court below that the above paragraph (2) above included the sales cost of the above container in the sales cost of both A and D which was completed in the year 1982 as the first unit of the container and completed in the year 1982, and the sales cost of the above container was paid in 56,700,000 won as the design cost of the above container. Thus, the court below did not find that the fact-finding of the excessive appropriation was unlawful in the documentary evidence as pointed out otherwise. Thus, this issue is without merit.

(4) According to the records, it is recognized that Defendant 8, its affiliate company, as part of the plan to develop a comprehensive resort complex in the (title omitted) group's (title omitted), Defendant 1, as part of the plan to develop the (name omitted), Defendant 11, a golf club, and Nonindicted Company 28, as part of the plan to build a hotel (name omitted). Thus, if the construction cost of the entire facility is related to the use of the above facility, it is obvious that the construction cost of the above facility should be distributed in a reasonable way to the construction cost of the above facility in the relation of the indirect facility cost of this year 1982. However, according to the relevant evidence of the court below at the time of the court below, if the construction cost of this facility should be charged to Defendant 8, its affiliate company's account book (name omitted) under the name of the construction cost of resort site construction cost of 42), Defendant 11,160,000, the total amount of the construction cost of this facility should be charged to the tax account in the year 198.

However, according to the consistent statements of Defendant 1 at the court below and the trial court, the above costs are different from the construction cost spent for the direct recreation and recreation facilities, such as the entrance roads, parking lots, water tank rooms and various pipes to the above A through Ddong Condo, fences used for the wind gate of the above Condo building, fences installed for fences such as tennis, tennis stations, and children's playgrounds, etc., and the above A through D consent, which are the main main building, and the convenience facilities for the users. The contents of Non-Indicted 35's related statement and the contents of the rest site construction (No. 77) are consistent with the above change. The above cost is proved as evidence to support the indirect construction cost, and there is only the relation between Non-Indicted 42 of the witness at the court below and the prosecutor at the court below's order to conduct a tax investigation, and there is no specific proportion of the construction cost to the whole facility construction cost and there is no specific difference between the above construction cost and the whole facility construction cost.

Nevertheless, under the premise that the above cost is the construction cost of the so-called "condo comprehensive resort site construction cost" unrelated to the sale of this case, the court below recognized the sales cost of 102,680,5150,000 won calculated by the method calculated in comparison with the total construction cost of the above resort site, and concluded that the rest of 1,059,319,485 won was excessively appropriated, there is an error of finding the fact wrong without any evidence, and therefore, it is reasonable to point out this point.

(5) According to the records of 5 points, 1,241,028,09 points 1,249 points 1,248,09 points 20 points 20,000 points 30,000 points 20,000 points 20,000 points 20,000 points 20,000 points 20,000 points 20,000 points 20,000 points 2,000 points 7,000 points 2,000 points 2,00 points 3,00 points 7,000 points 2,00 points 3,00 points 2,00 points 2,000 points 2,00 points 3,00 points 7,00 points 2,00 points 2,00 points 3,00,000 points 2,00 points 3,00,00 points 2,00.

However, the court below's finding that the above provision was 100 won or more for the purpose of the sale and purchase of the 19-10-6-6-1-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-1-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-7-7-77-77-77-77-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-7-7-7-7-7-7777

Next, considering the construction cost of the steel tower name item, in light of Defendant 1’s related statement in the original judgment and the trial court, and the contents of the tax invoice (No. 63) dated 13, 1982 in the preparation of the Hanjin Electronic Co., Ltd., the steel tower in question can be recognized that the steel tower in question is a facility installed on the rooftop to attach the test cost, and the cost invested in the facility is revealed to be KRW 45,00,000,00, which is just to include the cost of the ancillary facilities of the above container sold in the year 1982, even though it is reasonable to include the cost of the ancillary facilities of the above container in the judgment of the court below and the trial court, it was erroneous to recognize the fact in the protocol that the court below convicted the defendant 36, and this affected the conclusion of the judgment, which is therefore a ground for appeal.

Finally, according to Defendant 1’s statement about the cost of construction of recreational site facilities at the court below and the court below’s trial court, it was disbursed as construction cost for contact access. However, according to the contents of a written resolution for partial revocation of acquisition tax collection (public trial record of 1697), which is compiled in the record, it is clear that the amount of KRW 200,000 is paid as the construction cost of a reservoir, and it is not deemed that it is an incidental facility that is essential to the construction cost of a container building that does not fundamentally escape from accommodation, but it is reasonable to view it as a facility that is owned by Defendant 8, a management company, as its own facilities, and therefore, it is reasonable to view it as a facility that is created by Defendant 8, a management company. Accordingly, it is not erroneous in the court below’s decision that found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of this case on the ground

(6) In full view of the relevant evidence duly examined by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the fact of evading corporate tax of KRW 5,621,644 and defense tax of KRW 1,124,328, as stated in its reasoning, by appropriating the amount of KRW 14,793,800, which was not actually paid, by manipulating the wage ledger as stated in its reasoning. There is no error of law by pointing out the arguments.

However, according to each of the statements in Nonindicted 24, 37’s written statements in the original decision of the court below, Nonindicted 24, and 37’s written confirmation of Nonindicted 24 preparation, and two copies (No. 73) of the tax invoices prepared by Samjin-gu Co., Ltd., Defendant 11, the fact that Nonindicted 24 contracted for Defendant 11 to execute the YY and received KRW 10,530,790 as construction cost, and that he received KRW 10,530,790 from Defendant 11. However, due to the relationship that he did not conduct business inspection, the fact that he submitted the tax invoices received by Nonindicted 38 from Samjin-gu Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was the purchaser of the CY, with documentary evidence in the account of the above facts and did not conflict with the above facts, and otherwise, there is no evidence of proof that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the tax evasion rate under the so-called Punishment Act.

(7) We examine the 7th point, and examine the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below in comparison with the records, it is sufficient to recognize all the criminal facts stated in 9 of Defendant 1’s original judgment at the time of Defendant 1’s original judgment, and it is not possible to find that there was an error in fact-finding or intention, as pointed out in the court below’s legal application or legitimate arguments, and therefore, we cannot accept the argument.

(8) Examining Defendant 20’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal, the court below’s evidence duly examined and adopted, and in particular, considering the fact that Defendant 20’s defense counsel led to the confession of each of the offenses, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant committed tax evasion and violation of the Building Act, such as the time of original adjudication, while substantially participating in the overall management including accounting as the (title omitted) newspaper company and the representative director of Nonindicted Company 28 as the representative director of the court below. Nor can it be found in the records that there was a reason to suspect the Defendant’s arbitraryness to the Defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office. On the other hand, considering the fact-finding or legal application of the court below, the first point in appeal is without merit, and the first point in appeal is without merit, even if the Defendant’s defense counsel’s internal decision is considered, and it is not considered that the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below is appropriate and too unreasonable. Thus, it is evident that the second point cannot be employed.

(9) examine the reasons for the Prosecutor’s appeal;

The court below, based on the evidence revealed in the reasoning of the judgment, found the defendant 1's failure to make a report without entering the late payment fees received by the defendant 8 company as the representative director, omitted the sales without entering the fact of transfer of sand and waste stone transferred by the defendant 1 to the public corporation in accord with the payment for the construction price, omitted the report without entering the fact, omitted the defendant 9 company's act without entering the change in the name of golf membership, and omitted the report of apartment sales price in excess of the national housing scale. The defendant 10 company's act was not accompanied by the plaintiff 1's act of omission in entry or omission in the mere omission in entry or payment of the corporate tax, defense or value-added tax, or fraudulent act which makes it considerably difficult or considerably difficult to collect the value-added tax, and thus, it is reasonable that the defendant 10 company's prior omission in entry or omission in entry under the premise that it is difficult to capture the above tax return or payment, and the defendant 10 company's independent opinion and the defendant 10 company's amendment of indictment were rejected.

6. Part concerning Defendant 1’s violation of the Building Act, the Tourism Business Act, the Natural Parks Act, and the Forestry Act

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

The gist of the defendant's appeal is that the construction of a building at a place where the management (title omitted) group was entirely undeveloped and the complete construction design of a building could not be formed abstractly. Thus, it cannot be permitted that the construction requires design change in the construction even if it is actually impossible to do so. Even in the case of a port ordinary building, it is a custom to grant ex post approval, and even in the case of containers, there were many cases of ex post approval. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Building Act to the effect that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles of illegality, which is an element of the crime, and thus, it is difficult to find the defendant guilty of the violation of the Tourism Act as an ex post facto revision of the Enforcement Decree of the Forestry Act. The court below's revised the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is the first 2nd 1st 1st 1st 2nd 1st 6th 1st 1st 2nd 6th 1st 1st 198.

B. Determination on the grounds for the above appeal

In light of the characteristics of the container, there is no evidence sufficient to recognize that there is a customary practice to grant ex post approval of illegal construction due to design change, and there is a custom such as housework, and even if there is such circumstance, each so-called "construction without legitimate design change or interim inspection, or contact with accommodation facilities without certificate of completion inspection" does not violate the social rules, or that his act does not constitute a crime under the laws and regulations, and thus, it does not constitute a case where there is a legitimate ground for misunderstanding. There is no material sufficient to recognize that there was an urgent circumstance in light of the general concept of society, and there is no evidence sufficient to recognize that there was an urgent reason in light of the general concept of society, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is lack of so-called illegality as it lacks in light of social norms because the court below acknowledged the fact of violation of each law by legitimate evidence and recognized the fact of violation of each law, and there is no ground to deny that there is no ground for appeal or appeal that the disposition or appeal pointing out it out.

7. The part on Defendant 1’s violation of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

The gist of the grounds of appeal as to this part of the defendant and his defense counsel is that the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles of the Illegal Check Control Act, which recognized this part of the facts charged, and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant did not have any legal responsibility for this part of the charges.

B. Determination on the grounds for the above appeal

Examining the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below in comparison with the records, it is sufficient to recognize the facts of the judgment that the holder of the original adjudication, who has 112 copies per share at the time of lawful issuance date, and 27,694,000,000 won per face value at the time of original adjudication with the blank, presented in blank and so long as it has not been paid due to the cancellation of the check contract. Therefore, since it is clear that the defendant is liable under the Check Act as the issuer of the check, the above appeal is dismissed as there is no error of law as stated in the court below's fact-finding or application of law.

However, this part of the judgment of the court below was sentenced to a separate judgment of the Seoul Criminal District Court 84Ra1653 on this part ex officio, but it was consolidated in the trial of the party members 84No959 and 84No138 on the party members 84No138 which were pending in the court of appeal, so the above two judgments of the court below cannot be maintained in order to consolidate the above two judgments of the defendant, each reversal shall not be exempted.

8. Determination on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by Defendants 1 and 12

The defendant 1 and his defense counsel, and the defendant 12's defense counsel argued that the court below's decision on the punishment imposed against the defendants was too unreasonable, and therefore they seek correction thereof. Thus, in light of the following circumstances: the defendant 12's motive, method, degree of damage and relationship with the victim; the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, and all other circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records of the case, are considered to be adequate and unreasonable; therefore, the court below rejected this argument; as the defendant 1 has no reason to reverse the part of the appeal discussed as mentioned above, and there is a reason to reverse the part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant 1, and therefore, it is concluded that the decision on this argument is omitted.

2. Accordingly, each appeal filed by Defendant 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 and each appeal filed by the prosecutor against Defendant 4, 5, 6, 7, 1, 8, and 11 of the Criminal Procedure Act is without merit. Accordingly, each appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and 110 days out of the number of days of confinement before the pronouncement of the judgment prior to the pronouncement of the judgment is included in the sentence of the court below against Defendant 12; Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 of the Criminal Act (the part of the judgment below) are with merit; Defendant 1, 9, and 10 companies are subject to ex officio reversal of the judgment of the court below; and all of the remaining parts of the judgment of the court below are reversed through a confirmation document prepared by the court below as follows (see Article 364(2).7).

Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 9, and 10, and summary of the evidence of the facts charged against the company and the company

피고인 1에 대한 원심판시 범죄사실 8의 가 (1)항을, “1983. 3. 16. 종로세무서에서 동 세무서장에게 1982년도의 법인세 및 부가가치세의 과세표준 및 세액을 신고 납부함에 있어 동 사업년도의 실제 총매출액 즉 콘도미니엄 분양대금의 합계가 금 11,165,717,351원 임에도 불구하고, 그중 금 2,985,000,000원을 분양권자에게 반환하여야 할 입회금인 것 처럼 소급하여 매출장, 입회금대장등 장부를 조작하여 마치 총매출액이 금 8,180,717,351원에 불과한 양 매출을 줄이고, 또한 매출원가를 늘리기 위하여 동 사업년도에 완성하여 판매한 콘도미니엄의 실제건축비용이 금 3,673,031,742원임에도 불구하고 동 사업년도의 매출원가에 산입할 수 없는 미완성콘도미니엄의 공사원가 금 1,644,400,000원 및 미완성콘도미니엄 설계비 금 56,700,000원 합계 금 1,701,100,000원을 당해년도의 매출원가에 포함시키고, 동 법인의 소유자산으로 매입한 콘도미니엄 집기 및 비품구입비 996,028,099원과 휴양지 시설물의 설치비용 200,000,000원 합계 금 1,196,028,099원은 동 법인 소유재산에 투자한 것으로서 콘도미니엄의 매출원가와는 아무런 관계가 없음에도 불구하고 이를 당해년도의 매출원가에 포함시켜 계산하는등 부당하게 매출원가를 늘려 도합 금 5,882,128,099원을 과소계상처리하여 허위로 신고하는등 부정한 방법으로 손금에 가산할 수 있는 금 1,196,142,497원을 차감한 금 4,685,985,602원에 대한 법인세 금 1,827,772,586원 및 동 과소계상금 5,882,128,099원에 대한 특별부가세금 1,056,067,360원과 이에 대한 방위세 금 720,959,986원을 포탈하고”로, 8의 나항을, “ 피고인 11 회사를 경영하면서, 1983. 3. 16. 종로세무서에서 동 세무서장에게 1982년도의 법인세과세표준 및 세액을 신고, 납부함에 있어서, 노임대장을 조작하여 실제 지급되지 않은 노임 14,793,800원이 지급된 것으로 계상하고 공사원가에 과대계상하여 신고하는 등 부정한 방법으로 그에 대한 법인세 5,621,644원, 방위세 1,124,328원을 포탈하여, 연간 합계 금 3,914,888,164원의 세액을 포탈 또는 환부받고,”로, 피고인 11 회사에 대한 원심판시 범죄사실 27항을 “ 피고인 11 회사는 건설업을 하는 법인인바, 그 대표이사 피고인 1이 동 법인의 업무에 관하여 위 8의 나항 기재의 범행을 하고,”로 각 고치고, 9의 마항으로 “ 피고인 1은, 피고인 9 회사를 경영하면서, 1983. 1. 25. 중부세무서에서 동 세무서장에게 1982년도 제2기분 부가가치세를 신고함에 있어서 동 기간의 총매출액이 금 47,800,000원임에도 불구하고, 그중 골프회원권 명의변경수수료 수입금 13,500,000원을 누락한 채 마치 총매출액이 금 34,300,000원에 불과한 양 과소신고함으로써 허위의 사실을 신고하고,”를, 9의 바항으로, “ 피고인 1은, 피고인 10 회사를 경영하면서, 1982. 7. 25. 종로세무서에서 동 세무서장에게 1982년도 제1기분 부가가치세를 신고함에 있어서, 동 기간의 총매출액이 287,780,288원임에도 불구하고 1982. 4. 20. 동 법인에서 매도한 서울 중구 홍지동 (지번 생략) 소재 아파트 매각대금중 국민주택규모를 초과하는 아파트 매각대금으로서 부가가치세 납부대상인 금 93,580,288원을 누락한 채 마치 총매출액이 194,200,000원에 불과한 양 과소신고함으로써 허위의 사실을 신고하고”를 33항으로, “ 피고인 9 회사는, 그 대표이사 피고인 1이 동 법인의 업무에 관하여 위 9의 마항기재의 범행을 하고,”를 34항으로, “ 피고인 10 회사는, 그 대표이사 피고인 1이 동 법인의 업무에 관하여 위 9의 바항기재 범행을 하고,”를 각 추가설시하고, 당원 84노959호 사건을 병합심리한 관계로 동 사건에 관한 원심판결( 서울형사지방법원 84고단1653 판결 )적시 범죄사실을 35항으로 나열적시하며, 원심판결 증거의 요지란 9항의 둘째줄 “27의 가, 나”중 “가, 나”를 삭제하고, 14항중 “압수된 증 제24, 25호”를 “압수된 증 제5, 6호”로 고치며, 피고인 1, 9 회사, 10 회사의 판시 범죄사실에 대한 증거의 요지를 아래와 같이 추가 판시하는 외에는 원심 각 판결설시의 해당부분과 같으므로 형사소송법 제369조 에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.

The defendant's violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the defendant 1, 9, and 10

1. Defendant 1’s statement corresponding thereto in the original judgment and the trial court room

1. Statement corresponding to the above in the court below's decision by non-indicted 40 of the witness of the court below

1. Statement corresponding to the interrogation protocol of Defendant 1 of the public prosecutor;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 41 and 40, which corresponds to the prosecutor’s written statement

1. A statement corresponding to the confirmation letter of Nonindicted 40’s preparation

1. The above facts are sufficient to prove the existence of the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, which was seized, in full view of the evidence Nos. 3309-2, 12, 15, and 16-2, etc.

1. Defendant 1

피고인의 판시 1의 업무상횡령의 점은 형법 제356조 , 제355조 제1항 , 제30조 에, 판시 8의 각 조세포탈의 점은 포괄하여 특가법 제8조 제1항 제1호 , 조세범처벌법 제9조 제1항 제3호 에, 판시 9의 가, 나, 마, 바의 각 법에 의한 신고를 함에 있어서 허위의 신고를 한 점은 각 조세범처벌법 제13조 제2호 에, 판시 9의 다의 각 세금계산서를 정부에 제출하여야 할 자가 허위기재의 세금계산서를 교부받은 점은 각 같은법 제11조의 2 제 2항 에, 판시 9의 라 (1)의 법인의 결손금액을 과대계상한 점은 같은법 제12조의3 제3항 에, 판시 9의 라 (2)의 조세의 원천징수의무자가 정당한 사유없이 그 세금을 징수하지 아니한 점은 같은법 제11조 에, 판시 21의 가의 각 뇌물공여의 점은 포괄하여 형법 제133조 제1항 , 제129조 제1항 , 특가법 제4조 제1항 , 제2항 , 같은법시행령 제2조 제20호 , 제3조 제1호 에, 판시 21의 나, 다, 라의 각 뇌물공여의 점은(판시 21의 나, 다의 각 소위는 포괄하여) 각 형법 제133조 제1항 , 제129조 제1항 에, 판시 24의 가의 (1), (2), 나의 (1), (2), 바의 각 도시계획구역외에서 건축허가없이 건축물을 건축한 점은 각 건축법 제55조 제2호 , 제5조 제1항 에, 판시 24의 다의 (1), 라, 사의 (2)의 각 도시계획구역안에서 건축허가없이 건축물을 건축한 점은 각 건축법 제54조 , 제5조 제1항 에, 판시 24의 가의 (2), 나의 (1)의 각 관광휴양지역내에서 허가없이 건축한 점은 각 관광사업법 제60조 제2호 , 국토이용관리법 제34조 , 제15조 제7항 , 관광사업법 제46조 제6항 에, 판시 24의 다의 (2)의 준공검사필증을 교부받지 아니하고 건축물을 사용한 점은 건축법 제55조 제1호 , 제7조 제4항 에, 판시 24의 마의 공원구역안에서 공원관리청의 허가를 받지 아니하고 공원사업 이외의 주목을 채취한 점은 자연공원법 제57조 제2호 , 제23조 제1항 제3호 에, 같은 산림소유자가 허가없이 입목을 벌채한 점은 산림법 제118조 제1항 제1호 에, 판시 24의 사의 (1)의 중간검사를 받지 아니하고 3층 이상의 건축물 또는 연면적 1천평방미터 이상의 건축물의 공사를 계속한 점은 건축법 제55조 제3호 , 제7조의 2 에, 판시 35의 각 소위는 각 부정수표단속법 제2조 제2항 , 제1항 에 각 해당하는바, 판시 업무상횡령죄에 관하여는 피고인은 업무상 보관자의 신분이 없으므로 형법 제33조 단서, 제50조 에 의하여 형법 제355조 제1항 에 정한 형으로 처단하기로 하며, 판시 24의 가의 (2), 나의 (1)의 각 도시계획구역외에서 허가없이 건축물을 건축한 건축법위반죄와 관광사업법위반죄, 판시 24의 마의 자연공원법위반죄와 산림법위반죄는 모두 각 1개의 행위가 2개의 죄명에 해당하는 경우이므로 형법 제40조 , 제50조 에 의하여 각 그 형이 무거운 바에 따라 도시계획구역외에서 허가없이 건축물을 건축한 건축법위반죄에 정한 형과 산림법위반죄에 정한 형(다만 벌금형에 관하여는 자연공원법위반죄에 정한 형)으로 각 처벌하기로 하여, 각 소정형중 판시 특가범위반죄에 대하여는 유기징역형을, 판시 업무상횡령, 각 허위기재의 세금계산서를 교부받은 조세범처벌법위반, 법인의 결손금액을 과대 계상한 조세범처벌법위반, 원천징수의무자가 정당한 사유없이 그 세금을 징수하지 아니한 조세범처벌법위반, 각 뇌물공여, 각 도시계획구역외에서 허가없이 건축한 건축법위반, 준공검사필증을 교부받지 아니하고 건축물을 사용한 건축법위반, 중간검사를 받지 아니하고 건축물의 공사를 계속한 건축법위반, 산림법위반 및 각 부정수표단속법위반의 각 죄에 있어서는 징역형을, 판시 각 법에 의한 신고에 있어서 허위의 신고를 한 조세범처벌위반죄에 대하여는 벌금형을 각 선택하고, 이상은 형법 제37조 전단의 경합범이므로 형법 제38조 제1항 제3호 에 의하여 징역형과 벌금형을 병과하기로 하여 각 같은항 제2호 , 제50조 에 의하여 유기징역형 또는 징역형을 선택한 위 각 죄와 각 도시계획구역안에서 허가없이 건축물을 건축한 건축법위반죄의 소정형중 징역형에 대하여는 형이 가장 무거운 특가법위반죄에 정한 유기징역형에, 벌금을 선택한 위 각 죄와 각 도시계획구역안에서 건축허가없이 건축물을 건축한 건축법위반죄의 소정형중 벌금형에 대하여는 형 및 범정이 가장 무거운 판시 24의 다의 (1)의 건축법위반죄에 정한 벌금형에 각 경합범가중을 하고, 특가법 제8조 제2항 에 의하여 포탈세액의 2배 이상 5배 이하에 상당하는 벌금을 병과하기로 하여 그 형기 및 금액 범위내에서 피고인을 징역 15년 및 벌금 7,930,000,000원(경합범가중을 한 죄에 대하여 벌금 30,000,000원, 특가법위반죄에 대하여 벌금 7,900,000,000원)에 처하고, 피고인이 위 벌금을 납입하지 아니할 경우에는 형법 제70조 , 제69조 제2항 에 의하여 금 10,000,000원을 1일로 환산한 기간 피고인을 노역장에 유치하며, 형법 제57조 에 의하여 원심판결선고전의 구금일수중 130일을 위 징역형에 산입한다.

2. Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5

Article 356, Article 355 (1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 356, Article 35 (1), Article 355 (1), Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 355, Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 5-5-6-1 of the Decision 5-2 of the Criminal Act; Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 357-4 of the Criminal Act; Article 357-2 of the Criminal Act provides that each of the above Articles shall be included in the embezzlement of duties by Defendant 2; Article 350 of the Criminal Act; Article 355 (1) and Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that the value of each of the above Articles shall be included in the punishment of Defendant 4; Article 350 of the Criminal Act; Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that the punishment of Defendant 2 shall be imposed on each of the above Articles; Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the Criminal Act shall be imposed on each of the above Articles 350 and 57 (1) of the Criminal Act.

3. Defendant 6, 7

The facts of the acceptance of a bribe by Defendant 10 as stated in the judgment of the court below are inclusive of the acceptance of a bribe by each of the following subparagraphs: Article 2(1)1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 129(1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 4(1) and (2) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 2 subparag. 20 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and Article 11 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and Article 2(1)1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 129(1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act are applicable to the acceptance of a bribe by each of the above facts. Since each of the facts of the acceptance of a bribe by Defendant 6 are selected for a limited term of imprisonment, each of the above facts shall be reduced to 5 years under Article 55(1)3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 57 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 1200 of the Aggravated Punishment Act.

4. Defendant 8, 11, 9, and 10.

Article 9 (1) 3, Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 5 (1), Article 5 (1), and Article 57 of the Building Act; Article 60 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 5-2 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 8-1 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 5-2 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 60-1 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 60-2 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 60-1 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 8-2 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 60-1 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 60-1 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 60-2 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 60-3 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 57-2 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders; Article 57-5 of the Act on the remaining construction of a company without permission for 6-2 of the Act.

Of the facts charged of this case:

1. (Name omitted) Defendant 1’s attempt to evade all kinds of national taxes, such as value-added taxes, etc., arising in the course of the management of each of the above companies as the representative directors of the (name omitted) company, construction company, Defendant 11, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, Defendant 10, each of the following companies:

A. Running Defendant 8 Company:

(1) In filing and paying the tax base and tax amount of the corporate tax and special surtax for the year 1982 to the head of the tax office on March 16, 1983, the actual gross sales for the business year, namely, the total condominium sales amount of KRW 11,165,717,35, which is the construction cost for the traditional traditional resort site which is not related to the sale of condominiums, shall be included in the sales cost for the year concerned, and the 45,00,000,000, which is a recreational facility, shall be invested in the property owned by the said corporation and shall be included in the sales cost for the year concerned, and the sales cost for the steel tower installation shall be included in the sales cost for the year concerned, regardless of the existence of any relationship with the sales cost of the condominium, and shall be counted in the sales cost for the year concerned by making up the amount so excessively by false means, such as making up for the total sales cost so short that the sales cost is included in the sales cost for the year concerned, and filing the amount falsely.

(2) On January 25, 1983, in filing and paying the value-added tax for the second period of the year 1982 with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the last half of the year 1982, the value-added tax is evaded by unlawful means, such as underreporting any overdue charge revenue of 6,008,268 won with the omission of the sales during that period, by 600,826 won;

B. When managing Defendant 11:

(1) On March 16, 1983, in filing and paying the tax base and tax amount of the corporate tax for the year 1982 with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the last day of March 16, 1983, 3,098,900 won of aggregate sales, etc., such as aggregate, shall be treated as confidential domains and shall be treated as confidential domains, and such amount shall be exempted from corporate tax of 1,177,582 won and defense tax of 235,516 won in an unlawful manner

(2) On March 16, 1983, when filing and paying the corporate tax, customs standards and tax amount for the year 1982 at the same tax office, it manipulates that the amount was paid by using a false tax invoice of KRW 10,530,790, a false tax invoice of KRW 10,530,790, and evades corporate tax 4,001,70, and the defense tax amount of KRW 800,340,00 for the construction cost by unlawful means, such as filing a excessive return to the construction cost;

(3) On July 25, 1982, in filing a return and payment of the value-added tax for the first period of 1982 to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the same place, the amount of the value-added tax was unjustly deducted by unlawful means, such as filing a false tax invoice specified in paragraph (2) with the tax invoice amounting to KRW 10,530,79 by using the false tax invoice amounting to KRW 1,053,079;

(4) On January 25, 1983, when filing and paying the value-added tax for the second period of the year 1982 with the head of the tax office having the same jurisdiction over the same place, 6,040,037 won of the sales revenue of aggregate, etc., such as aggregate, etc., was disposed of in secret mersh and without recording the sales revenue of 4,128,520,000 won, which was merely 4,128,520,000 won of the total sales revenue, the value-added tax of 604,003 won of the omitted sales was evaded by such unlawful means as underreporting, etc.

C. On January 25, 1983, with respect to the return and payment of the value-added tax for the second period portion of the year 1982 to the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the defendant company's management on January 25, 1983, the sales revenue amounting to KRW 13,500,000 for the total sales revenue amounting to KRW 13,50,000 for the change of golf membership name without recording in the account book and reducing the sales revenue amounting to KRW 34,30,000 for the gross sales revenue amounting to KRW 34,30,000 for each under-reported return, etc.

D. On July 25, 1982, in managing Defendant 10, in filing and paying the value-added tax for the first period portion of the year 1982 with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the last day of July 25, 1982, 93,580,288 out of the sales price for apartment in Seoul, Jongno-gu, Hongdong, Seoul, which was sold by the said corporation on April 20, 1982, KRW 93,580,28 of the sales price for apartment in excess of the national housing scale is the sales price for apartment in excess of the national housing scale and the value-added tax is paid, but the sales price to reduce the sales price for the omitted amount is 194,200,000 won by underreporting that the apartment is together with the apartment in the national housing scale, and thus, the value-added tax is evaded by any unlawful means, such as underreporting that the sales price is only 194,358

2. Defendant 8 Company’s representative director with respect to the business of the said Corporation:

(a) as described in paragraph (1)-A of the above 1-A;

(b)as described in paragraph (2) of 1-A;

each crime;

3. Defendant 11 Company’s representative director with respect to the business of the said Corporation:

(a)the entry in paragraph 1-B(1);

B.1-B(2) of the above 1-B;

(c)as described in paragraph 1-B(3);

Each crime (the crime described in the above 1-B(4) is committed and (the court below found not guilty, and the party members dismissed this part of the appeal for inspection, and did not provide a separate explanation.)

4. Defendant 9 Company committed the crime set forth in paragraph (3) above with respect to the business of the said Corporation by Defendant 1, the representative director,

5. We examine that the defendant 10 company committed the crime described in paragraph (d) above with respect to the business of the corporation by the representative director.

With respect to each of the above facts charged, 1-A (1), 2 (2) and 2-A, 3-2 and 3-2 of the above facts charged, as seen in the corresponding column of judgment on the grounds of appeal, the court below's decision that the above prosecutor's appeal does not pay taxes in the corresponding column of judgment on the grounds of appeal, and that there is no evidence to regard that the above facts charged were committed fraud or other unlawful acts, since each of the above facts charged was prosecuted for violation of Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or Article 325 of the Act on Punishment of Punishment of Tax Evaders because it does not constitute a crime or for lack of proof of facts charged, 1-B (2), 4-2, 3-2 and 3-2, and 3-2, and 3-2 of the above facts charged, 1-A, 2-B, 8-B, 3-2, 3-2 and 5-2 of the above facts charged, 325 of the facts charged and 1-7 of the above facts charged are found guilty.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the same reasons as above.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)