Defendant

Mahee-type et al.

Attorneys Cho Jae-chul et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years and a fine of eight hundred thousand won.

188 days of detention before the sentence of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

7,100,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of larceny, the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act that received money from Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4, the charge of evading each corporate tax for the year 2000 and the year 2001 is not guilty.

The Defendant is a person who is the chairperson of Nonindicted Co. 5 (hereinafter, Nonindicted Co. 5) (hereinafter, Nonindicted Co. 5) at the aggregate production and sales chain;

1. From January 1 to March 2002, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 7 (hereinafter, Nonindicted Co. 7) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter, Nonindicted Co. 7), Nonindicted Co. 3, the Chairperson of Nonindicted Co. 7, “The Corporation ordered by the Korea Water Resources Corporation, the president of which is Nonindicted Co. 8, becomes a U.S., and there is a lot of money that Nonindicted Co. 8 should write down.” “The construction ordered by the Korea Water Resources Corporation shall be ordered by Nonindicted Co. 6 to be ordered by Nonindicted Co. 7 to give a subcontract for the said construction work to Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 7, Ltd.”; “On delivery of money to Nonindicted Co. 8’s president, Nonindicted Co. 8 would be favorable to Nonindicted Co. 6, and therefore, Nonindicted Co. 700 million won would be subcontracted to Nonindicted Co. 70 billion won without a mold, and Nonindicted Co. 6 may request the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation to give a subcontract to Nonindicted Co. 7000 billion.

2. From August 200 to September 2001, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 18 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 18”) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul (Seoul), Nonindicted Co. 18 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 18”) and Nonindicted Co. 18’s president of the 18 Co. 2000, at the meeting of Nonindicted Co. 1, the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation (“Korea Water Resources Corporation”) to request Nonindicted Co. 8, the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation (the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation), to offer a friendly relationship, and request Nonindicted Co. 18 Co. 2, Ltd. to demand that Nonindicted Co. 1 receive KRW 1.33 billion from Nonindicted Co. 1, 2003 to receive KRW 1.4 billion from Nonindicted Co. 1, 2003 to the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and request Nonindicted Co. 1, the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation will receive KRW 200 million from Nonindicted Co. 18.4 billion.

3. As described in paragraph 1, Nonindicted Co. 5’s management agreement with Nonindicted Co. 3 to arrange that the amount of KRW 4.7 billion delivered from Nonindicted Co. 3 for solicitation or good offices for the affairs handled by the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation would be pretended to have been supplied to Nonindicted Co. 3 and received in a normal manner, in collusion with Nonindicted Co. 23, Nonindicted 25, and Nonindicted Co. 24;

The fact that the above non-indicted 7 corporation received online transfers of KRW 554 million including value-added tax from the corporate account opened at the first bank (former Seoul bank) to the corporate account established at the first bank account of the non-indicted 5 corporation on April 3, 2002, as well as from October 10, 2003, including value-added tax, 517,000,000 won including value-added tax on 11 occasions including the total amount of value-added tax, from 11 times until October 10, 2003 by the same method and by pretending that it receives settlement funds due to normal goods transaction;

4. As described in paragraph 1, in the case of delivery of KRW 4.7 billion to the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation for construction purposes as stated in paragraph 1, the fact is that the supply of tin and tin to Nonindicted Co. 7 was not made on February 25, 2002, as if the supply of tin and tin to Nonindicted Co. 7 was made on February 25, 2002, the false tax invoice was issued to Nonindicted Co. 7 as if the supply of tin and tin was made on February 25, 2002, and the supply of the false tax invoice was made from around that time to August 31, 2003 without supplying the goods or services as listed in Appendix 1.

5. On January 2, 2004, at the office of the above non-indicted 5 Co. 5, the above non-indicted 23 and the non-indicted 24 received KRW 17 million in the cash of the above company as the chief of the accounting division, and embezzled it by arbitrarily using it for the defendant's personal purpose in Seoul, etc. around that time, and from around that time to October 11, 2004, the sum of KRW 3,035,096,100 for 229 times as shown in the annexed crime list 3 as shown in the annexed crime list 3; and

6. In the office of the above non-indicted 5 corporation on January 31, 2003, the fact was received respectively from 115 tax invoices (total supply value of KRW 6,203,34,400) without supplying goods or services from 18 companies from around that time to March 31, 2004, even though the non-indicted 48 corporation received a false tax invoice stating as if it received services equivalent to KRW 47,397,50, although it was not supplied with heavy equipment or transportation services from the non-indicted 48 corporation;

7. A. From January 1, 200 to June 30, 200, in selling aggregate equivalent to KRW 19,81,818 won in the field of the American aggregate production of Nonindicted Co. 5, as stated in the omission of sales, without issuing a tax invoice. When filing a return on the tax base of the value-added tax for the first period of 2000 by depositing the sales proceeds into the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 38, who is an employee of Nonindicted Co. 5, and concealing the sales proceeds, the said amount was omitted from the sales amount, and after the lapse of July 25, 2000, the said amount of value-added tax for the first period of 1,981,181, which was the due date for filing the return of the said tax item; and

B. From July 1, 200 to December 31, 2000, in selling aggregate amounting to 42,745,454 won in the field of microste aggregate production by Nonindicted Co. 5’s U.S. companies, as indicated in the omission of sales, and without issuing a tax invoice. The sales proceeds are deposited in the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5 companies in the name of Nonindicted Co. 38, a employees of Nonindicted Co. 5, and the sales proceeds are concealed in an illegal manner, and the value-added tax base for the second-term portion of value-added tax for the year 200, when filing a return on the tax base for value-added tax for the second-term portion of value-added tax for the year 200, omitted the above amount of KRW 42,745,454 after the lapse of January 25, 201,

C. From January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2001, Nonindicted Co. 5 sold aggregate equivalent to 18,286,909 won in total at the work site of soft aggregate production of Nonindicted Co. 5, as indicated in the omission of sales, and did not issue a tax invoice. The sales proceeds are deposited in the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 38, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 5, and the sales proceeds are concealed in the account in an illegal manner, and the value-added tax base for the first term portion of the year 2001 was returned, and the sales proceeds are omitted from the sales amount, and after the lapse of July 25, 2001, which was the reporting deadline of the said tax item, the value-added tax for the first term portion of the year 201 is evaded; and

D. From July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001, it did not issue a tax invoice even after selling aggregate amounting to 17,393,754 won in aggregate from the field of microscopic aggregate production of Nonindicted Co. 5’s U.S. corporation, as stated in the omission of sales. In filing a return on the tax base of value-added tax for the second period of 2001 in a fraudulent manner that conceals sales after depositing the sales amount into the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 38, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 5, and omitted the above KRW 17,393,754 in the sales amount after the lapse of January 25, 2002, which is the filing deadline of the said tax item, the second period of value-added tax for the second period of 201, is evaded;

E. From January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003, in selling aggregate equivalent to KRW 143,522,727 won in the field of US aggregate production of non-indicted 5 corporation, such as the omission of sales, without issuing a tax invoice. The sales proceeds are concealed by depositing it in the account in the name of non-indicted 38, an employee of non-indicted 5 corporation, and the sales proceeds are issued with false purchase tax invoices for the first period period of 2003, in filing a return on the tax base of value-added tax for the first period of 1,472,628,30 won in total without the supply of goods or services, and omitting the above 1,472,628,300 won in the sales amount, and then making the above amount excessive appropriation of KRW 1,472,628,300 in the purchase amount, after July 25, 2003, the deadline for filing the return of the above tax item.

F. (1) From July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003, it did not issue a tax invoice even after selling aggregate equivalent to KRW 142,386,818 in aggregate from the field of microfined aggregate production of Nonindicted Co. 5, as stated in the separate sheet, and did not issue a tax invoice. The sales proceeds are deposited into the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 38, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 5, and concealed the sales proceeds, and issued a purchase tax invoice of KRW 2,16,924,200 for the second period period of 203, while filing a return on the tax base of value-added tax for the second period of 2003, the sales amount was omitted from the sales amount, and the excessive appropriation of KRW 2,16,924,200 for the purchase amount was made after January 25, 2004.

(2) From January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2004, in selling aggregate amounting to 62,670,000 won in the U.S. aggregate from the construction site of the U.S. corporation 5 without issuing a tax invoice, as stated in the separate sheet, the sales proceeds are deposited in the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 38, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 5, and the sales proceeds are concealed. The value-added tax base for the first period portion of the tax year of 2004 was reported in return for the purchase tax invoice of KRW 1,546,193,80 in total without the supply of goods or services, and was omitted from the sales amount, and was appropriated in excess of KRW 1,546,193,80 in the purchase amount, after July 25, 2004, the deadline for filing the tax invoice for filing the tax item.

(3) From January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003, when filing a return on the corporate tax base for the year 2003 by improper means, such as paragraphs (e) and (1) above, omitted 285,909,545 won from the sales amount, excessive appropriation of 3,639,552,50 won from the purchase amount, and lapse of January 25, 2004, which is the reporting deadline for the said tax item.

The value-added tax for the second quarter of 2003 was 190,931,102, value-added tax for the first quarter of 2004, 160,886,380, and 20,404,146, total amount of corporate tax for the year 2003 were 372,221,628.

【each of the crimes listed in paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 at the Time of Sales】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 10

1. The witness’s respective legal statements in each part of Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 24

1. Each statement made by Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 14, and Nonindicted 41 in the fourth trial record

1. Each part of the statements made by Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 39, and Nonindicted 11 in the fourth trial record

1. Each part of the statement of the suspect examination protocol of the accused prepared by the prosecution Nos. 4, 5, 6, 10, 13 and 16;

1. Each statement made by each prosecutor on Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 13 on the prosecutor’s protocol or the transcript of the protocol of statement

1. The prosecutor's protocol Nos. 2 and 4 of Nonindicted 23, prosecutor's protocol Nos. 1 and 25 of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 25, prosecutor's first prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 39, prosecutor's protocol No. 2 and 3 of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 24, prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 26, prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 11, and protocol

1. Entry of a certified copy of the statement prepared by Nonindicted 3

1. Investigation report [Attachment 450 through 453 pages of investigation records] 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 2, 6, 4, 2, 5, 46, 2, 46, 2, 46, 2, 5, 46, 2, 46, 2, 46, 2, 5, 46, 46, 2, 5, 46, 4, 46, 2, 46, 2, 46, 4, 2, 3, 46, 2, 3, 46, 4, 6, 4, 4, 6, 4, 5, and 4, 5, and 46, 4, and 46, 5, and 4, 5, and 4,6, 4,

[Criminal Facts of No. 2]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness’s respective legal statements in each of Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 63, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 64, Nonindicted 16, and Nonindicted 17

1. Entry of each protocol of suspect examination of the accused in each part of the prosecution Nos. 5, 7, 10, and 14 times;

1. Each prosecutorial protocol on Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 22, and Nonindicted 63; each prosecutorial protocol on Nonindicted 19 (including the part on Nonindicted 20’s statement in the second and third prosecutorial protocol); the first prosecutorial protocol on interrogation of Nonindicted 25; and each prosecutorial protocol on interrogation of Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 24 on Nonindicted 24, respectively.

1. Each statement written by Nonindicted 65, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 68, Nonindicted 69, Nonindicted 70, Nonindicted 71, Nonindicted 72, Nonindicted 73, Nonindicted 74, Nonindicted 75, Nonindicted 76, Nonindicted 77, Nonindicted 78, Nonindicted 79, and Nonindicted 80

1. Each description of the details of raising funds for non-financial expenses (investigative records, 6.6 degrees 42 and 46 pages), purchase tax invoices (in general), 6.6 names 42 and 452 pages), 371 copies of the tax invoice, etc. for the year 01-03 (investigative records, 6.6 names 453 and 838 pages);

[Criminal Facts of No. 5]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness’s respective legal statements by Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 81, and Nonindicted 82

1. Each part of the protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant, dated 13, 2004, each of the protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant on October 19, 2004

1. The third written protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 23 by the prosecution, the third written protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 23, October 14, 2004 (in the investigation record 7:22 pages), the prosecutor's first and third written protocol of statement against Nonindicted 24, and the prosecutor's protocol of statement against Nonindicted 81, and Nonindicted 82, and each written protocol of statement by the prosecutor against Nonindicted 24 is written.

1. Each statement of account trading in the names of Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 38, and Nonindicted 23 (investigative Records 7 rights 835 through 885 pages) and each statement of data attached to the investigation report (investigative Records 8 rights 2 through 610 pages) (investigative Records 8 rights 2 through 610 pages)

【Criminal facts of Nos. 6 and 7 at the Time of Sales】

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness’s respective legal statements made by Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 83, Nonindicted 84, Nonindicted 85, Nonindicted 86, Nonindicted 87, Nonindicted 88, and Nonindicted 89

1. The first prosecutor's protocol against Nonindicted 24, October 15, 2004 (in the investigation record, 7:42 pages), each protocol of statement of October 14, 2004 (in the investigation record, 7:22 pages), the first protocol of suspect examination of Nonindicted 27 by the prosecutor against Nonindicted 27, and the second and three copies of each protocol of suspect examination of each prosecutor's interrogation of Nonindicted 27.

1. 4.7 billion won-related non-indicted 5 corporation filing a report on the binding of replacement slips (investigative record 4.7 billion won, 49.49 through 519 pages), reporting a copy of the tax invoice (investigative record 1.49 through 466 pages), copy of each tax invoice (in investigative record 7.7: 7.7%), receipt of false tax invoices (in investigative record 15-1 pages), each of the preliminary return of value-added tax, each of the preliminary return of value-added tax, each of the final return of value-added tax (in the investigation record 298.315 pages), each of the separate statements of return of value-added tax (in the investigation record 7.316 pages, less than 33 pages, less than 350 pages, 367 pages, 38, and 384 pages), non-indicted 24, 38, and non-indicted 23 each of the account statements (in the investigation record 7.835 through 85-4, 960 each defense counsel

1. The allegation as to the first crime in judgment

A. Summary of the assertion

First, Nonindicted Co. 5 decided to supply tin to Nonindicted Co. 7, which had been in need of tin in the Busan New Line Loan site (hereinafter “New Line site”), and that Nonindicted Co. 5’s delivery of tin in Ulsan New Line, which was owned by Nonindicted Co. 5, was prevented due to residents’ civil petitions, while the financial difficulties of Nonindicted Co. 5 were serious, and the Defendant, upon receiving the payment of tin in advance, sent tin to Nonindicted Co. 3 as the civil petition is resolved if tin was paid in advance, and before that, he requested that Nonindicted Co. 5, which was in need of tin free of charge in the Busan New Line Loan site (hereinafter “New Line site”). However, if the civil petition fails to be resolved easily, if the Defendant failed to supply tin to Nonindicted Co. 3, who received the payment from Nonindicted Co. 3 in the form of advance payment, it was not ordered by the Defendant to receive the payment from the Korea Water Resources Corporation from Nonindicted Co. 37.

Second, even if the Defendant received money under the pretext of soliciting the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation to Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted Co. 7 is not a comprehensive construction company, and thus, it is not eligible to receive a direct contract from the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and thus, it is subject to a subcontract from the original contractor. The selection of the subcontractor is merely the matter of the original contractor, and cannot be deemed as the duties of Nonindicted 8, the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument

앞에서 든 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉, ① 공소외 3은 비록 세세한 부분에서 진술이 일관되지 않기는 하지만 “피고인에게 청탁 명목으로 금원을 교부하면서 이를 사석납품대금인 것처럼 가장하였다”는 등 중요한 내용에 관하여 일관되게 진술하고 있는 점( 공소외 3은 어떠한 공사와 관련하여 청탁 명목으로 금원을 교부했는지에 관하여 검찰에서 ‘한탄강댐 공사’라고 진술하였다가 ‘평화의댐 공사’라고 진술하기도 하고, 다시 ‘그 해에 발주되는 공사’라고 하기도 하는 등 수사 초기 진술이 일관되지 아니하나, 이 점에 관하여 법정에서 “검찰에서 당초 한탄강댐 및 시화테크노밸리 공사와 관련하여 금원을 제공하였다는 취지로 진술하였다가 평화의댐 공사와 관련하여 금원을 제공한 것으로 진술을 바꾼 이유는 당시 평화의댐 공사는 이미 완료된 공사인 반면에 한탄강댐 공사 등은 앞으로 해야 할 공사라서 공소외 6 주식회사와 공소외 7 주식회사가 위 공사들을 하지 못하는 상황에 처하게 될 것을 우려했기 때문이다”라는 취지로 진술하고 있고, 그와 같은 진술 번복 경위에 수긍이 간다), ② 공소외 3은 법정에서 “피고인으로부터 제의를 받은 다음 공소외 6 주식회사의 의사를 알아보기 위해 공소외 6 주식회사 공소외 11 부사장을 찾아간 적이 있다”는 취지로 진술하고 있고, 공소외 11 또한 검찰에서 당시 어떤 공사를 수주하기로 했는지에 관하여는 진술이 일관되지 않으나 “ 공소외 3이 찾아와 확인을 요청하여, ‘피고인이 공사를 수주하는 데 도움을 주겠다고 한 것이 사실이고, 대신 공소외 6 주식회사에서도 공소외 7 주식회사에 실행예산 수준으로 하도급을 줄 수 있다’고 확인해 주었다”는 취지로 진술(수사기록 3권 436쪽, 공판기록에 편철된 2005. 3. 19.자 검찰 진술조서 7쪽)한 적이 있는 점{ 공소외 11은 법정에서 위 검찰 진술에 대하여 “나중에 다시 자료를 확인해 보니까 당시에는 평화의댐 증축공사가 예정되어 있지 않았던 것으로 보아 기억이 잘못된 것 같다. 검찰에서는 착각으로 그와 같이 진술한 것이다”라는 취지로 진술하고 있으나 공사가 어떤 공사였는지에 관하여 착각할 수는 있어도 공소외 3과 그런 류의 대화를 나눈 사실조차 착각에 의해 진술했다는 것은 믿기 어렵다}, ③ 공소외 7 주식회사의 임직원인 공소외 12, 공소외 13, 공소외 14도 공소외 3의 진술에 부합하는 취지의 진술을 하고 있는 점, ④ 피고인은 2004. 10.경 자신이 횡령 혐의로 검찰 조사를 받게 되자 공소외 3을 찾아가 ‘검찰에서 47억 원에 대하여 수사를 할지도 모르니 준비를 해 두자’고 하면서 ‘ 공소외 5 주식회사가 공소외 7 주식회사에 사석을 납품하기로 하고 선급금을 받아왔는데, 사석을 납품하지 못하게 될 경우 신명석산의 허가권을 공소외 7 주식회사에 양도한다’는 취지의 각서를 2002. 5. 3.자로 소급하여 작성하였고(제4회 공판조서 중 공소외 3의 진술기재, 공소외 3의 검찰 진술, 수사기록 2권 605, 610쪽), 공소외 3은 위와 같이 피고인의 방문을 받고 신선대 현장소장인 공소외 12를 서울 본사로 불러 ‘우성산업이 신선대 현장에 사석을 납품한 것처럼 현장서류를 갖춰두라’고 지시하면서 월별 납품 수량을 기재한 메모지를 건네주었고, 이에 공소외 12는 2004. 10. 말경 공소외 5 주식회사로부터 부가가치세를 포함하여 51억7,000만 원의 사석 및 피복석을 공급받은 것처럼 외주기성내역서, 외주수량집계표 등을 허위로 작성하였으며, 그 무렵 공소외 13도 공소외 12와 함께 공소외 3으로부터 공소외 5 주식회사가 신선대 현장에 사석을 투입하는 것으로 정리하라는 지시를 받은 다음, 공소외 7 주식회사 재경팀장인 공소외 41에게 ‘신선대 현장에서 보내주는 서류를 체크하여 세금계산서 뒤에 첨부해 두라’고 지시하였고, 공소외 12는 공소외 41로부터 서류를 보내달라는 전화를 받자마자 위와 같이 허위로 작성한 외주기성내역서, 외주수량집계표 각 11장을 고속버스편을 통하여 신속히 본사에 전달하였는바(제4회 공판조서 중 공소외 3, 공소외 12, 공소외 13, 공소외 41의 각 진술기재), 위와 같이 피고인에 대한 검찰 조사가 개시되자 피고인과 공소외 3이 위 47억 원이 선급금이라는 취지의 각서를 소급하여 작성하고, 공소외 3이 세무신고시 관할세무서에 제출하는 등 대외적으로 필요한 서류가 아니라 내부보관용 서류에 불과한 외주기성내역서, 외주수량집계표를 허위로 작성·비치한 것은 위 47억 원에 대한 수사에 대비하기 위한 것으로 볼 수밖에 없는 점, ⑤ 신선대 현장 공사는 2001. 6. 11.부터 공사를 시작했는데, 피고인의 진술과 같이 2002. 1.경에야 비로소 사석납품계약을 체결하였다는 것은 납득하기 어려운 점, ⑥ 공소외 3이 피고인과 어느 정도 친분관계가 있는 것은 사실이지만, 별다른 이유도 없이 사석은 전혀 납품받지도 않은 상태에서 47억 원이나 되는 거액의 돈을 선급금으로 지급한다는 것은 납득하기 어려운 점(이에 대하여 피고인은 위 2002. 5. 3.자 각서에 의해 신명석산을 대물로 제공하기로 약속하였다고 주장하고 있으나, 피고인의 주장에 의하더라도 당시 공소외 5 주식회사의 자금사정이 여의치 못하였다는 것인바, 이러한 사정 아래에서 공소외 3이 신명석산에 물적 담보를 설정받지도 않은 채 각서 하나만을 받고 수십억 원의 돈을 줄 이유는 없고, 그 각서 또한 언제까지 사석을 납품하겠다는 취지의 기재조차 없는 허술한 것에 불과한 것인 점에 비추어 볼 때 피고인의 위 주장은 신빙성이 떨어진다), ⑦ 공소외 3은 2002. 12. 16.까지 피고인에게 합계 43억 원을 지급한 뒤 지급을 중단하였다가, 상당한 기간이 지난 2003. 9.～10.경 두 차례에 걸쳐 피고인에게 합계 4억 원을 추가로 지급하였는데, 이에 관하여 공소외 3은 “위 공사를 중도에 그만두기로 마음먹고 일단 지급을 중단하였다가, 공사를 그만두고 공소외 18 주식회사에 인계한 다음 기성고에 따라 정산하여 추가로 4억 원을 지급하였다”는 취지로 진술하고 있는바, 공소외 7 주식회사는 2003. 5. 말경 공소외 18 주식회사에 위 공사를 인계하기로 하고 그 후 약 2～3개월 간 공소외 18 주식회사와 공동작업을 한 다음 2003. 8.경 위 공사에서 완전히 철수하였고(제4회 공판조서 중 공소외 3의 진술기재, 공소외 1의 법정 진술), 그 직후에 피고인에게 4억 원을 추가로 지급한 것으로 보아 공소외 3의 위 진술은 설득력이 있는 반면, 만약 그것이 사석 선급금 또는 지원금이라면 약 8개월간이나 그 지급이 중단되었다가 다시 4억 원을 추가 지급하게 된 이유를 설명하기 어려운 점, ⑧ 신명석산의 민원 문제가 해결되지 않았는데도 불구하고 우선 선급금부터 주고받는다는 것은 납득하기 어려운 점, ⑨ 신명석산에 대한 관할관청의 채석허가는 울산 신항만 건설에 사용하는 것으로 그 용도를 제한하고 있으므로 신명석산의 돌을 신선대 현장에서 사용하려면 용도변경허가를 받아야 함에도 공소외 5 주식회사에서 용도변경허가신청조차 하지 않은 점, ⑩ 위 49억 원이 사석선급금 또는 지원금 명목이라면 부가가치세를 납부하거나 기성검사청구를 할 필요성이 없음에도 공소외 7 주식회사로부터 세금계산서를 교부받아 부가가치세를 납부하고, 기성검사청구를 한 것은 도저히 납득하기 어려운 점, ⑪ 공소외 3이 공소외 6 주식회사로부터 실행예산 수준으로 하도급을 받도록 해 주겠다는 약속을 받은 만큼 결국 공소외 3이 피고인에게 건네주기로 한 75억 원은 공소외 6 주식회사에서 공사대금을 부풀려 보전해 줄 것이 예정된 셈이므로 공소외 3의 입장에서 볼 때 피고인에게 지급하기로 한 금액이 상당히 큰 금액이라 할지라도 충분히 피고인의 제의를 받아들일 만한 것이었다고 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 공소외 3에게 한국수자원공사 사장 공소외 8에게 부탁하여 한국수자원공사에서 발주하는 공사를 공소외 6 주식회사가 수주받게 하고 그 중 토공사 부분을 공소외 7 주식회사가 하도급받도록 해 주겠다는 명목으로 금원을 수수하되, 다만 이를 사석납품대금을 지급하는 것으로 가장하였다고 보아야 할 것이다.

Therefore, the first argument is rejected.

(2) Judgment on the second argument

Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that the term "cases or affairs dealt with by public officials" includes not only the duties under the law, but also the duties closely related to, or customs or actual duties under the jurisdiction of, the public officials. In other words, the President of the Water Resources Corporation has the ultimate authority and duties to supervise the projects ordered by the Water Resources Corporation. In other words, in the projects ordered by the Water Resources Corporation, the selection of a subcontractor shall be deemed to have a significant impact on the performance of the projects and shall be naturally included in the subject of supervision of the Water Resources Corporation. Moreover, in addition, it appears that a large number of the construction projects in the bidding of the Water Resources Corporation designated the subcontractor and participated in the bidding, and it appears that the assessment of the selection of the subcontractor is actually related from the order of the Corporation, and the contents of the solicitation of this case merely requests that Nonindicted Co. 7 be subcontracted from Nonindicted Co. 6, and it does not request the Korea Water Resources Corporation to accept some of the subcontracting's duties and duties under the supervision of the Korea Water Resources Corporation.

2. The assertion as to the second crime in judgment;

A. Summary of the assertion

First, the Defendant was able to lend a bill discount from Nonindicted Co. 18 and 20 to 3 billion won in cash, and fully repaid the amount of KRW 2 billion. However, Nonindicted Co. 1’s solicitation from the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation to Nonindicted Co. 8, which was 2.4 billion in the name of allowing it to receive a subcontract for the construction of the Peace Dam from Hyundai Construction, and it was not received KRW 3 billion in the name of allowing it to receive a subcontract for the construction of the Peace Dam from North Co. 6, and the charges are included in the borrowed money.

Second, the order points of the Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Water Resources Corporation”) was around 100,000, and the Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Water Resources Corporation”) has the authority to select a subcontractor as each main contractor, so the selection of Hyundai Construction and Nonindicted 6 Company is not included in the duties of the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Water Resources Corporation”).

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the first argument

앞에서 든 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉, ① 공소외 1은 검찰에서 “2001. 9. 중순경 굴포천 임시방수로공사 제2공구 하도급업체 선정을 위한 입찰 전에 피고인으로부터 ‘한국수자원공사 사장 공소외 8을 통해 현대건설로부터 3공구를 수의계약으로 주도록 할 수 있다’는 제의를 받은 다음 공소외 19 부장에게 단가 검토를 지시하여 조건이 좋다는 보고를 받고 피고인의 제의에 응하여 매월 기성금이 나오는 대로 피고인에게 1억 원씩 주기로 하였다”는 취지로 진술(수사기록 3권 518～520쪽)한 이래 이 법정에 이르기까지 일부 사소한 부분을 제외하고는 대체로 일관되게 위 진술을 유지하고 있고, 그 진술 내용도 모순되거나 비합리적인 부분이 없는 점, ② 또한 공소외 1은 검찰(수사기록 523, 524쪽)에서 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 “피고인이 ‘평화의댐 공사를 굴포천 임시방수로공사와 마찬가지 방법으로 하도급 받게 해 줄테니 26억 원을 달라’고 하였는데, 이는 ‘ 공소외 8을 통해서 원청업체인 공소외 6 주식회사에 이야기해서 하도급 받게 해 준다’는 뜻이다”, “명시적인 언급은 없었지만, 굴포천 방수로공사 때 확실하게 이야기했으므로 당연히 공소외 8에게 청탁하여 하도급 받도록 해 주겠다는 뜻으로 알았다”라는 취지로 진술하고 있는바, 피고인과 공소외 1 사이에 이미 굴포천 임시방수로공사와 관련하여 공소외 8에게 청탁한다는 명목으로 금원을 주고받기로 약속한 적이 있고, 그 후 다소 시간이 흘렀다고 하더라도 아직 그에 대한 청탁 사례비가 오가지 않은 상태였던 시기였으며, 사례비의 액수에 관하여 협상할 때 피고인이 공소외 1에게 26억 원을 요구하면서 ‘ 공소외 7 주식회사와의 형평’을 언급하였고(수사기록 3권 525쪽), 공소외 1도 평화의댐 공사가 한국수자원공사에서 발주하는 공사임을 잘 알고 있었던 점으로 미루어 볼 때, 피고인과 공소외 1 사이에 묵시적으로 ‘한국수자원공사 사장 공소외 8에게 청탁하여 공소외 6 주식회사로부터 평화의댐 공사를 하도급 받도록 해 주겠다’는 합의가 있었다고 보이는 점, ③ 공소외 1은 검찰에서 “굴포천 임시방수로공사와 관련하여 공소외 18 주식회사가 공소외 5 주식회사의 발파암을 운반해 준 운반비를 받지 못하여 청탁 사례금과 상계해야 할 수도 있었기 때문에 청탁 사례금 지급을 미루다가, 평화의댐 공사를 하도급 받기로 하면서 피고인으로부터 ‘종전에 약속한 돈도 함께 달라’는 말을 들었고, 운송비 문제도 어느 정도 정리되어 2003. 4.경부터 24억 원을 주었다”는 취지의 진술(수사기록 3권 521쪽)을 하고 있는 점, ④ 공소외 1은 일관되게 피고인에게 청탁 명목으로 지급할 24억 원을 마련하기 위해 경리부장인 공소외 22에게 지시하여 이른바 비자금을 조성하도록 한 다음, 공소외 21 차장을 시켜 공소외 5 주식회사의 공소외 23에게 전달하도록 지시하였다고 진술하고 있고, 이에 관하여 공소외 22도 법정에서 “2002. 1.경부터 2004. 3.경까지 공소외 1의 지시에 따라 인건비나 중장비 대금을 부풀리는 방법으로 약 38～39억 원의 비자금을 조성하여 사무실 내 대형 금고에 보관하다가 2003. 4.경부터 2003. 5.경까지 공소외 1의 지시를 받은 공소외 21 차장이 검은색 가방을 들고 오면 공소외 1이 별도로 지시한 돈을 가방에 담아주었다”는 취지로 진술하고 있으며, 공소외 21 또한 검찰 및 법정에서 “ 공소외 1이 2003. 4.경 회장실로 불러 공소외 22 부장에게 미리 이야기해 놓았으니 공소외 5 주식회사 측에서 연락이 오면 공소외 22로부터 돈을 받아 공소외 5 주식회사 측에 전해 주라고 하였다”는 취지로 진술하고 있는 점, ⑤ 공소외 21은 검찰에서 “ 공소외 23이 전화로 ‘ 공소외 1로부터 지시받은 것이 있느냐’고 묻더니 ‘자기가 몇 시에 공소외 18 주식회사 사무실로 올테니 준비해 달라’고 하여 시간에 맞추어 돈 넣을 가방을 준비하여 공소외 22 부장을 찾아가 공소외 1의 지시를 받고 왔다고 하면 공소외 22도 지시를 받았는지 별다른 말을 하지 않고 금고에서 돈을 꺼내 주었다. 그 돈을 준비한 가방에 담아 사무실로 가져온 후 책상 밑 공간이나 책상과 벽면 사이 공간에 넣어두었다가 공소외 23이 오면 가방채로 전달하였다”는 취지로 진술(수사기록 6권 844, 845쪽)하였고, 공소외 23 또한 “2002년 또는 2003년에 피고인의 지시로 공소외 18 주식회사 공소외 21 차장으로부터 현금을 담은 가방을 여러 번 받아왔는데, 합하면 20억 원이 넘는다”는 취지로 진술(수사기록 4권 376쪽)한 적이 있는데, 만약 대여금이라면 계좌로 송금하거나 수표로 교부하는 등 보다 편리한 방법으로 주고받았을 것이지 이처럼 매번 불편하게 현금을 주고받을 이유는 없어 보이는 점, ⑥ 굴포천 임시방수로공사 제3공구 중 공소외 18 주식회사가 하도급 받은 부분의 실제 견적금액은 64억 원 정도였으나 계약금액은 79억8,600만 원으로 약 15억8,600만 원 정도의 계약금액이 부풀려져 있었고( 공소외 1, 공소외 19의 법정 진술, ){다만, 위 공사 제2공구 부분도 공소외 18 주식회사의 견적금액은 37억 원이었는데, 계약금액은 47억 원으로 결정되기는 하였으나, 공소외 1은 이에 관하여 “제2공구의 계약금액은 실제로 증액된 것”이라고 진술하고 있고, 공소외 18 주식회사의 현장 공무팀장이었던 공소외 20도 “본사에서 37억 원 기준으로 105% 선에서 조정을 해 주었던 것으로 생각된다”는 취지로 진술(수사기록 3권 624쪽)한 점에 비추어 볼 때 제2공구 계약금액은 당초 견적금액이 너무 적어 실제 증액된 것으로 보인다}, 평화의댐 공사도 간접비(일반관리비, 안전관리비)와 본댐 축조 공종의 재료인 암석 단가 부분 등이 비슷한 조건의 다른 공사에 비해 상당히 높게 책정되어 있었던 점( 공소외 1, 공소외 64의 각 법정 진술){변호인은 공소외 18 주식회사가 피고인에게 24억 원이라는 큰 돈을 줄만큼 위 두 공사에서의 예상수익이 충분하지 못하였다고 주장하나, 공소외 18 주식회사로서는 부풀려진 계약금액에서 위 24억 원을 마련하면 되는 것이고, 게다가 공소외 1이 공소외 19 등을 시켜 단가를 검토한 후 계약에 임한 점에 비추어 보면 위 주장은 설득력이 부족하다}, ⑦ 공소외 21은 법정 및 검찰에서 “ 공소외 18 주식회사가 공소외 5 주식회사에 2000. 9.～10.경부터 2003. 4.～5.경까지 대략 20여 회에 걸쳐 약 29억 원의 돈을 빌려주고 매번 차용증을 받았는데, 위 29억 원은 청탁 명목으로 지급한 24억 원과는 별개의 돈이다”라는 취지로 진술하고 있고, 공소외 23이 공소외 21에게 작성해 준 2002. 9. 25.자 차용증이 폐기되지 않고 남아 있어 위 진술에 부합하는 점(수사기록 5권 23쪽), ⑧ 굴포천 임시방수로공사의 2공구와 3공구 사이에 거대한 암이 발견되어 공사 안전관리의 문제 때문에 2공구 공사를 낙찰받은 공소외 18 주식회사가 3공구까지 수의계약에 의해 하도급을 받았을 가능성도 없지 않으나, 만약 위와 같이 거대한 암이 발견되었다면 2-3공구를 함께 입찰에 부칠 수 있었는데도(2공구 입찰로 인한 하도급계약 직후 3공구 수의계약이 체결되었다) 그렇게 하지 않은 것으로 미루어 보아 위와 같은 사정 때문에 공소외 18 주식회사가 3공구에 대하여 수의계약을 체결한 것으로 보이지는 않는 점, ⑨ 또한, 공소외 18 주식회사는 굴포천 임시방수로공사 2공구에 대하여 하도급계약을 체결한 직후 3공구에 대하여 수의계약을 체결하기는 하였으나, 이는 공소외 1이 2공구에 대한 입찰 전에 피고인으로부터 3공구에 대한 수의계약을 제의받았고(수사기록 3권 518쪽), 공소외 18 주식회사가 2공구 계약 며칠 전인 2001. 9. 18. 낙찰을 받았다는 점(3공구 계약 체결일은 2001. 9. 25.)에서 충분히 납득할 수 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 공소외 1로부터 한국수자원공사 사장 공소외 8에게 청탁하여 굴포천 임시방수로공사 3공구 공사, 평화의댐 공사를 하도급받게 해 준다는 명목으로 24억 원을 받았다고 보아야 할 것이므로 첫 번째 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

(2) Judgment on the second argument

As seen in the part of the judgment as to the crime No. 1 of the above decision, "cases or affairs handled by public officials" in Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act includes not only the duties under the jurisdiction of the public officials, but also the acts closely related to their duties or the acts under the jurisdiction of customs or actual jurisdiction.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the selection of a subcontractor in the construction works of so-called so-called so-called so-called spawal and Spawal and Spawal and Spawal are acts closely related to the cases or affairs handled by the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and thus, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation exercised the supervisory authority through the Korea Water Resources Corporation. Accordingly, the actual supervisory authority over so-called spawal and Spawal and Spag Construction has been the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and the peace Dam is the project ordering the Korea Water Resources Corporation. In light of the fact that the selection of a subcontractor in the construction works of so-called spawal and Spagal and Spagal Dam is naturally included in the subject of supervision by the Korea Water Resources Corporation.

3. As to the third crime in its holding

A. Summary of the assertion

As seen in the assertion on the above crime No. 1, the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of stone with Nonindicted Co. 7 and received the advance payment or subsidy, and thus, there was no false accounting document issued and delivered with Nonindicted Co. 7, and there was no false accounting document.

B. Determination

According to the evidence of the above, as seen in the part of the judgment on the above crime No. 1, the defendant received a total of KRW 4.7 billion from Nonindicted 3 to the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation in solicitation of Nonindicted 8 and received an order from the Korea Water Resources Corporation from Nonindicted 6. The defendant promised to receive the above KRW 4.7 billion from Nonindicted 3, and ordered Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 25, and Nonindicted 24 to prepare a supply contract with Nonindicted 7, and had him prepare a false written request for inspection and a written request for payment for construction cost in spite of the fact that he was actually supplied, so that he did not receive the above KRW 4.7 billion in return for solicitation related to the case or affairs handled by a public official, and the defendant would have received the price for supply of tin, and the defendant further investigated the defendant's embezzlement of the defendant's crime of embezzlement around October 204, and the defendant, including the value-added tax on the above charges of Nonindicted 1, 3.75 billion won in retroactive account.

In light of the above facts, in order to pretend that the above KRW 4.7 billion was acquired as a result of the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, the defendant had employees, such as Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 25, and Nonindicted 24, prepare, deliver, and keep false contract documents and accounting documents, such as the letter of supply of stone, and the written request for inspection of gender, in order to suggest that they were acquired as a normal price for supplying stone, and the above 4.7 billion won was received under the pretext of solicitation to the public officials, and thus, the above assertion is not acceptable.

4. The argument as to the fourth crime in judgment;

A. Summary of the assertion

Each tax invoice listed in attached Table 1 is delivered to the advance payment of tin.

B. Determination

As seen in the part of the judgment on the above crime No. 1, the above argument is rejected since it is recognized that the defendant issued a false tax invoice to Nonindicted Co. 7 in order to pretend that he would receive the orders from the Korea Water Resources Corporation by requesting Nonindicted Co. 3 to the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and that he would receive the orders from the Korea Water Resources Corporation to receive the orders from Nonindicted Co. 6 and that he would accept the part of the earth work.

5. The assertion as to the fifth crime in judgment;

A. Summary of the assertion

Most of the 3,035,096,100 won in the list 3 of crime sights 3,035,096,00 won were used for the company such as recovery of overdue bills, payment of interest, field encouragement, business promotion expenses, and installment of employee vehicles, and the amount used individually by the defendant was merely KRW 764,590,610,000, and there was no intention to acquire illegal profits for the defendant. Since the defendant deposited KRW 1,517,80,000 in 12 times from May 7, 2004 to September 24, 2004, there was no money embezzled by the defendant.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the defendant used the above amount exceeding 764,590,610 won for the company among the above 3,035,096,100 won

In the crime of occupational embezzlement, it is necessary for a prosecutor to prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to have no reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined as the defendant's interest. However, if the representative of a corporation withdraws and uses the company's money, and fails to present documentary evidence as to the reason for withdrawal and use, and fails to provide reasonable explanation as to the place of use, such amount may be presumed to have been used for personal purposes by withdrawing the company's money with the intent of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do5459, Jul. 26, 2002; 2003Do6387, Dec. 26, 2003).

Examining the following circumstances, Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 24, which were acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, such as the statement of some of the Defendant’s prosecutorial statement and investigation report (which was based on the embezzlement of the Defendant), i.e., Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 24 were unable to keep accounts on a normal basis among the money used by the Defendant or Nonindicted 25, and (i) collected evidentiary materials, such as the statement of money and the receipt of remittance, and (ii) settled the current status of non-processing money separately from the cash receipt and the receipt, and then discarded them at the time of annual settlement; (iii) Nonindicted 23 did not use the money for personal purposes, and (iv) it appears that the Defendant used the money for non-indicted 4’s personal purposes without stating the reasons for the “the fact that the Defendant was unable to use the money for non-indicted 1’s personal purposes,” and (v) it was reasonable to conclude that it was difficult for the Defendant to use the money for non-indicted 1’s personal purposes and to manage the money for non-indicted 284’s personal purposes.

한편, 변호인은 피고인이 회사 용도로 사용하였다는 점에 대한 증빙자료를 첨부하여 증 제48호를 제출하였으므로 각 항목별로 제출된 자료를 살펴보면, ① 경조금, 선물구입비(금강제화 상품권, 농협 충북유통 선물대금 송금, 상품권 구입비), 접대비(골프) 등은 그 영수증 또는 송금증이 첨부되어 있으나, 만약 회사의 업무와 관련하여 선물을 구입한 것이라면 정상적으로 회계처리할 수 있는 것임에도 정상적으로 회계처리하지 않은 점에 비추어 보면 피고인이 개인적으로 구입한 선물비라고 보이므로 이를 회사 용도로 사용된 것으로 인정하기 어렵고, ② 공소외 26 명의의 여관을 담보로 한 대출금에 대한 이자는 그 영수증이 첨부되어 있으나, 채무자가 회사라면 그 대출금 이자를 회사의 비용에 산입하지 않을 이유가 없고, 공소외 26은 검찰에서 “ 공소외 5 주식회사에 돈을 빌려준 적이 없다”(수사기록 5권 10쪽)고 진술한 적이 있는 점 등에 비추어 회사의 대출금에 대한 이자를 지급한 것으로 보기 어려우며, ③ 피고인 차량보험료는 비처리분 전표내역 현황에 “ 공소외 26 명의 차량 보험료”라고 기재되어 있고, 변호인이 제출한 보험료 납부 영수증에도 보험계약자 명의가 공소외 26으로 되어 있어 공소외 26 개인 차량에 대한 보험료라고 보일 뿐이고, ④ 공소외 27, 공소외 28의 자녀 학자금은 그들의 자녀 학자금을 공소외 5 주식회사에서 부담하여야 할 합리적인 이유가 전혀 없어 회사 용도로 인정하기 어려우며, ⑤ 조흥은행, 우리은행, 자산관리공사, 신용정보에 대한 자금상환은 각 입금증이 제출되어 있으나, 공소외 5 주식회사의 채무라는 점을 소명할 자료는 전혀 제출되지 않았고, 회사의 채무라면 그 자금 상환을 굳이 비처리분 전표내역 현황에 기재할 이유가 없으므로 회사 용도로 인정할 수 없고, ⑥ 공소외 29, 공소외 30( 공소외 5 주식회사 직원) 명의 차량 할부금은 비록 공소외 29, 공소외 30이 회사 업무에 그 소유 차량을 이용한다고 하더라도 여전히 회사의 소유가 아니고, 회사에서 공소외 29, 공소외 30에게 차량을 제공할 필요가 있다면 회사 명의로 구입하거나, 리스를 이용하는 등의 방법으로 경비를 절감할 수 있었는데도 굳이 직원들 명의로 한다는 것은 납득하기 어려우므로 이 또한 회사 용도로 인정할 수 없으며(직원 휴대전화 대금도 마찬가지다), ⑦ 카누연맹 휴가비, 재단설립자본금에 사용된 것은 정상적으로 회계처리할 수 있는 것임에도 이를 정상적으로 회계처리하지 않고 비처리분 전표내역 현황에 기재한 점, 카누연맹 휴가비의 경우 비록 공소외 5 주식회사 앞으로 영수증이 발급되기는 하였다 하더라도 피고인이 회장으로 있는 카누연맹에 휴가비를 지급하는 것이 회사의 업무와 관련성이 있다고 보기 어렵고, 재단설립 또한 이를 정상적으로 회계처리하지 않는 이상 회사의 업무와 관련된 것이라고 보기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 이를 회사 용도로 인정할 수 없고, ⑧ 기계설치비보관금은 굳이 3억 원이나 되는 큰 금액을 인출하여 따로 금고에 보관할 만한 합리적인 이유가 없어 회사 용도를 위하여 지출된 것으로 보기 어려우며, ⑨ 민원인 급여( 공소외 31)는 그 영수증을 첨부하고 있으나, 그것이 민원과 관련하여 지출된 것이라는 점을 인정할 자료가 없는 점, 백석동 적치장과 관련하여 민원 문제를 해결하기 위하여 공소외 81에게 지급한 금원은 백석동 현장소장이었던 공소외 82를 통하여 정상적인 자금으로 지급한 점, 비처리분 전표내역 현황에도 민원비로 지출된 내역이 기재되어 있으므로 만약 위 금원이 민원인에게 지급한 것이라면 같은 명목으로 기재하였을 것인 점 등으로 미루어 볼 때 민원 문제를 해결하기 위하여 지출된 것으로 보기 어렵고, ⑩ 공소외 32 주식회사 대여는 공소외 32 주식회사가 피고인이 따로 운영하는 법인이고, 대여금으로 정식 회계처리된 것도 아니므로 회사의 업무 용도로 사용된 것으로 인정하기 어려우며, ⑪ 사채이자는 비교적 쉽게 만들어 낼 수 있는 피고인 발행의 영수증{특히 2004. 7. 9.자 영수증이 2장 있는데 그 중 1장은 금액란이 “이십원 정(100,000)”으로 터무니없이 잘못 기재되어 있고, 다른 1장은 623만 원짜리 영수증인데 비처리분 전표내역 현황에는 위 금액이 피고인의 영어학원비로 사용된 것으로 기재되어 있고, 에듀타운에 이를 송금한 송금영수증이 편철되어 있다} 외에 사채이자로 지출되었음을 인정할 자료가 없어 회사의 사채이자를 지급한 것으로 보기 어렵고, ⑫ 어음회수 자금은 어음 앞뒷면 사본이 첨부되어 있으나, 비처리분 전표내역 현황에도 어음회수 자금으로 기재된 항목이 따로 있고, 위 어음들은 모두 공소외 5 주식회사가 발행한 것이 아니라 배서한 것에 불과하고 그 지급기일이 모두 2000년인데, 배서인에 대한 소구권의 소멸시효기간(만기로부터 1년)이 지난 뒤에 이를 공소외 5 주식회사가 회수해야 할 특별한 이유를 찾아보기도 어려운 점에 비추어 위 금원이 회사 용도로 지출되었다고 보기 어렵다.

Therefore, this part of the argument is not accepted.

(2) Whether the defendant should deduct the money deposited in the company from the amount of embezzlement

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, such as the third copy of the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 23, which are difficult for the Defendant to use the company funds from time to time by ordering Nonindicted Party 23 and Nonindicted Party 24, and the Defendant deposited and used the general sales proceeds sold at the place of pre-sale aggregate production in case of shortage of funds to the company, and the Defendant separately raised and used the funds (in 2004, approximately KRW 1.5 billion), and Nonindicted Party 23 and Nonindicted 24 entered and managed the funds in the cash receipt book in the case of ordinary expenditure, while the Defendant did not use the funds or manage them in the case of the funds used for personal use by the Defendant at his discretion. Accordingly, in light of the fact that the funds raised by the Defendant at the place of pre-sale aggregate production and the fact that the funds raised by the Defendant were not kept in a normal account, and the Defendant’s right to receive funds from Nonindicted Party 2 was not separated from the representative director of the company at the end of 20 years’s cash receipt and payment without any difference between the Defendant’s cash receipt and payment.

6. The assertion as to the sixth crime in its holding

A. Summary of the assertion

Part 112 of the remaining tax invoices except for Chapter 3 of the tax invoices received from Nonindicted Co. 3, 112, while Nonindicted Co. 5 supplied transportation services through Nonindicted Co. 27, Nonindicted 34, and Nonindicted 35, which is a dump truck intermediary or solicitation book, but a dump truck business operator is mostly a fump truck owner, and a tax invoice issued in the name of another person who is not a actual supplier because there are many persons operating a dump truck and a dump truck operator, and thus, Nonindicted Co. 5 did not receive the above tax invoices without actual transaction.

B. Determination

증인 공소외 83, 공소외 84, 공소외 85, 공소외 86, 공소외 87, 공소외 88, 공소외 89의 각 법정 진술, 증인 공소외 27, 공소외 24, 공소외 23, 공소외 34, 공소외 35의 각 일부 법정 진술 등 앞에서 든 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉, ① 공소외 24는 검찰에서 “매입한 세금계산서를 모두 따로 모아 ‘2003년도 부가세 매입자료’라는 이름의 파일로 관리하여 왔다”는 취지로 진술(수사기록 7권 44쪽)하였는데, 실거래가 있었고 다만 공급자 아닌 자가 발행한 것에 불과하다면 굳이 이를 따로 모아 파일로 관리할 필요는 없어 보이는 점, ② 위 각 세금계산서 상의 공급자 중 원삼운수(주), 공소외 48 주식회사, (주)세이뎁스 등 상당수 업체가 국세청에 자료상으로 등록되었거나 직권폐업되었고, 한영건설기계(주), 화승건설중기 등 자진 또는 무단폐업한 업체들도 있는 등 공급자 중 상당수가 이른바 자료상이라는 강한 의심이 드는 데다가, 공소외 5 주식회사가 직접 세금계산서를 매입하였다고 주장하는 공소외 33 주식회사 발행의 세금계산서의 경우 위조된 것이라는 의심이 드는 점{증인 공소외 85, 공소외 89의 각 법정 진술, 5개 업체 현황에 대한 관할 세무서 공문 각1부(수사기록 7권 1323～1332쪽)}, ③ 실제 용역을 제공한 자에게 대금을 지급한 경위에 관한 피고인, 공소외 23, 공소외 24의 법정에서의 진술은 “㉠ 공소외 5 주식회사가 공소외 27 등에게 융통어음으로 대금을 지불, ㉡ 공소외 27 등이 이를 다시 피고인에게 어음할인을 부탁, ㉢ 피고인이 융통어음을 다시 받아와 사채업자 등으로부터 어음 할인을 부탁하거나 자신의 처 등으로부터 어음을 직접 할인, ㉣ 공소외 24와 공소외 27 등이 피고인이 소개하는 사채업자 등으로부터 어음을 할인하고 할인금 수령 또는 피고인으로부터 할인금 수령, ㉤ 공소외 27이 위 어음 할인금으로 운송업자들에게 대금 지급, ㉥ 위 각 어음의 지급기일이 도래하기 전에 공소외 5 주식회사가 세금계산서 발행 업체 명의 계좌에 공사대금 상당의 금원을 입금, ㉦ 공소외 24와 공소외 27 등이 이를 현금으로 인출하거나 수표로 인출한 다음 현금으로 교환하여 다시 공소외 5 주식회사에게 교부하거나, 피고인이 지정하는 계좌에 입금, ㉧ 융통어음 회수”의 과정을 거치는 것으로 요약될 수 있는데, 어차피 용역대금을 현금으로 지급할 것이라면 보다 간편하고 비용이 적게 드는 대금지급방법이 있음에도 불구하고, 위와 같이 번잡하고도 비용이 많이 드는 방법을 이용할 이유는 없어 보이고, 더구나 세금계산서 발행 업체 명의 계좌로 입금된 현금을 다시 현금으로 인출하거나 수표로 인출하였다가 현금으로 교환할 이유도 없어 보이는 점(이에 대하여 변호인은 사채업자들이 현금만 받기 때문이라는 취지의 주장을 하나, 피고인이 자신의 처 등 지인으로부터 어음을 할인받은 경우까지 현금이 필요하다고 보기는 어렵다), ④ 한편, 피고인은 검찰에서 “중개업자들이 매출금액에 해당하는 만큼의 세금계산서를 맞추지 못할 경우가 있는데 이 때 중간업자들이 내게 부가세를 달라고 하고, 비용조로 발행금액의 2～3%를 더 달라고 요구하게 되면 나는 그렇게라도 해야 세금신고를 할 수 있기 때문에 발행금액의 12～13%를 주고 매입하였다”는 취지로 진술(수사기록 7권 222쪽)하였고, 공소외 27은 검찰에서 “ 공소외 49 주식회사로부터 세금계산서를 매입하면서 법인세 명목으로 2～3% 정도를 주는데, 공소외 5 주식회사에서는 일단 “ 공소외 49 주식회사 계좌로 입금하고, “ 공소외 49 주식회사에서 부가가치세와 법인세를 공제한 나머지를 내게 지급하였다”는 취지로 진술(수사기록 7권 1095쪽)하였으며, 법정에서는 “세금계산서를 발행하는 회사들에게 부가세 상당액에 공급가액의 2～3% 정도의 수수료를 더한 금액을 지급한다”고 진술하고 있는바, 위 진술들을 종합하면 결국 세금계산서 수취에 필요한 비용, 특히 법인세 명목으로 지급하는 비용을 공소외 5 주식회사에서 부담하는 셈인데, 실제 거래가 있었다면 공소외 5 주식회사에서 이를 부담할 이유는 없는 점, ⑤ 공소외 27은 법정에서 “ 공소외 49 주식회사와 광성건설기계에 대해 “모르는 회사다”라고 진술하면서도 그 회사들 명의 계좌의 도장을 자신이 가지고 있다고 진술하고 있고, 나아가 ““ 공소외 49 주식회사 관계자 공소외 50으로부터 명판과 인감이 날인된 세금계산서를 받아서 그 내용을 기재하였다”는 취지의 진술(수사기록 7권 1094쪽)을 하고 있어 그 진술이 모순되는 점, ⑥ 공소외 23, 공소외 24는 각 검찰에서 “실거래가 있으나 공급자 아닌 자의 명의로 교부받은 세금계산서와 실거래가 없는 세금계산서가 섞여 있는데, 양자를 구분할 수 없다”고 진술하고 있고, 피고인이나 공소외 5 주식회사 측에서 실제 거래가 있었음을 입증할 아무런 자료도 제출하지 못하고 있는 점, ⑦ 공소외 5 주식회사는 부가가치세 과세표준을 신고하면서 위 18개 업체 외에도 경신공업, 민우중기, 반포중기 등 모두 200여개 업체로부터 세금계산서를 매입한 것으로 신고하였고, 그 중 운송업체도 상당수 포함되어 있는 것으로 보이므로, 설령 실거래가 있었다 하더라도 그에 대하여는 위 다른 업체들과 거래가 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, ⑧ 공소외 24, 공소외 23은 법정에서 공소외 5 주식회사가 공소외 27, 공소외 34, 공소외 35로부터 교부받은 세금계산서를 발행 명의 회사별로 구분하여 구체적인 세금계산서 공급가액 합계액까지 명확하게 기억하고 있는 듯한 진술을 하고 있고, 공소외 34, 공소외 35 또한 자신들이 공급자 아닌 자의 세금계산서를 매입 또는 수취하여 공소외 5 주식회사에 교부한 내역에 관하여 공소외 24, 공소외 23과 같은 취지로 진술하고 있으나, 공소외 24, 공소외 23의 위 검찰에서의 진술에 비추어 볼 때 위 각 법정 진술은 공소사실의 세금계산서가 가공의 세금계산서가 아니라는 주장을 뒷받침하기 위하여 짜맞춰진 진술이라는 의심이 드는 점, ⑨ 공소외 27은 이 법정에서 “ 공소외 34가 덤프트럭 차주들을 시켜 용역을 제공하였는데, 내가 공소외 34에게 피케이건설 명의로 세금계산서를 약 3억 원 정도 발행해 주었다. “ 공소외 49 주식회사는 지입차주를 통해 실제로 운송용역을 공급하였다”는 취지로 진술하고 있는데 반하여, 공소외 24는 법정에서 “피케이건설 명의의 세금계산서들은 정상적으로 발행된 것이다. “ 공소외 49 주식회사 명의의 세금계산서는 공소외 27이 공급자 아닌 자로부터 수취하여 갖다준 것이다”라는 취지로 진술하는 등 두 사람의 진술이 서로 일치하지 않고 있는 점, ⑩ 공소외 27은 검찰에서 “ 공소외 34가 작성한 확인서에 첨부된 37장의 세금계산서는 공소외 34가 매입한 것인데, 내가 대필해 준 것이다”라는 취지로 진술(수사기록 7권 1096쪽)하고 있는데, 여러 회사 명의로 발행된 세금계산서를 모두 공소외 27이 대필하였다는 것은 납득하기 어렵고, 나아가 자신이 “금능산업개발(주), 전영건설기계 등을 공소외 34에게 소개해 주었다”는 취지로 진술하면서도 누구로부터 세금계산서를 교부받았는지에 관하여 모른다고 진술(수사기록 7권 1097쪽)하는 등 그 진술에 모순이나 불합리한 점이 많은 점, ⑪ 피고인은 검찰에서 위 115장의 세금계산서 중 “ 공소외 49 주식회사 명의 세금계산서 6장 등 모두 25장이 실거래 없이 수수한 가공세금계산서라면서 그 목록을 작성 제출하였다가 법정에 이르러 공소외 33 주식회사 명의 세금계산서 3장만 가공세금계산서이고, 나머지는 모두 실거래는 있으나 공급자 아닌 자로부터 받은 세금계산서라고 진술하면서, 검찰에 제출한 가공세금계산서 목록은 횡령 금액에 맞추어 무작위로 추출한 것이라고 진술하는 등 수사와 공판과정에서 이 부분 공소사실에 관하여 일관되지 아니한 태도를 보이고 있어 그 변소 내용을 그대로 믿기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면, 공소외 5 주식회사가 위 18개 업체로부터 교부받은 세금계산서 115장은 모두 실물거래 없이 교부받은 것으로 봄이 상당하므로 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

7. Claims as to each crime listed in Article 7 of the holding;

A. Summary of the assertion

First, from January 1, 200 to June 30, 204, the amount deposited into the passbook of Nonindicted 38 from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2004, including the value-added tax, was included in the sales amount by normally issuing the tax invoice and filing the tax base return of the value-added tax and the corporate tax. 5,718,300 among them was omitted from the tax base of the remaining 478,893,93,930,000 won; second, Nonindicted 5 purchased the tax invoice issued under the name of another person who is not the actual supplier; and second, the tax invoice issued under the name of another person who is not the actual supplier of the service but did not receive the tax invoice without actual transaction. Thus, the tax amount evaded by Nonindicted 5 is nothing more than the amount calculated by multiplying the above omitted sales amount by the corporate tax rate of the value-added tax, the corporate tax rate of the value-added tax prescribed by the law, and the amount equivalent to the corporate tax rate of the corporate tax prescribed by law.

B. Determination

This part of the facts charged should be seen as together with all the facts charged for tax evasion for the convenience of calculating the amount of tax evaded.

(i)the calculation of evaded taxes of tax authorities and prosecutors;

According to the above evidence, the tax office and the prosecutor can recognize the facts of calculating the evaded tax amount as follows.

(A) Value-added tax

The total amount of KRW 2,651,386,274 (including value-added tax) which was deposited in the accounts held by Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 23 is recognized as omitting sales, and the amount obtained by deducting value-added tax from the relevant amount for each taxable period during each taxable period from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2004, shall be the omitted sales (total amount of KRW 2,321,185,795). The amount of KRW 4.7 billion received in the name of solicitation under the crime of Article 1 of the judgment shall be deemed as processed sales, and the relevant amount shall be deemed as processed sales by each taxable period, among the purchase tax invoices without actual transactions, the amount of the remaining supply value (total amount of KRW 5,185,746,00) of the tax invoice, excluding that which was already revealed at the time of tax investigation on April 200 of the National Tax Service, was deducted from sales by each taxable period, and the amount of tax evasion shall be calculated by 10% following tax base.

(b) corporate tax;

In the same manner as value-added tax is calculated in the same manner as the calculation of each taxable period, the omission of sales, omission of processing, and exclusion of losses shall be calculated by calculating each taxable period, and the amount of tax evaded for each taxable period shall be calculated by adding the amount of tax evaded (28% until 2001, and 27% from 202) to the calculation of losses (in the case of corporate tax, 4.7 billion won received as solicitation under the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below shall not be recognized as processed sales) by confirming the amount of defaulted bills newly discovered, on-site civil petition expenses, land rent, etc. in the investigation of this case.

(C) Appropriateness of the method of calculating the evaded tax amount

In principle, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of evaded tax by the method of deducting the initial amount already paid from the corrected tax amount calculated according to the newly discovered taxation data, but in the case of value-added tax, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of evaded tax by the method of simply deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount. Therefore, even if calculating by the method of multiplying the sales omission amount and the processed input amount by 10%, it is not disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, since corporate tax differs according to the amount of the tax base, and there is a possibility that the carried-over losses may occur, the correct amount of the evaded tax shall not be calculated without calculating the corrected amount, and it shall not be calculated simply by multiplying the amount of inclusion in the gross income and the amount of inclusion in the deductible expenses, so such calculation method shall be permitted only when it is deemed especially no less favorable to the defendant. In this case, there is no circumstance that

Therefore, in the case of value-added tax, the amount of evaded tax shall be calculated by the method of the tax rate (10%) ¡¿ tax rate (10%) for each taxable period, and in the case of corporate tax, the amount of correct tax calculated by taking into account the items included in the items of calculating the amount of evaded tax, such as omitting sales, processing sales and processing purchases, shall be calculated by deducting the amount of initial tax.

(ii)the subject of calculating the evaded tax amount;

(A)Omission of sale

According to the above statement of Defendant, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 38, and Nonindicted 23 each statement of account transaction (7.36 through 85 pages), evidence 45 and 46 of the submission of the defense counsel, Nonindicted Incorporated Company 5 has managed the sales proceeds by depositing or remitting them to the bank accounts under 38 without issuing a tax invoice for small amount of aggregate sales at 40, Nonindicted 25’s general sales proceeds (excluding the above statement of KRW 40, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 38, and Nonindicted 45’s general sales proceeds) for the same period from January 1, 200 to June 30, 204; KRW 534,612,230 (including defense counsel’s total sales proceeds) of KRW 46-1,00,000, KRW 930,000,000 for separate sales proceeds (excluding KRW 46,000,000).

The prosecutor asserts that all of the money deposited in each account of Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 23 are money managed by Nonindicted 5 with the aggregate sales proceeds as above. The evidence corresponding thereto lies in Nonindicted 23’s statement (1st page), Nonindicted 3’s protocol of investigation (1st page 164) and the prosecutor’s statement as to Nonindicted 24, but the following circumstances are as follows: (i) the Defendant stated at the prosecutor’s office that “the amount of money equal to or less than KRW 8,00 is not a general sales; (ii) Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 23 are not a large amount of money deposited in each account under the name of Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 23 are difficult to conclude that the money was deposited in the above account; (iii) the amount of money deposited in each of Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 38, and Nonindicted 23, which appears to have been deposited in the above account; and (iv) the amount of money transferred to Nonindicted 2548.

Meanwhile, in addition to the above general sales amount of KRW 1,958,00, the defense counsel presented a certificate of KRW 55,718,30 (including value-added tax) to the effect that the tax invoice was issued normally and paid the corresponding amount of tax. However, according to the comparison between each tax invoice attached to the certificate No. 46 and the deposit amount of Nonindicted 38 accounts, each other tax invoice except for the above KRW 1,958,000 does not coincide with each other with the deposit or remittance account holder, the date of deposit or remittance with the tax invoice owner, the date of deposit or remittance, and the amount of deposit or remittance with the value-added tax on the tax invoice. Since each tax invoice is inconsistent with the aggregate of sales proceeds in the tax invoice claiming that the tax invoice was issued one time after several transfers, it cannot be deemed that each of the above tax invoice was issued in relation to the general sales proceeds deposited in the name of Nonindicted 38, the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion related thereto is rejected.

Therefore, sales omitted (including value-added tax) shall be 68,813,00 won (including value-added tax) in 200,39,248,730 won in 200 (one period 21,793,000 won, two period 47,020,000 won), 39,248,730 won in 201 (one period 20,115,600 won, two period 19,133,130 won), 41,15,000 won in 202 (one period 16,791,000 won, two period 24,364,00 won), 314,50,50,00 won in 203 (157,875,000 won, 215,625, 1936,537,2005 won in total) in 2005.

(b) Processed sales

As seen in the part of the determination as to the claim on the above crime No. 1, it can be acknowledged that Nonindicted Co. 5 has paid excessive value-added tax and corporate tax by appropriating it in the sales amount as if it was supplied, even though there was no fact that it was supplied goods or services equivalent to the amount of money listed in attached Table 1 to Nonindicted Co. 7. However, the prosecutor and the tax office considered it in calculating the evaded amount of value-added tax, but did not consider it at all, in calculating the evaded amount of corporate tax. However, processing sales not only bring about an increase in sales amount from the value-added tax base, but also bring about an increase in sales amount from the corporate tax base, and it is difficult for the prosecutor and the tax office to find reasonable reasons that did not consider the processed sales amount of corporate tax.

The amount of processed sales shall be KRW 4,300,000 for the first term of 202,70,000,000 for the second term of 2002, KRW 1,600,000 for the second term of 200,000,000 for the second term of 203, and KRW 400,000 for the second term of 203 (the prosecutor determined the taxable period as of the date of remittance of the list of crimes, but it is reasonable to determine the date of receipt of the tax invoice as of the date of receipt of the tax invoice).

(C) Processed Purchase

As seen in the part of the determination as to the claim as to the crime No. 6 of the above decision, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant received a processed tax invoice of the aggregate amount of KRW 6,203,344,400 from 18 companies without any actual transaction as shown in the attached list No. 4 of the crime committed. According to the above evidence, it is recognized that the issuance date reported the total amount of supply price of the tax invoice for each taxable period of 2003, the second term portion, the first term portion, the second term portion, the value-added tax for the year 2004, and the corporate tax base for the year 203, upon reporting each tax base for the corporate tax

다만, 관련 사실 확인 보고(수사기록 3권 378～388쪽), 수사보고( 공소외 5 주식회사 피고인의 포탈세액 계산내역 첨부보고)(수사기록 7권 478～481쪽), 조사후 기과세 현황(수사기록 5권 315쪽)의 각 기재에 의하면 공소외 48 주식회사 발행의 세금계산서 7장, 공급가액(부가가치세 제외) 합계 303,567,800원(별지 범죄일람표 4 순번 1～7), 화승건설중기 발행의 세금계산서 3장, 공급가액(부가가치세 제외) 105,926,400원(별지 범죄일람표 4 순번 8～10), 한영건설기계(주) 발행 세금계산서 3장, 공급가액(부가가치세 제외) 합계 150,039,700원(별지 범죄일람표 4 순번 47～49), (주)세이뎁스 발행의 세금계산서 3장, 공급가액(부가가치세 제외) 합계 123,790,200원(별지 범죄일람표 4 순번 50～52)(이상 2003년 제1기분), 원삼운수(주) 발행 세금계산서 2장, 공급가액(부가가치세 제외) 합계 334,274,000원(별지 범죄일람표 4 순번 89, 90)(2003년 제2기분)에 대한 부가가치세, 법인세 포탈액은 각 그 세목의 신고기한이 경과함으로써 기수에 이르렀다고 할 것이지만, 검찰 및 세무관청이 공소외 5 주식회사가 2004. 4. 21.경 이천세무서로부터 세무조사를 받아 포탈세액을 추징당한 사실을 인정하여 이 사건에서 포탈세액에 포함시키지 아니하였으므로 이 법원이 인정하는 포탈세액에도 산입하지 않기로 한다.

Meanwhile, in the case of Chapter 3 of the tax invoice under the name of non-indicted 33 corporation (attached Form 4 97 through 99), the defense counsel asserted that the amount of tax evaded after filing a revised tax return with the competent district tax office, but there is no evidence to prove that the revised tax return was made before July 25, 2004, the above argument is rejected.

In addition, Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in the case where the tax invoice under Article 16 (1) and (3) of the same Act is not delivered or where the whole or part of the items to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 are not entered or entered differently from the fact in the delivered tax invoice. In fact, even if the goods or services are supplied through so-calledless data transaction without receipt of the tax invoice and thus the original input tax amount cannot be deducted from the output tax amount. However, if the input tax amount was deducted from the input tax amount under the premise that the goods or services were supplied by the manufacturer of the tax invoice, such act constitutes an active act that significantly makes it considerably difficult to impose and collect the tax, and thus, it constitutes a crime of evading tax under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4736, Sept. 30, 2005).

According to the above review, the amount recognized as a processing purchase in calculating the amount of evaded tax shall be KRW 1,472,628,300 for the first term of January 2003, and KRW 2,166,924,200 for the second term of February 2003, and KRW 1,546,193,80 for the first term of January 2004.

(3) The tax amount initially determined in the calculation of the corporate tax;

According to the evidence submitted by the counsel under subparagraph 90, the amount of tax initially determined for each year of attribution may be recognized as the same facts as the initial statement in the item of the "Calculation of Tax Evasion Amount of Corporate Tax" in the attached Table for Calculation of Tax Evasion.

(iv)the calculation of evaded tax amounts;

As seen above, when calculating the items subject to calculation of the amount of tax evaded by applying the calculation method as seen above, it is as shown in the separate calculation table of tax evaded. The specific contents are as follows:

(a) Value-added tax: Calculation of the value-added tax evasion tax on the attached tax calculation table;

Calculation of the amount of evaded tax due to omission of sale: Value of supply ¡¿ 10% = Tax amount ①

·Calculation of evaded tax amount due to processing and purchase: Purchase price 】 10% = Tax amount ②

·Calculation of the evaded tax amount: the evaded tax amount due to the omission in sales + the evaded tax amount due to the processing and purchase = the evaded tax amount.

When calculating the evaded value-added tax according to the above calculation method, the amount of value-added tax shall be calculated as KRW 1,981, 200, KRW 4,274,5, KRW 1,828,690 for the first term of 201, KRW 1,739, KRW 375 for the second term of 201, KRW 0 for the first term of 202, KRW 161,615, KRW 102 for the second term of 203, KRW 190,931, KRW 102 for the second term of 203, KRW 160,86, and KRW 380 for the first term of 204.

(b) Corporate tax: Calculation of the amount of evaded corporate tax in the separate sheet of calculation of tax evasion;

(1) Methods of calculating an initial amount of tax.

· Income for each business year = (net profit for each business year + inclusion in the calculation of losses) + Amount exceeding the limit of designated donations (if the annual income for each business year is less than zero won, the carryover loss in the following year).

· Tax base = Income for each business year - Losses carried forward.

·Tax rate: 200, 16% for the year 2001, 2001, and 28% for the excess amount of KRW 100 million,

15% for the year 2002, 2003 up to KRW 100 million, and 27% for the excess amount of KRW 100 million

·Tax amount: tax base 】 tax rate (16% or 15%) 】 (16,00,000 or 15,000,000 if the tax base exceeds 100,000 won) + [100,000 won exceeding KRW 100 】 tax rate (28% or 27%)

(2) Calculation of corrected tax amount.

The amount obtained by deducting the value of supply of processed sales from the value of supply omitted for sale (the "sale" in paragraph (1) of the attached Table of Calculation of Amount of Tax Evasion) shall be included in the gross income, and the cost trend amount and the processed purchase amount (the amount entered in the "processing Purchase" in the same item) shall be included in the deductible expenses, and shall be calculated in the same manner as the calculation method of the original amount of tax in question.

(3) Calculation of evaded tax amount.

The amount of evaded tax shall be calculated by deducting the initial amount of tax from the corrected amount of tax, and the amount of evaded tax calculated accordingly shall be the amount of tax in 200, the amount of tax in 2001, the amount of tax in 2002, the amount of tax in 2003, the amount of tax in 204,146.

(5) Status of crimes

Any tax evasion shall be established separately for each taxable period according to each tax item: Provided, That where a crime provided for in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is committed and the annual amount of tax evasion is 200 million won or more, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall apply by combining each tax item, notwithstanding the tax item. In this case, the annual amount of tax evasion is the total amount of tax evaded for each year (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do3822, Apr. 20, 200), regardless of each tax item's taxable period, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do3822, Apr. 20, 200), the second and the first half-year amount of tax in 203 and the first half-year amount of tax in 204, the corporate tax in 203 (190,931, 102 +160,886, 380, 404, and 146).

(6) Conclusion

As seen above, the defendant's evasion of value-added tax, such as the above criminal facts, is recognized, and this part of the argument is not accepted.

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

§ 111 of each Attorney-at-Law Act (or each choice of imprisonment), in the case of receipt of money or valuables on the pretext of each solicitation under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article.

· The most true fact about the acquisition of criminal proceeds of Article 3 at the time of sale: Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment and Article 30 of the Criminal Code (Selection of Imprisonment)

· The issuance of the tax invoices that do not carry out the actual transactions in Article 4 at the market: Article 11-2(4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7321, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply)

· Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act, inclusive,

·the receipt of the tax invoice that does not carry out any actual transaction in the 6th market: each of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act Article 11-2(4)(each of the penalty)

· The point of tax evasion in Section 7 (a) and (e) at the market: each of Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (each of the imprisonment options)

· The tax evasion set forth in Article 7 (f) at the time of the market: comprehensively Article 8 (1) 2 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Concurrent Imposition of Penalties)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes to imprisonment with prison labor as provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) which has the largest degree of punishment and nature of the crime]

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Ratification;

Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

The defendant, at the request of the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, affected the fairness and integrity of the duties of the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation who is deemed a public official by receiving a large amount of money up to 7.1 billion won, and embezzled the company's funds amounting to 3.0 billion won as a substantial representative of the company, embezzled the company's funds amount exceeding 500 million won, reduced the company's tax evasion, made a disguised tax declaration as if there was a transaction to conceal the crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and made a disguised tax declaration, etc. In light of the above, the defendant should be subject to strict punishment corresponding to the value of the crime.

However, considering the fact that there has been no history of punishment for the defendant recently, the occupational embezzlement is the embezzlement of the company's property which is one shareholder, and the fact that the defendant seems to have deposited his own property in the company, and that the defendant has engaged in social service activities such as helping the ordinary citizens of the society, etc., the defendant should take into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant. In addition, taking into account all other circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment is to be determined as per the order.

1. The point of larceny;

A. Summary of the facts charged

On September 201, the Defendant: (a) at the construction site of Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, which was ordered by a Sympill Co., Ltd.; (b) concluded a contract to produce raw materials of 40mm and supply them to the above construction site after being provided with raw materials from Hyundai Construction; (c) produced aggregate after being supplied with raw materials from Hyundai Construction; and (d) had the intention to produce and sell other aggregate business operators at will while producing aggregate. From February 2, 2002 to May 202, 202, the Defendant produced raw materials of 25mm away away from the site of the said construction site to 26,778 cubic aggregate at the market price of 228,00,000 cubic aggregate from the site of the said construction site; and (b) sold and stolen them to the completion of construction.

B. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

The source stone collected at the site of the construction of the deep-scale temporary flood control road is distinguished from the stage rock and the useful rock depending on who bears the cost of the upper car and transportation. While the source stone supplied by the modern construction at the time to be processed and supplied as aggregate, while the source stone, Nonindicted Co. 5 processes the stage rock with the ownership of Nonindicted Co. 5 by 25mm, which was sold to the tin construction.

C. Determination

As evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, the witness Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 51’s legal statement, the statement of the third protocol of interrogation of the defendant in the prosecution against the defendant, the statement of each prosecutor’s protocol against Nonindicted 52, Nonindicted 51, and Nonindicted 36, each of the statements made by the prosecutor’s office against Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 52, Nonindicted 51, and Nonindicted 36, the contract for supply of the crushed stone (not more than 1st 319, and not more than 70 pages of the investigation record), the current status of sales of the white seat (not more than 2th 70 of the investigation record

First of all, the prosecutor's statement of Nonindicted 52 on the prosecutor's statement was not accepted by the original person's statement, and the defendant and his defense counsel did not agree to it as evidence, so it cannot be used as evidence.

As to the remaining evidence, the following circumstances acknowledged by Non-Indicted 53, Non-Indicted 82, Non-Indicted 54, and Non-Indicted 90’s statements were found at the site of the 300,000 cubic mar temporary winding and waterproofing construction. Among them, some of the marc marc marc mar is used for the studio mar treatment at the site of the temporary winding and waterproofing construction (so-called marc mar mar), and the rest of the marc marc mar is charged with the production and transportation cost of the mar marc mar in the 20-mar mar mar mar mar mar mar 2 to be used for the mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar 2 to be used for the mar mar mar 20.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

2. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which receives money from Nonindicted 2

A. Summary of the facts charged

From early 2000 to December 2001, the Defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting or arranging affairs handled by Nonindicted 8, the President of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, the President of the Korea Housing Corporation, the President of the Korea Land Development Corporation, the President of the Korea Land Development Corporation, etc. at the time when Nonindicted 8, the vice president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and the President of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, etc. at the time of Nonindicted 5’s office, by requesting the above Nonindicted 8, the President of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, the President of the Korea Land Development Corporation, etc. to receive KRW 100 million in the name of construction cost, as shown in the attached Table 5 of the crime list.

B. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

The above money that the defendant received from Nonindicted 2 is borrowed from Nonindicted 2, and is not received under the pretext of soliciting Nonindicted 8, etc.

C. Determination

As evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, Nonindicted 2’s statement in the court, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 91, and Nonindicted 92’s statement in the prosecutor’s office, the first prosecutor’s statement in the prosecutor’s office on Nonindicted 24, the first prosecutor’s prosecutor’s protocol in the prosecutor’s office on Nonindicted 25, the first prosecutor’s protocol in the prosecutor’s office on Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 2’s protocol in the 12 protocol in the prosecutor’s prosecutor’s protocol in the 12 protocol in the prosecutor’s office on the Defendant, the investigation report (520 pages in the investigation record 4: 4:52~532 of the investigation record), the Daegu-Yan-Yan-Yan-Yan Highway subcontract for the Highway Construction Work (Investigation record 4: 53~536 of the investigation record), the subcontract for the Water Supply System Alteration (Investigation record 4: 537 through 546 of the investigation record), and the subcontract for the construction site (457 and 548 of the investigation record).

First, the entry of the prosecutor’s statement in Nonindicted 91 and Nonindicted 92 (excluding the part concerning Nonindicted 2’s statement) and the statement in the investigation report (the confirmation report of Nonindicted Company 55’s subcontract agreement) (the fourth right 520 pages) in Nonindicted 91 and Nonindicted 92 was not recognized by the original person, and they cannot be admitted as evidence, since the defendant or his defense counsel did not consent to the admissibility of evidence.

다음으로, 공소외 2의 법정 및 검찰 진술에 관하여 보건대, 위 증거들 및 피고인, 증인 공소외 8, 공소외 23의 각 법정 진술 등에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉, ① 공소외 2는 법정에서 “울진원자력발전소 공사 건은 피고인이 누구에게 청탁해서 수주한다는 이야기를 하지 않았다”는 취지로 진술하기도 하고, 검찰에서 작성한 진술서에 “피고인이 대구-포항간 고속도로공사가 있다면서 쌍용건설 임원을 소개시켜 주고 약 50억 원이 되니 2억 원을 요구했다”, “동아건설 관리인을 잘 알고 있으니 원자력발전소 일을 곧 해 주겠다고 하였다”라는 취지로 기재(수사기록 4권 590쪽, 593쪽)한 적이 있는데, 이에 따르면 청탁의 대상이 한국수자원공사 사장이 아니라 원청업체 임직원일 가능성도 있는 점, ② 공소외 2는 주로 피고인과 한국수자원공사 사장 공소외 8과의 친분관계를 믿고 피고인에게 돈을 주었다는 취지로 진술하였는데, 정작 피고인을 통하여 수주하였거나, 수주할 예정이었던 공사 중 한국수자원공사가 발주하는 공사는 안산천/화정천 하도개선공사, 울산공업용수도 급수체계 변경공사 2건에 불과한 점, ③ 공소외 2는 또한 “피고인이 토지개발공사 사장, 대한주택공사 사장과도 친분이 깊다”는 취지의 진술을 한 적이 있으나, 피고인이 한국토지공사 사장과 친분이 깊다는 점을 인정할 만한 자료가 없고( 공소외 55 회사는 한국토지공사가 발주한 파주교하지구 현장 공사를 하도급 받았다), 공소외 55 회사가 대한주택공사가 발주하는 공사를 하도급 받은 실적도 없는 점, ④ 한편, 공소외 55 회사의 하도급 수주 실적을 살펴보면, 한국도로공사에서 발주한 대구-포항간 고속도로 공사의 하도급금액이 약 38억 원에서 추후 증액되어 약 170억 원, 한국토지공사에서 발주한 파주교하지구 현장 공사의 하도급금액이 약 110억여원에 이르는 데 비하여 한국수자원공사에서 발주한 안산천/화정천 하도개선공사의 경우 하도급금액은 18억여원이었다가 추후 소액 증액되었고, 울산공업용수도 급수체계 변경공사의 하도급금액도 23억여원에 불과한 점{수사보고( 공소외 55 회사의 하도급계약 확인보고)(수사기록 4권 520～548)}, ⑤ 또한, 공소외 2는 위 4개 공사 중 가장 하도급액이 큰 대구-포항간 고속도로 공사와 관련하여 2억 원을 주었다는 취지로 진술(수사기록 4권 493쪽)하였고, 법정에서는 “피고인에게 준 11억여원 중 3억 원 정도를 남기고는 정산이 되었다”는 취지로 진술하고 있는데, 위 4개의 공사의 하도급금액에 대한 대구-포항간 고속도로 공사의 하도급금액의 비중이 절반을 넘고 있는데 비하여 그 대가로 주거나 정산한 금액은 정산되었다는 8억여원 중 1/4 정도에 불과한 점, ⑥ 대구-포항간 고속도로 공사의 경우 공소외 5 주식회사와 공소외 55 회사가 공동으로 하도급받고 실제 공사는 공소외 55 회사가 하였고, 울진원자력발전소 T.T.P 제작공사는 공소외 5 주식회사가 원청업체인 동아건설로부터 하도급받아 이를 공소외 55 회사에 재하도급 준 점에 비추어 공소외 5 주식회사가 명의를 대여하고 공소외 2로부터 그 대가를 받은 것으로 볼 여지도 있는 점, ⑦ 피고인과 공소외 2는 평소에 공소외 5 주식회사가 공소외 55 회사의 어음을 빌려쓰는 등 금전거래가 있어 왔던 것으로 보이고, 현재에도 공소외 55 회사가 공소외 5 주식회사의 어음할인한도를 이용하여 3억 원의 어음을 할인받아 사용하고 있는 점, ⑧ 피고인이 여직원 공소외 92, 공소외 91을 시켜 작성하게 하였다는 ‘ 공소외 5 주식회사 대여금’이라는 문건에는 피고인에게 할인해 주었다는 어음과, 피고인에게 청탁 명목으로 주었다는 금원이 함께 기재되어 있고, 현금 일부가 상환된 것으로 기재되어 있어 피고인에게 현금으로 교부한 금원이 대여금일 가능성도 배제할 수 없는 점, ⑨ 공소외 2는 법정에서 “피고인과 금전 거래가 있은 후에 공소외 8을 알게 되었다”고 진술하고 있고, 검찰에서는 “피고인의 소개로 공소외 8을 만났다”고 진술(수사기록 5권 135쪽)한 적이 있는데, 공소외 8은 법정에서 “대학동창의 소개로 공소외 2를 알게 되어 알고 지낸지 10년 정도 된다”, “ 공소외 2는 한나라당 공소외 56 의원과 친구 사이고, 공소외 56 의원은 2001년, 2002년 경 국회 건설교통위원회 한나라당 간사였는데, 공소외 2가 국정감사 무렵 찾아와 ‘ 공소외 56 의원에게 부탁하여 한국수자원공사에 대한 국정감사와 관련하여 큰 문제가 없도록 해 주겠다’는 것과 비슷한 말을 하였다”는 취지로 진술하고 있는 점, ⑩ 공소외 2는 법정에서 피고인에게 준 금원에 대하여 “정산할 돈이다”라거나 “돌려받아야 한다”는 표현을 사용하고 있는 점, ⑪ 공소외 2의 진술에 의하면 피고인에게 전달한 돈은 정산할 돈이었다는 것인데, 청탁 명목으로 주고받는 돈을 정산한다는 것은 납득하기 어려울 뿐 아니라, 피고인과 사이에 정산 시기와 방법, 공사로 인한 이익에 따른 정산 비율 등에 관하여 “수주해 가지고 오면 정산이 된다”, “몇 퍼센트(%)로 정하지는 않았고, ‘이게 얼마 정도 남으니까 얼마 정도는 제하자’라고 서로 계산을 해야 된다”는 등으로 진술하고 있어 그 정산 방법에 관한 진술도 구체적이지 못하고, 심지어 이미 수주한 공사에 대하여 정산이 이루어졌는지에 관하여는 “울진원자력발전소 공사 건은 공사금액이 적었기 때문에 정산 대상에 포함되는 것이 아니다”라고 진술했다가 “정산이 되었다”고 진술하여 앞뒤 진술이 일관되지 아니하고, “안산천도 정산된 것이나 다름없다”라고 진술함으로써 정산이 되었는지에 관하여 불분명한 취지로 진술하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 한국수자원공사 사장 등이 아니라 자신의 인맥 등을 활용하여 공소외 55 회사에 공사를 수주해 주거나, 공소외 5 주식회사가 수주한 공사를 재하도급 주고, 또는 공소외 55 회사로 하여금 공소외 5 주식회사 명의로 공사를 수주할 수 있도록 해 주고, 그 대가로 금원을 수수하거나, 아니면 공소외 55 회사로부터 금원을 차용한 다음 위와 같은 방법으로 공사를 할 수 있도록 해 주어 정산하여 왔을 가능성을 배제할 수 없으므로, 피고인에게 한국수자원공사 부사장, 대한주택공사 사장, 토지개발공사 사장 등에게 청탁한다는 명목으로 11억1,200만 원을 주었다는 취지의 공소외 2 진술은 그대로 믿기 어렵다.

As seen above, as long as it is difficult to believe Non-Indicted 2’s statement as to the remaining evidence, the remaining evidence is also difficult to believe, or it is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

3. Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, which receives money from Nonindicted 4

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 57 around January 2, 2003, received the money and valuables from Nonindicted Co. 57’s president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation in the name of soliciting or arranging affairs handled by the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, which are related to the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation, by exercising influence on the works ordered by the Korea Water Resources Corporation. In addition, the Defendant received KRW 50 million on February 26, 2003 under the name of the second stage construction cost of peace dam executed by Nonindicted Co. 6 in the name of the owner cost of construction works in the second stage of peace dam executed by it, and received KRW 1.520 million on four occasions as shown in the attached Table 6 of the crime list.

B. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

The Defendant merely borrowed the above money from Nonindicted 37 by requesting Nonindicted 57, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 57, and did not receive the money under the pretext of soliciting Nonindicted 8 to the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation.

C. Determination

As evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, the witness’s statement in the court, each prosecutor’s statement in Nonindicted 37, each prosecutor’s statement in Nonindicted 4, the prosecutor’s first prosecutor’s statement in Nonindicted 25, the prosecutor’s first prosecutor’s statement in Nonindicted 23, the prosecutor’s first prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation in the prosecutor’s office, and each statement in Nonindicted 4

First, each prosecutor's statement, written statement, and written statement of Nonindicted 4 were not recognized by Nonindicted 4's statement, and the defendant and his defense counsel did not consent to the admissibility of evidence, so it cannot be used as evidence.

As to the remaining evidence, the following circumstances revealed as follows: (i) Nonindicted 37 stated in the court that “No statement from the defendant that is not the same as the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation; (ii) Nonindicted 37 stated in the court that “No statement from the defendant that it would have been possible to perform construction works even if it was not the same as that of the president of the Korea Water Resources Corporation; (iii) Nonindicted 57 lent funds to Nonindicted 37; (iv) Nonindicted 37 again lent them to the defendant; and (v) Nonindicted 37 did not have any other evidence that the Defendant was not in receipt of a request from the defendant for construction works in the previous situation where it was impossible to do so for the defendant to do so for more than one year since he became the representative director; and (v) there was no reason to acknowledge that the Defendant was in receipt of a request from the Defendant for the construction works in the first place; and (v) there was no reason to acknowledge that the Defendant was in a way to withdraw the money under the name of Nonindicted 37.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

4. The point of embezzlement of KRW 2,651,386,274 (Article 8 of the Decree on Public Prosecution).

A. Summary of the facts charged

around August 199, the Defendant, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 5, embezzled the aggregate of KRW 2,651,386,274 in the passbook in the name of Nonindicted Co. 38, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 23, as shown in the attached list of crimes, as shown in the attached Table 7 between October 13, 2004, by depositing KRW 2,651,386,274 in total in the passbook in the name of Nonindicted Co. 38, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 23, as shown in the attached list of crimes, while keeping the aggregate produced by the Defendant at the place of Seoul, etc. around each deposit date, he embezzled it for personal use, such as the repayment of credit card price in the name of Nonindicted Co. 24 used for his own personal use.

B. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

First, among the money deposited in the accounts in the name of Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 23, the sales proceeds of aggregate are merely 590,94,130 won (including the sales proceeds of tax invoices issued) out of the money deposited in the accounts in the name of Nonindicted 38, and the remainder is all the money deposited by Nonindicted 24 in order to pay the money that the Defendant personally raised to the company or the card amount used by Nonindicted 24 with a credit card in the name of Nonindicted 24. Second, Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 24 managed the money used without normal accounting as the current state of non-marketing. However, the current state of non-marketing includes the details of the use of the company fund deposited in the passbook in the name of Nonindicted 38.

C. Determination

First, as to whether the Defendant deposited and managed the aggregate sales proceeds in the account in the name of Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 23, it is recognized that the Defendant deposited the aggregate sales proceeds in the account of Nonindicted 5 corporation in the account of Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 23, and Nonindicted 24, each prosecutorial statement of Nonindicted 23, each prosecutorial statement of Nonindicted 3, each prosecutorial statement of Nonindicted 24, each of the statement of Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 38, and Nonindicted 23, each of the account transaction statements in the name of Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 38, and Nonindicted 23, and each of the investigation report (which is the basis for Defendant’s embezzlement), and that the amount deposited in the account of Nonindicted 38 is more than KRW 590,94,130 (including value added tax), and it is difficult to conclude that the amount deposited in the account under the name of Nonindicted 5 corporation, Nonindicted 24, 238, and the general account was deposited in the name of 398.

Next, with respect to whether the Defendant deposited and managed the general sales price of KRW 590,94,130 in the passbook in the above non-indicted 38 with the intent of embezzlement, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence are revealed. In other words, the non-indicted 5 corporation mainly sold aggregate to a relatively large scale of companies, such as a construction company or civil engineering company, and sells small amount of aggregate from the general public or small-scale construction company, etc. In this case, there are many cases where the amount of sales can not be normally accounted for in the company due to the issuance and delivery of the tax invoice. Accordingly, the non-indicted 23 recommended to the non-indicted 25 to deposit the aggregate sales price in the employee’s personal account without issuing and delivering the tax invoice to the non-indicted 23 and 24, and it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant ordered the non-indicted 38 corporation to deposit the aggregate in the name of the non-indicted 38 corporation from the beginning with the ordinary sales price deposited in the name of the non-indicted 38 corporation.

Therefore, in order to recognize that the defendant embezzled the aggregate sales proceeds that he deposited and managed in the account under the name of Nonindicted 38, the defendant should be given instructions to Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 24 for the personal use of the funds. In other words, Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 24 also appear to have been used by the prosecutor's office for the payment of personal credit cards, payment of individual public charges, payment of the defendant's personal money, payment of non-indicted 61, Nonindicted 62, 29, and the defendant's personal insurance premium, and it appears to have been used for the defendant to arbitrarily use the funds under the name of Nonindicted 3 in the name of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 24, or to have used the funds in the name of Nonindicted 3 to keep the funds in the account under the name of Nonindicted 4 and to have been kept in the name of the representative director for the last time, and to the effect that the defendant used the funds in the name of Nonindicted 3 to manage the funds under the name of Nonindicted 4 and to have been made in the name of the defendant.

Ultimately, the amount embezzled by the defendant shall be limited to the amount actually used for the personal purpose, and the time of such withdrawal shall be deemed to be when the money was withdrawn for the above purpose. Thus, in addition to the amount found guilty in the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the

Therefore, since the facts charged in this part of the facts charged constitute a case without proof of crime, it shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but if it is found not guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in the judgment related to the comprehensive crime, the prosecutor shall not render a judgment of innocence in the order of the court (in this part of the facts charged and the crime of occupational embezzlement recognized as guilty in the crime of crime No. 5 in this part of the facts charged, and the public prosecution was instituted as being instituted, but it is reasonable to view that the above two acts

5. Points of tax evasion;

A. Summary of the facts charged

In filing a return of the purchase amount of KRW 3,639,52,52,50, and corporate tax of KRW 2003, the aggregate of KRW 380,753,309, KRW 1084,660,845, corporate tax of KRW 203, KRW 100, KRW 200, KRW 380, KRW 380, KRW 380,753, KRW 309, KRW 1,084, KRW 660, KRW 845, and KRW 845, as stated in the list of crimes, and KRW 562,525, and was omitted from the sales amount of KRW 11 through 46,53, and KRW 200, KRW 380, KRW 100, KRW 200, KRW 1084, KRW 845, as described in the list of crimes in the separate list of crimes.

B. Determination

As seen in the above decision, the Defendant’s evaded tax amount shall be ① value-added tax for the first term of 200 won, ② value-added tax for the second term of 200 won, ③ value-added tax for the second term of 200 won, ③ value-added tax for the first term of 201, ④ value-added tax for the second term of 201, ④ value-added tax for 1,739,375 won for the second term of 201, ⑤ Value-added tax for the first term of 203 years, ⑤ Value-added tax for the second term of 161,615,102 won for the second term of 203 years, ③ Value-Added tax for the second term of 203, Value-Added Tax for the second term of 203, 160, 380, 203 corporate tax for the first term of 204, 204, 3204, 3628, 201.

Judges, the highest perfecter (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea