Defendant 1 and six others

Park Ho-ro et al. and six others

Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Cho Il-il et al.

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months and by a fine of thirty billion won; imprisonment for ten years; imprisonment for Defendant 2; imprisonment for one year; imprisonment for Defendant 5 (Defendant 4 in the judgment of the Supreme Court); imprisonment for five years; imprisonment for Defendant 4 (Co-Defendant in the judgment of the Supreme Court of the second instance); and imprisonment for one year and six months; and imprisonment for two years (Defendant 5 in the judgment of the Supreme Court of the second instance).

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

However, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years for Defendant 3 and for three years for Defendant 4 and 7 from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

From Defendant 2, KRW 7,870,185,00 and KRW 2.5 billion from Defendant 5 shall be collected respectively.

1. All facts;

A. Defendant 1 is a major shareholder and representative director of Nonindicted Co. 3; Nonindicted Co. 41 who invested and established 100% of the investment by Nonindicted Co. 3; and the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 42 limited liability corporation; and Defendant 1 was a representative director of Nonindicted Co. 43, which was absorbed and merged with Nonindicted Co. 3 on November 2005.

B. Defendant 2 was a person who was working as the Chairperson from March 1999 to November 30, 2007 and was in general in charge of the business, and was sentenced to five years from July 20, 2007 to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) at Seoul High Court on July 20, 2007, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 30 of the same year, and is currently being executed.

C. From January 20, 2006 to June 30, 2007, Defendant 3 was in charge of the sales of Nonindicted Co. 1, the head of the material group of the material department of the Doe Agricultural and Economic Project Group at the time when Defendant 3 was working as the head of the material department of the Doe Agricultural and Economic Project Group, and was in charge of Nonindicted Co.

D. Defendant 4 was in office as a director of Nonindicted Co. 44, a subsidiary of Nonindicted Co. 3, around 2005, and was in charge of the acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 3’s regular director Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 45, Nonindicted 46, and chief of the finance planning team, and Nonindicted Co. 12.

E. Defendant 5 served as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 38, the subsidiary company of Doi-sung, from September 1, 2002 to December 29, 2006, and was sentenced by the Seoul High Court on May 27, 2009 to three years and six months, and the appeal is pending in the Supreme Court.

F. Defendant 6 is a major shareholder of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 16, the parent company of ○○ Securities, and the chairman.

G. Defendant 7 served as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 16 from December 11, 2003 to December 11, 2008.

2. Defendant 1

(a) Evasion of global income tax on APC-related global income;

Nonindicted Co. 3 is a manufacturer of goods (resale) using an original trademark (OEM) in Asian region “EM” in the U.S. U.S. sports goods manufacturing company. Nonindicted Co. 41 and Nonindicted Co. 42 limited liability company are Nonindicted Co. 3’s products (resale) in Vietnam and China, and Nonindicted Co. 43 are the manufacturers of goods (resale) in China, and Nonindicted Co. 41 and Nonindicted Co. 42 are the companies exclusively responsible for the supply of raw and subsidiary materials for the production of new goods in the limited liability company.

Defendant 1: (a) has a significant increase in profits from the overseas expansion and technology development of Nonindicted Co. 3, etc.; (b) is likely to be subject to pressure on the reduction of the supply price from the “Unindicted 3”; (c) establishes a new corporation in a foreign country to transfer its profits to the corporation; and (d) establishes the so-called “APC” local corporation in Hong Kong, which is the so-called tax haven place; and (c) was planned to adjust the transaction stage so that Nonindicted Co. 43 directly delivers raw materials from Nonindicted Co. 41 and Nonindicted Co. 42 to the so-called “APC,” while purchasing raw materials from Nonindicted Co. 43 in APC to sell them to Nonindicted Co. 41 and Nonindicted Co. 42, thereby obtaining large profits from APC; and (d) Defendant 1 would acquire profits from such profits by receiving dividends from a shareholder; and (e) the dividend would be pretended to have been received by the next shareholder of the American nationality of the United States, thereby making it impossible or

around October 202, Defendant 1 invested the total amount of the established capital ($ 510,00), but established Nonindicted 7 (51%) who is the representative director of Nonindicted Company 6, the American nationality, and Nonindicted 8 (49% of equity interest) on the ground of the shareholder’s name as the shareholder, Defendant 1 supplied the Hong Kong local subsidiary called APC from October 2002 to October 2005, Defendant 1 transferred KRW 50,500,000 from APC to APC if the raw and subsidiary materials were supplied from Nonindicted Company 43 to Nonindicted Company 42 limited liability corporation, and Nonindicted Company 41, even though it was supplied from October 202 to October 205 to Nonindicted Company 43, if the raw and subsidiary materials on the document were supplied to APC from APC to Nonindicted Company 43, and as was supplied to Nonindicted Company 42 limited liability corporation and Nonindicted Company 41.

Defendant 1, as if he were to distribute the shares of Non-Indicted 7 (51%) of the U.S. nationality to Non-Indicted 8, Defendant 1, as if he were to do so, could not impose and collect taxes by the tax authorities or would make it considerably difficult to do so by pretending to receive the shares of shareholders subject to global income tax, 30,000 Hong Kong ($ 10,90,000, USD 13,036,400,400, USD 636,636,40,000, USD 105,636,67,000, USD 105,80,000, USD 20,000, USD 205, USD 206, USD 36,636,75,00,000 on March 1, 2004 ($ 13,60,00,000,000,000).

(b) Evasion of capital gains tax through the trading of borrowed-name stocks (208 high-priced 1438);

(1) Regarding ○○ Securities Trading

Defendant 1: (a) around June 2005, Defendant 1: (b) obtained information on the acceptance of ○○ Securities; and (c) decided to purchase ○○ Securities in bulk to obtain large profits from large market prices; (d) however, Defendant 1 and his specially related persons were willing to evade the transfer income tax by pretending that Defendant 1 held shares of less than 3 percent of the completion date and less than 10 billion won in total, by purchasing the shares of the said company under the name of the borrower, by pretending that Defendant 1 and his specially related persons possess shares of less than 3 percent of the total shares issued by the said company or of less than 10 billion won in total.

피고인 1은 2005. 6. 23.부터 같은 해 7. 1.경까지 사이에 ◇◇증권 김해지점 및 ◆◆증권 부산지점에 개설된 피고인 1 명의의 주식 위탁 계좌로 ○○증권 발행주식 58만 6,030주를 29억 1,616만 원에 매수하여 같은 해 12.경까지 모두 104억 9,419만 원에 매도함으로써 75억 7,801만 원(수수료 제외, 이하 같음)의 시세차익을 얻었다.

From June 29, 2005 to July 21, 2005, Defendant 1 obtained profits from the market price of KRW 1.96,358 million by purchasing KRW 1.89,3280,000,00 from all of 2.85,686 million until December of the same year, on the day on which Defendant 1 purchased KRW 1.89,50,000,00 from the account of consignment of the borrowed stocks opened by Defendant 1 from the name of Nonindicted 47.

피고인 1은 2005. 8. 4. ◇◇증권 김해지점 및 ◆◆증권 부산지점에 피고인 1이 공소외 48의 명의를 빌려 개설한 차명 주식 위탁 계좌로 ○○증권 주식 18만 5,000주를 9억 2,518만 원에 매수하여 같은 해 12.경까지 전량을 매도함으로써 23억 7,533만 원의 시세차익을 얻었다.

Therefore, Defendant 1, in the name of the Defendant and Nonindicted 48,47, obtained profits from the market price equivalent to KRW 11.91,6920,00,000 by purchasing ○ Securities in total of KRW 4.73,480,000 and selling 16.65,1540,000 in total, in the name of Nonindicted 48,47, the name of the Defendant and Nonindicted 1,692.

한편, 피고인 1의 처 공소외 49는 2005. 6. 23.부터 같은 해 7. 1.까지 사이에 ◆◆증권 부산지점에 개설된 공소외 49 명의의 주식 위탁 계좌로 ○○증권 발행주식 8만 1,000주를 4억 499만 원에 매수하였다.

Ultimately, on June 28, 2005, Nonindicted 49, who was specially related to Defendant 1 and the Defendant, owned 893,198 shares of the above ○○ Securities, thereby holding not less than three percent of the total number of shares issued (24,485,675 shares).

Therefore, Defendant 1 should report and pay the transfer income tax of KRW 3.577,433,00,000 for the above market price gains (11.91,6920,000) until May 31, 2006. However, Defendant 1, in violation of the law as seen above, either made it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by a tax authority by means of disguised means of trading stocks through a consignment account opened under another person’s name, as if it is not a stock transaction subject to reporting of transfer income tax, or even imposing the above period without any report.

After all, Defendant 1 evaded the transfer income tax of KRW 3.577 billion by fraud or other unlawful act.

(2) Regarding the sale of shares of Nonindicted Co. 1

Defendant 1 planned to acquire the management right by acquiring the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, a subsidiary of Magsung in 2005, Defendant 1 purchased the shares of the said company in advance after acquiring the management right, and obtained market price profits by selling them after acquiring the management right, but did not intend to evade the transfer income tax by selling the shares under the name of the vehicle so as to pretend that it is not the shares owned as a major shareholder as

From April 21, 2006 to April 27, 2006, Defendant 1 purchased KRW 741,330,000 ( KRW 49250,000 + KRW 4822,2860,00) of the shares issued by Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 as the consignment account opened by Defendant 1 in the name of Nonindicted 48 and Nonindicted 47, with the name of KRW 7.14,120,00 of the shares issued by Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1’s account.

Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 44 in a special relationship on June 30, 2006, became a major shareholder of the said company after purchasing 46 percent of the shares issued by the said Nonindicted Co. 1 in KRW 1,45.5 billion from △△△.

During the period from August 27, 2007 to November 5, 2007, Defendant 1 sold 497,620 shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 1 to KRW 10.629 million, and obtained profits from the market price of KRW 3.486 billion.

Therefore, even though Defendant 1 should report and pay capital gains tax of KRW 836,020,210 for the above market price gains until May 31, 2008, Defendant 1, in violation of the above law, sold stocks through an account for consignment of stocks opened under another’s name, thereby making it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by the tax authorities, or without any report, in a disguised manner as if it was not a stock transaction subject to reporting capital gains tax, by trading stocks through an account for consignment of stocks established under another’s name.

After all, Defendant 1 evaded the transfer income tax of KRW 836,020,210 by fraud or other unlawful act.

C. Acceptance of bribe to Defendant 2 (2008 Highest 1438)

On September 17, 2002, Gisung decided to sell 46% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, which was held on February 2006, as the majority shareholder (56% of shares) of Nonindicted Co. 1, which was separated from the precise chemical part of Nonindicted Co. 40.

Around October 2005, Non-Indicted 3 Co., Ltd., the representative of Defendant 1, had already established a plan to acquire the shares of Non-Indicted 1 Co., Ltd. from △ YU and had prepared to acquire them. At that time, Defendant 1 asked the Chairperson 1 to help Defendant 2 accept the shares of Non-Indicted 1 Co., Ltd. on favorable terms to the Non-Indicted 1 Co.

In February 2006, Defendant 1 delivered KRW 2 billion (2,000 won cashier's checks) to Defendant 2 at the guest room of △△△ hotel located in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, but in return for Defendant 1's request that Nonindicted Co. 3 take over the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2006.

On the other hand, on May 10, 2006, the consortium of Nonindicted Co. 3 was selected as the priority negotiation object in the bidding of Nonindicted Co. 1 on May 10, 2006, and entered into the final underwriting contract on June 30, 2006, thereby acquiring 46% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, which is owned by △△△.

On June 4, 2007, Defendant 1 transferred USD 1,500,000 to the account in the name of Nonindicted 34, a borrowed account opened by Defendant 2, which was opened in Hong Kong. On June 4, 2007, Defendant 1 issued to Defendant 2 a check of USD 1,00,000 for face value to Defendant 2 at the △△ hotel coffee shop in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul.

As a result, Defendant 1 offered a bribe of KRW 2 billion and USD 2.5 million in connection with Defendant 2’s duties in return for Nonindicted Co. 3’s acceptance of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 3”) with respect to Nonindicted Co. 3’s duties.

D. Each offer of bribe to Nonindicted 50, 4, and 51 and evidence of breach of trust to Nonindicted 5

(1) Offering of bribe to Nonindicted 50

Non-indicted 50 worked as a secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary-general from February 2004 to January 2005.

Nonindicted 50, as a secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary for the secretary-general, took charge of the affairs of the secretary-general for the secretary-general, the secretary-general for the secretary-general for the secretary-general, the secretary-general for the secretary-general for the secretary-general for the secretary-general for the secretary-general for the secretary-general for the secretary-general for the secretary-general for the secretary-general for the secretary-general, and the

The Secretary Office of the Civil Affairs has been in charge of the management of the President, relatives by marriage, and persons in a special relationship with the President, internal inspection of the Secretary Office, establishment of policies for the civil affairs, management of social information, etc. The Secretary Office of the Legal Affairs was in charge of the review of major Acts and subordinate statutes, consultation on the President's legal affairs, and the Secretary Office of the Public Affairs was in charge of the verification of senior public officials of Grade III or higher and the officers of public enterprises, and the Secretary Office of the situation was in charge of the inspection of the President's relatives and persons in a special relationship with the President, and the inspection of the staff of the Secretary Office and the Security Office.

On the other hand, the special inspection team under the control of the secretary-general and security office, senior public officials belonging to the administration appointed by the President, the heads and officers of government-invested institutions and organizations appointed by the President, relatives of the President, and persons in a special relationship with the President.

At the time, the public affairs room and the special inspection team were classified as Defendant 1 known as the largest later nuclear reactor by "person in a special relationship with the President" and were engaged in the management and inspection.

After the expiration of the term of office of Nonindicted 52 Commissioner of the National Tax Service, Nonindicted 53 Deputy Director of the National Tax Service, Nonindicted 54 Seoul Director of the National Tax Office, and Nonindicted 10 Deputy Director of the Central Tax Office, he prepared the personnel verification work against the Deputy Director of the National Tax Service, Nonindicted 54 Seoul Director of the Central Tax Office, and the Deputy Director of the Central Tax Office of Nonindicted 10 was the death of Defendant 1 Chairperson.

Nonindicted 50 was in the position of exercising overall control over the management and inspection of Defendant 1 as a secretary of the civil quota and the affairs of personnel inspection against Nonindicted 10, the deceased money of Defendant 1, as a secretary of the civil quota.

피고인 1은 2004. 12. 17.경 서울 중구 장충동 2가 (지번 생략) △△호텔 2층에 있는 중식당 ‘ ●●’에서 청와대 민정수석 비서관 공소외 50, 10 중부지방국세청장 등과 함께 식사를 하면서 공소외 50에게 민정수석 비서관 업무와 관련하여 각종 편의를 제공해 주고 공소외 10에 대한 국세청장 후보 인사 검증을 함에 있어 잘 봐 달라는 취지의 청탁과 함께 ▼▼백화점 상품권 50만 원 권 200매 시가 합계 9,400만 원 상당을 교부하였다.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 offered a bribe equivalent to KRW 94 million in relation to the duties of Nonindicted 50.

(2) Offering of bribe to Nonindicted 4

㈎ 2005. 1. 초순경 뇌물공여

Nonindicted 4, who worked as a secretary for the general secretary of the Office of the President from September 2003 to February 2, 2008, was a person in charge of the affairs such as the accounting, personnel affairs, facility management, and general affairs of the Office of the President, and was in charge of the affairs concerning the assistance of the President to the performance of the national affairs, and was in charge of the following affairs as the secretary for general secretary who is the senior secretary for general

- The organization and personnel management of the Office of the President;

- The attendance of the chief secretary meeting to discuss major policy issues of each government department, such as economy, society, culture, etc., and to report the results to the President;

- Personnel verification and recommendation of senior executive officers of major ministries, such as the heads and Vice-Presidents of the Government, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, as members of the Cheongdae personnel recommendation committee in which the chief of the personnel affairs and the civilian quota participate as members;

-the management of “a person in a special relationship with the President” containing Defendant 1, etc., including a presidential-friendly and personal relationship, and communication with them;

Based on the above general official authority, Nonindicted 4 performed the following duties in relation to Defendant 1.

Nonindicted 4, while conducting the management of the persons in a special relationship with the President, was in charge of communication, such as arranging the communication between Defendant 1 and the President, the maximum sponsor of the President, or acting in South Korea.

공소외 4가 참여한 인사추천위원회의 결정에 의해 피고인 1의 사돈인 공소외 10이 2004. 1.경 중부지방국세청장, 2005. 6.경 국가보훈처 차장, 2007. 4.경 국가보훈처 처장으로 임명되었다. 한편, 공소외 4는 2005. 1.경 공소외 10이 후보로 추천된 국세청장 후임자 결정에 관한 인사추천위원회 위원으로 참여하였고, 2006. 6.경부터 2007. 6.경까지 공소외 55 주식회사 사장인 피고인 4 등 피고인 1 측 인사들과 수회 만나 경남 상공회의소가 추진 중이던 우리금융지주 계열의 ⊙⊙은행 지분 분리 매수를 부탁받고, 관련 경제부처 공무원과의 면담을 주선하였다.

피고인 1이 2006.경부터 추진 중이던 베트남 화력발전사업과 관련하여 2006. 6.경부터 2007. 12.경까지 피고인 1과 피고인 4로부터 수회에 걸쳐 청와대, 외교부 등 범정부적 차원에서 위 사업을 지원해 줄 것을 부탁받고, 경제정책 비서관에게 영향력을 행사하는 한편, 2007. 11. 14.경 베트남의 ◐◐◐ 방한시 공소외 11 전 대통령에게 피고인 1의 베트남 사업과 관련하여 지원을 부탁하는 등 편의를 제공하였다.

피고인 1은 2005. 1. 초순경 서울 중구 장충동 2가 (지번 생략) △△호텔에 있는 식당에서 전 청와대 총무비서관 공소외 4와 식사를 하면서 공소외 4에게 총무 비서관의 직무와 관련하여 각종 편의를 제공해 주고, 공소외 10에 대한 국세청장 후보 인사 검증을 함에 있어 잘 봐 달라는 취지의 청탁과 함께 ▼▼백화점 상품권 50만 원 권 200매 시가 합계 9,400만 원 상당을 교부하였다.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 granted a bribe equivalent to KRW 94 million to Nonindicted 4 in relation to the duties of Nonindicted 4.

㈏ 2006. 8. 하순경 뇌물공여

On August 2006, Defendant 1 received the phone from Nonindicted 4, 2006, that “the place of business with Cheongdae may cause KRW 300 million to be used in cash,” and provided money and valuables to the effect that “the convenience for various civil petitions related to the duties of general secretary is high.” Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 4, the president of Nonindicted 55 Co., Ltd., the affiliate operated by Defendant 1, along with Defendant 4, brought cash KRW 300 million to Seoul Station, and delivered it to Nonindicted 4’s name in return for Nonindicted 4’s order on the fourth floor of the attached outdoor parking lot.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 offered a bribe of KRW 300 million to Nonindicted 4 in relation to his duties.

(3) Offering of bribe to Nonindicted 51

From February 2, 2006 to February 2, 2008, Nonindicted Party 51, while working as the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, has overall control over the affairs of the national police, such as prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes, guard, key security and counter-espionage operations, collection, preparation and distribution of public security information, traffic control and prevention of danger and injury, maintenance of public peace and order, etc., and has performed the duties of the National Police Agency and the duties of direction and supervision of the police agencies and the police stations belonging to each level.

피고인 1은 공소외 3 주식회사 및 공소외 44 주식회사 등을 경영하면서 공소외 51이 경찰청장으로 재직하던 시절인 2006. 11. ▷▷▷ 소속 정치인 등에게 불법정치자금을 제공한 혐의로 경남지방경찰청에서 조사를 받고 2007. 2. 1. 창원지방법원에서 벌금 700만 원을 선고받았으며, 2007. 12. 항공안전법위반으로 부산 강서경찰서에 입건되어 조사를 받고, 2008. 12. 4. 부산지방법원에서 벌금 1,000만 원을 선고받는 등 수 회에 걸쳐 경찰 조사를 받은 전력이 있고, 피고인 1이 경영하는 공소외 44 주식회사는 2005. 12. 건축법위반 등으로 입건되어 2006. 2. 창원지방법원에서 벌금 150만 원을 선고받은 사실도 있어, 피고인 1은 자신과 기업 경영 관련해서 문제가 발생하여 경찰 수사를 받게 될 경우 그 과정에서 편의를 제공 받거나 적어도 불이익을 받지 않도록 수사지휘선상에 있는 경찰 간부들과 친분을 쌓아 두어야 할 필요성이 있었다.

On July 28, 2007, Defendant 1 delivered USD 20,000 ($ 18,671,000 at the time of exchange rate, KRW 18,671,00 at the time of exchange rate) to Nonindicted 51, a Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, to the effect that if there is a criminal case against its affiliated companies, such as Nonindicted 3 Stock Company and Nonindicted 44 Stock Company, or their executive or employee, or a criminal case related to its executive or employee, the defendant 1 issued convenience.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 granted a bribe of USD 20,00 to Nonindicted 51 in relation to the duties of Nonindicted 51.

(4) Property in breach of trust against Nonindicted 5

Non-Indicted 5 had the right to edit articles on the monthly basis, which was issued by Non-Indicted 56 corporation, from March 31, 2005 to January 2008, while serving as the representative director and editor of Non-Indicted 56 corporation from March 31, 2005 to January 2008.

Therefore, Nonindicted 5 has a duty to exercise the right of editing fairly for Nonindicted 56 Company and to not intentionally favorable or unfavorable to a specific person without reporting articles that are fairly and objectively covered.

Ma○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

Defendant 1 asked to the effect that, through Nonindicted 57, Defendant 1, who was in close relationship with Nonindicted 5, would no longer be engaged in suspicions against himself and Nonindicted 3 corporation, to the effect that he would not be engaged in suspicions against himself and Nonindicted 5 corporation.

Non-Indicted 57 asked Non-Indicted 5 to “Defendant 1’s harassment,” and upon receipt of the request, Non-Indicted 5 had Non-Indicted 58 interview to the effect that it was not a suspicion of preference related to Defendant 1’s delivery or the acquisition of the non-Indicted 1 Company, and reported the content thereof to February 2007. Defendant 1 asked the above non-Indicted 57 to arrange to meet with Non-Indicted 57.

피고인 1은 당시 공소외 11 전 대통령의 후원자로 알려져 있어 피고인 1 및 공소외 3 주식회사와 관련된 사항은 언론의 집중적인 취재 대상이 될 수밖에 없었고 실제로 ▶▶▶ 2007년 4월호, 5월호 등 여러 언론에도 피고인 1 관련 의혹기사가 게재되었으며 공소외 58도 그와 관련하여 취재를 계속하려고 시도하는 상황이었다.

Under the above circumstances, Defendant 1 promised with Nonindicted 5 through Nonindicted 57 to pay money to Nonindicted 5 in order to prevent Nonindicted 56 from carrying himself and Nonindicted 3’s suspicions related to him and Nonindicted 3’s news.

On February 9, 2007, Defendant 1 issued USD 20,000 (limited to KRW 18,700,000) to Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 at the request of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 in the future, along with the request of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 to the effect that he would not publish suspicions related to the restaurant “Sebus” from among the △△ hotel in Jung-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul.

As a result, Defendant 1 made an illegal solicitation to Nonindicted 5 regarding his duties and granted USD 20,00 to Nonindicted 5.

3. Defendant 2

A. Acceptance of bribe from Defendant 1 (2008, 1438)

On March 2006, Defendant 2 accepted a bribe of USD 2,50,000 (Korean Won 2,318,500,000) from Defendant 1 to Defendant 1 on February 4, 2006 and around June 4, 2007, in return for Defendant 2’s acquisition of shares in Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 3, Ltd. 1, in relation to his duties.

B. The acceptance of bribe from Nonindicted 2 (2009, 455)

피고인 2는 2007년 초순경 서울 중구 소공동에 있는 ▼▼호텔 레스토랑에서 □□□ 자회사인 공소외 40 주식회사에 비료원료인 인광석을 납품하던 중국인 공소외 2로부터 인광석 납품을 계속할 수 있도록 도와 달라는 취지의 부탁과 함께 서류봉투에 담긴 미화 5만 달러를 건네받았다.

또한, 피고인 2는 2007. 5.중순경 홍콩에서 □□□ 소속 직원이자 피고인의 친척인 공소외 59를 통하여 위 공소외 2로부터 같은 명목으로 미화 15만 달러를 받고, 2007. 6.경 위 ▼▼호텔 1층 커피숍에서 위 공소외 2로부터 서류봉투에 담긴 미화 3만 달러를 건네받았다.

As a result, Defendant 2 received a bribe of USD 2,30,000 ($ 21,600,000) in relation to his duties upon the request of Nonindicted Party 2, the president of the government-managed enterprise, who requested the help in connection with the supply of the subsidiary.

4. Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 [Interference with the tender by 208 high-level 1447];

(a) Public offering relations;

Defendant 1, around October 2005, obtained the information that △△ would sell Nonindicted Co. 1, and started the preparation work for acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 1, and asked Defendant 2 to answer that it is difficult to conclude a negotiated contract under the contract terms and conditions, and requested Defendant 2 to help and receive Nonindicted Co. 3’s acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2005. Defendant 2 promised to help Defendant 1 take over Nonindicted Co. 3’s Co. 1.

From January 2006, when the sales business of Nonindicted Co. 1 was promoted in full scale from △△△, Defendant 1 solicited Defendant 2 Chairman to purchase Nonindicted Co. 3’s shares in the Nonindicted Co. 1 on February 2006, Defendant 1 offered KRW 2 billion (2,000,000 cashier’s checks) in return for the solicitation that Nonindicted Co. 3 would be able to purchase them under favorable terms to Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares in the Nonindicted Co. 2.

Around February 2006, Defendant 2 received a report from Defendant 3 on the sales plan for Nonindicted Co. 1, and instructed Defendant 3 to “Satch Co. 3 to take over Nonindicted Co. 1,” and Defendant 3 sent Defendant 2’s instructions to Nonindicted Co. 3, the head of the material department team, stating that “Defendant 2 is the helper to take over Nonindicted Co. 3 Co. 13.”

Accordingly, around February 2006, Defendant 2, 3, and Defendant 1, and Defendant 4 of the said non-indicted 13, 45, 46, and 12 agreed to take over the non-indicted 1 corporation, together with the above non-indicted 13, 45, 46, and 12, the non-indicted 3 conspired that the non-indicted 3 corporation will be awarded a bid in the open bidding by exposing the bid price to the competitor in the bidding process, notifying the non-indicted 3 of the second bid price, and applying the lower price if the bid price of the competitor is low.

(b) Bidding interference;

Around January 2, 2006, YUD promoted the sale of Nonindicted Co. 1, and sold 1,922,921 shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, which are 56% of the shares of YUDD by means of a competitive bidding. However, YUD continued to be on the condition that YU would dispatch one executive officer after subtracting 2,129,00 shares from the purchase price, and that YUD would sell the remaining 46% shares of 46%.

On February 23, 2006, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 of the non-indicted 3 corporation agreed to hold a meeting together with the above non-indicted 13, 45, 46, and 12. ① Defendant 1 recommended the non-indicted 60 corporation accounting auditor of the non-indicted 3 corporation to select the non-indicted 60 corporation as the sales main agent of the contract. ② The difference between the estimated price of the non-indicted 3 corporation and the desired price of the non-indicted 3 corporation in KRW 150 billion is in progress by the chairman of the non-indicted 3 corporation. ③ The non-indicted 3 corporation promised to adjust the bid price in favor of the non-indicted 3 corporation. The bid price of the competitor is lower, and the bid price shall be lower if the competitor's bid price is lower, and the price shall be adjusted within the limit of 10% after the actual inspection.

In the process of such consultation, Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 13 promised to receive a successful tender by notifying Nonindicted 3 Co. 3 of the second bid price in the process of bidding to Nonindicted Co. 3, thereby indicating a lower price than the second bid price.

In accordance with the agreement with Nonindicted Co. 3, around March 2006, Nonindicted Co. 13 selected Nonindicted Co. 60 as the main agent for the sale of △△ Group. Nonindicted Co. 13 disclosed from time to time the report on Nonindicted Co. 3’s sales promotion process, competition trends, information on Nonindicted Co. 1’s information on Nonindicted Co. 3, 2006, which was the external non-indicted Co. 1’s sales plan, on March 8, 2006, which was the external non-indicted Co. 1’s sales plan, which was a document stating the plan for Nonindicted Co. 1’s sales, to Nonindicted Co. 12, and sent it to Nonindicted Co. 3, which was the external document reported to the board of directors on April 206.

From Apr. 206 to May 2006, Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 13 anticipated that it is difficult for Nonindicted 3 to inform Nonindicted 3 of the second bid price of the bid price because the sale method of Nonindicted 1 Co., Ltd. was conducted in a way that it is impossible to confirm in advance the bidder’s bid price. Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 13, following consultation with Defendant 4, Nonindicted 45, 46, and 12, informed Nonindicted 3 Co. 3 of the bid price information of the competitor’s bid price information and notified Nonindicted Co. 3 of the bid price increase due to competition.

Defendant 4, Nonindicted 45, 46, and 12 had contacted Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 13 from time to time in the course of bidding, and confirmed the trend of competition, etc., and Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 13 asked the persons in charge of Nonindicted 61 and Nonindicted 62 in charge of each company involved in preliminary real estate companies, including Nonindicted 61 and Nonindicted 62 in early May 2006, to gather information on the bidding of the competitors by inquiring about the expected bid amount of each company, and by compiling the expected bid price for 56% shares of Nonindicted 60 in the sale day, they can be awarded a bid by taking into account these information.

On May 8, 2006 and May 5, 2006, immediately before the tender, Defendant 3 instructed Nonindicted Co. 13 to inform Nonindicted Co. 3 of the price information so that it can be awarded a successful bid by entering the bid price of at least KRW 180 billion, and Nonindicted Co. 13 may use Nonindicted Co. 12 with the information that “The intention of acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 61 may be very active and construction companies may raise the price including that of Nonindicted Co. 61, which shall include at least KRW 180 billion.”

After Defendant 4 obtained information on the above bid price from Defendant 3, etc., Defendant 4 determined that the bid price of Nonindicted Co. 1 was higher, and decided to receive a successful bid once by stating the bid price of at least KRW 180 billion.

When a bid was conducted on May 10, 2006 for the sale of the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 1, Defendant 1 and 4, etc., Defendant 1 and 4, etc., submitted a bid price of KRW 193.1 billion (46% equity excluding 10% continuously held by △ Group) for 56% of the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 3 (including financial institutions, such as Defendant 1, Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 44, and Nonindicted Co. 64) to select the subject of preferential negotiations after being awarded a bid for 193.1 billion won (177.7 billion won, excluding 10% equity excluding 10% which is continuously held by △ Group). After △ Group, it reduced KRW 32.163 million out of the above bid price to reduce it on June 30, 2006, and concluded additional agreements on July 28, 2006, thereby acquiring KRW 46% of the stocks and management rights of Nonindicted Co. 13.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 13, 45, 46, and 12, thereby doing so by a deceptive scheme or other means.

5. Defendant 2 and 5 [the bribery of KRW 5 billion related to the sale of 2008 Highest 1440 ○○ Securities]

Defendant 2, around March 2005, received a solicitation from the major shareholders of Nonindicted 16 Company 6, Defendant 7, the president of ○○ Securities Co., Ltd. directly, or from them to request to accept ○○ Securities in △△.

Defendant 5 requested from Nonindicted 15, an adviser of ○○ Securities, to Defendant 2, who was the president of ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

Defendant 2, around that time, instructed Defendant 5 to discuss Defendant 6 directly, the method of payment, etc., on the part of Defendant 5, by hearing prior to his intention to receive ○○ Securities and pay a honorarium from the side of ○ Securities on the face of the State.

As a result, on August 2005, Defendant 5 delivered KRW 5 billion equivalent to 5% of the purchase price in return for Defendant 6 and Nonindicted 16’s purchase of ○○ Securities (47.68% of the total issued shares) held by ○○ Stock Company 11,659,689 (the total issued shares) according to Defendant 2’s order. However, Defendant 5 consulted with Nonindicted 16 Company to take the form of payment of advisory fees in order to pretend that it is a legitimate amount, and designated Nonindicted 17 Company as the place of payment of the said money on October 2005.

Accordingly, on December 6, 2005, the basic agreement on the trading of ○○ Securities was made between ○○ Securities and Nonindicted Co. 16. The 27th of the same month of understanding was concluded, and on January 31, 2006, the contract was concluded for the trading of KRW 11,659,689 shares of ○○ Securities in total amount of KRW 11,10.3 billion per share. Defendant 5 received from the above Defendant 6 and 7 the total amount of KRW 5 billion per share from the above Nonindicted Co. 17 in return for the acquisition of ○ Securities.

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

6. The offering of a bribe of 5 billion won to Defendant 6 and 7 (the offering of a bribe of 5 billion won to Defendant 2, 2008, 1383, 1445)

Defendant 6 and 7 agreed to offer a bribe to Defendant 2 for the purpose of selling ○○ Securities’s stocks to the Korean Agricultural Federation, and offered a bribe of KRW 5 billion to Defendant 2, a government-managed enterprise, in return for the purchase of ○○ Securities’s stocks, as described in the above paragraph (5).

Section 2-A. (b) [the possession of each tax evasion by Defendant 1] of the Decision 2-A. (2008 Gohap1438]

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 65, 45, 46, 66, 67, 68, 69, Nonindicted 70, Defendant 4, Nonindicted 71, and Nonindicted 72 (including the part on which Nonindicted 73, and 72 statements are made)

1. Each investigation report and attached documents (the Seoul regional tax office's accusation and relevant evidentiary documents, the details of APC dividends, the total amount of real dividends by Defendant 1, the confirmation of the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act and the Income Tax Act and the violation of the Income Tax Act, the preparation work site of Nonindicted 74, the confirmation of the purchase of ○○ securities using private equity funds of Defendant 1 and the acquisition of large profits from market prices, the report on the acquisition of ○○ securities using private equity funds of Defendant 1, the report on profits from the transaction of ○○ securities by Defendant 1, the current status of changes in the equity ratio of ○○ securities owned by Defendant 1), and the additional accusation;

Sub-paragraphs 2(c) and 3-A of the holding [the offering and acceptance of a bribe by Defendant 1 and 2]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. The fourth prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect as to Defendant 2, which contains some statements;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 34 and 75

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 76, 72, 33, Defendant 4, Nonindicted 77, 78, and 45

1. Each statement of Defendant 1, Nonindicted 59, 34, 75, and 77

1. Investigation reports and accompanying documents (2 billion won tracking map, confirmation of the details of account transactions and account transactions in Hong Kong APC company, the details of Nonindicted 34 and the details of the withdrawal and withdrawal of account accounts in the name of the ▽▽▽△ bank in the name of Nonindicted 34, and the details of the withdrawal and withdrawal of deposits) and each individual's entry and departure status;

No. 2-D. [The offer of each bribe to Nonindicted 50, 4, and 51 and the giving of property in breach of trust to Nonindicted 5] of the judgment No. 2-D [209, 689, 689, 51]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning Defendant 1;

1. Part of the interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 50 among the interrogation protocol of each prosecutor, Nonindicted 4’s prosecutor’s interrogation protocol, Nonindicted 8 and 13 prosecutor’s interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 51 and prosecutor’s interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 51

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 72, 79, 80, 81, 38, 82, 83, 84, 85, Defendant 4, Nonindicted 86, 87, 88, 58, and 57

1. An investigation report (report on the current status of asset management, report on the purchase of merchandise coupons, report on the attachment of merchandise coupons, confirmation of the details of the use of merchandise coupons, attached to Nonindicted 50 Nonindicted Co. 55, report on the attachment of the details of the use of the cafeteria CY among the hotel, report on the attachment of the details of the use of the cafeteria CY among the hotel, the attachment of the △△△△△△ Group attached to the △△△ Group, report on the attachment of the details of the use of the cafeteria BY, report on the attachment of the △△△△ Group attached to the △△△△ Group, report on the attachment of part of the △△△ Group’s use of merchandise coupons, binding of the press reports related to the situation of the participating government, binding of the press reports related to the former

1. The position of the Office of the President, the participatory Government's statement of duties, the manual for major duties of the Secretary General of the Participatory Government, each press report, and Do governor (No. 12, 2006, Jan. 1, 2007, Feb. 2, 2007);

Paragraph 3-b (b) of the holding [the acceptance of bribe from Non-Indicted 2 of the 2009 Gohap4555]

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement

1. The prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 59

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 59, 89, 90, and 91

1. Each investigation report and accompanying documents (a copy of the official document of Nonindicted Co. 40 and documents related to Nonindicted Co. 40)

[Attachment 4] Paragraph 4 of 208 Gohap1447 Defendant 2, 3, 1, and 4

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant 2, 3, 1, and 4;

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 12, 13, and 45

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendants 4, 3, 46, and 45

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 63, 12, and 13

1. Investigation report and attached documents (a report on attachment of a document on ○○ which Nonindicted Party 92’s vice head disclosed to Nonindicted Company 3, a copy of the document related to the sale of Nonindicted Party 1 Company, and a copy of the document related to the acquisition of Nonindicted Party 3 Company)

1. A copy of the report (as a result of consultation 06023.oc), Nonindicted 45’s work log as a result of consultation 06023,

Nos. 5 and 6 of the Decision [208 Gohap1440, 1383, 1445 Defendant 2, 5, 6, and 7]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2, 5, 6, and 7;

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 15, 93, and 94

1. Each statement made by the witness Nonindicted 93 in the fourth trial records of the Seoul Central District Court 2008 Gohap1400 in the fourth trial records of the case, including Non-Indicted 18 and Non-Indicted 5

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendant 5, part of the interrogation protocol against the defendant 6 at the fourth prosecutor's office, the interrogation protocol against the defendant 7 at each prosecutor's office, the interrogation protocol for the defendant 6 at each prosecutor's office, and the interrogation protocol for the prosecutor's office at each prosecutor's office

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 37, 20, 19, 93, 94, 95, 96, and 97 (Provided, That with respect to Defendant 2, Nonindicted 95, 20 (2), Defendant 6, and 7’s protocol of statement are excluded respectively)

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 98, 99, 95, 100, and 101

1. 수사보고 및 첨부서류{ □□□ ○○증권 매수일정 보고 및 관련문건, 공소외 17 주식회사 금융계좌 분석, 공소외 16 주식회사측이 ○○증권 매각에 대한 컨설팅비용으로 공소외 17 주식회사에 50억 원을 지급한 관련 자료 편철보고, 2006. 3. 9. 매출전표, 2006. 3. 9. ■■■호텔 일식당 ‘ ▲▲▲’에서 자신의 플레티늄클럽 카드를 사용하여 식사대를 10% 할인받은 사실 확인}

1. Defendant 5’s book copy, Nonindicted 95-2005’s multi-purpose copy (as of July 11, 2005 and August 16, 2005), Nonindicted Co. 17’s copy, each entry and departure inquiry letter, 5 billion won-related transfer slips, etc. (including the entry payment transaction details, tax invoices, receipts, receipts, and copies of passbooks), and ○○ Investment Finance Headquarters’s preparation of “the selection subject of preferential negotiations for the acquisition of a securities subsidiary” (as of July 7, 2005)

Previouss: Each criminal record and each judgment (Seoul High Court 2007No477)

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

Defendant 1: Articles 8(1) and 1(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the point of tax evasion in each corresponding year, the choice of each limited term of tax evasion), Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 133(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Articles 129(1), 315, 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment respectively)

Defendant 2: Articles 2(1)1, 4(1)2 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 315 and 30 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 3 and 4: Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Act (Determination of Imprisonment with prison labor);

Defendant 5: Articles 2(1)1, 4(1)2 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor)

Defendant 6 and 7: Articles 133(1), 129(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (Each choice of imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2: The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act [the crimes of each on board and each on November 30, 2007]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1 and 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act [Provided, That with respect to Defendant 1, a fine shall be separately prescribed for the crimes of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for each year under the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 1: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 5: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7: each Criminal Act (Supreme Court Order 2007HunBa25 Decided June 25, 2009) Article 57

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 3, 4, 7: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Determination of fines;

Defendant 1: Determination of fines on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) shall be set at a total of 30 billion won as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 과세년도 종합소득세 양도소득세 합계 벌금액 ○○증권 관련 공소외 1 주식회사 관련 (단위 원, 억 원) ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 2003년 4,693,104,000 ？ ？ 4,693,104,000 50 2004년 5,760,144,000 ？ ？ 5,760,144,000 60 2005년 ？ 3,574,330,000 ？ 3,574,330,000 40 2007년 13,822,932,322 ？ 836,020,210 14,658,952,532 150 합계 ？ ？ ？ 28,686,530,532 300

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 2 and 5: The latter part of Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[Defendant 2: KRW 2 billion + USD 2.5 billion + USD 2.3 billion + KRW 2.5 billion (with respect to KRW 5 billion received from Nonindicted Co. 16 corporation, KRW 2.5 billion shall be collected equally from Defendant 5, an accomplice, and KRW 2.5 billion shall be collected equally, and USD 1234.50 billion shall be applied to USD 7, 2009, which is close to the date of the decision of this case)]

I. The part concerning the obstruction of bidding and acceptance of bribe related to the sale of Nonindicted Co. 1 (2008 Gohap1438, 1447)

1. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

A. Defendant 1

(i) the offering of a bribe to Defendant 208 Gohap1438 / [Defendant 2]

Defendant 1 presented KRW 2 billion to Defendant 2 in the middle of February 2006 with an intention to assist in the process of selling Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation in Yeng Yeng-gu YU. However, in detail, Defendant 1 did not assist Defendant 2 in acquiring Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation or provided the above money in return, and in fact, Defendant 1’s sale procedure of Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation was carried out according to lawful open sale procedure regardless of whether it was provided with KRW 2 billion.

Doz. 208Gohap1447 【Interference with Tender】

Defendant 1 asserted that, although the employees of Nonindicted Co. 3 did not know on the part of the employees of the said company prior to the open bid, it was merely seeking cooperation from the working level to facilitate the sale process when Nonindicted Co. 3 is awarded a successful bid in the future, it did not create “the state that Nonindicted Co. 3 would unfairly affect the adequate price formation” in the bidding process of Nonindicted Co. 1, which was conducted through the open bid, so it cannot be said that the fairness of the bidding could not be specified. Defendant 1 asserts that he did not give specific instructions in the above consultation or bidding process, or did not invite a bid interference.

B. Defendant 2

(i) 208Gohap1438 / [the acceptance of bribe from Defendant 1]

Defendant 2 received KRW 2 billion from Defendant 1 in the middle of February 2006. However, Defendant 2 claimed that the said money was used when it is necessary for Defendant 1 to receive the said money without any condition, and that the said money was returned later if necessary. On June 2007, Defendant 2 claimed that USD 2,50,000 received from Defendant 1 did not receive the said money in return for Nonindicted Co. 3’s help Nonindicted Co. 1 acquire the said money.

Doz. 208Gohap1447 【Interference with Tender】

Defendant 2 did not agree to help Defendant 1 take over Nonindicted Co. 3’s stock company in advance. However, Defendant 2 merely asked a working person of Nonindicted Co. 3 to ask Nonindicted Co. 1 to the Nonindicted Co. 1, and provided a kind of guidance within a legitimate procedure. Defendant 2 asserted that the sale procedure of Nonindicted Co. 1 was lawfully conducted through a fair open bid and did not involve in such sale procedure.

C. Defendant 3 [Interference with 208 Highest 1447]

Defendant 3 asserts that in the process of selling Nonindicted Co. 1’s stock company, it did not provide a competitor’s bid price to the persons related to Nonindicted Co. 3 in advance, or adjusted the bid price according to the scheduled agreement, and only endeavored to sell Nonindicted Co. 1’s stock company at a private container.

D. Defendant 4 [Interference with 208 Highest 1447]

Defendant 4, along with the employees of Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 3, was in contact with the Dogsung working group prior to the public tender. However, Defendant 4 asserts that, in the future, Nonindicted Co. 3 was the simply confirming their respective needs when he was awarded a contract for Nonindicted Co. 1, and that there was no fact that he was receiving or being receiving information on the bid price of the competitor in the public tender, it did not prejudice the fairness of the tender.

2. Determination

(a) Basic facts;

According to the above-mentioned evidence, the following facts are recognized.

around July 2005, Defendant 2 instructed the directors to review the sale of the subsidiaries, such as Nonindicted Co. 1, etc. at the open seat, and, around January 20, 2006, he deprived Defendant 3, working as the head of the Changdong branch office of Cheongsung, thereby promoting the sale of Nonindicted Co. 1, 200.

On February 10, 2006, Defendant 3 considered that it is difficult for Defendant 2 to sell Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 40 to Defendant 2 en bloc, and that the negotiated contract that Defendant 3 reviewed was not included in the terms of △ Agreement. At that time, Defendant 2 asked Defendant 3 to the effect that Defendant 3 “I shall receive more than KRW 150 billion” and Defendant 3 said that “I would like to do so even if I think of KRW 110 billion, I would like to do so.”

○ 한편, 피고인 1은 2005. 10.경부터 □□□의 공소외 1 주식회사 매각정보를 입수하고 공소외 1 주식회사의 기업가치를 조사한 후 2005. 12. 8.경 피고인 1의 차명계좌인 ◀◀◀ 사모펀드로 공소외 40 주식회사가 보유한 공소외 1 주식회사 보유주식 50억 원 상당을 매수하고, 2006. 2. 15.경 △△호텔에서 피고인 2를 은밀히 만나 자신의 차명계좌에서 인출한 20억 원(100만 권 자기앞수표 2,000장)을 교부하였다.

On February 15, 2006, Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 3 to “The Do and the Do and the Do and the Republic of Korea” to take over Nonindicted Co. 1. Defendant 3 and Nonindicted Co. 13 discussed, on February 23, 2006, the measures for Nonindicted Co. 3 to become eligible for preferential negotiations at open tendering, and arranged the contents of consultation among them (hereinafter “report on the results of N agency consultation”) as follows.

▷ 협의결과요약(2006. 2. 23.)

1) To request that the Nr. S. President be recommended with a thickness: by February 28, 200

- Non-Indicted 102 and 103 are excluded from the legal entities (in the case of the auditor of Nr. and H.)

- In our country, the president will be the key to the recommendation of the chairman.

- 1 Recommend, as one proposal, Nonindicted Corporation 60.

2) We request the president to proceed with the expected price difference between us and Nr.

- our expected price of KRW 120 billion, and the desired price of KRW 150 billion

- The first corporate value assessment: A scheduled completion date by March 7, 102 for Nonindicted Corporation 102

3) The N company shall continue to hold 10 per cent shares.

- The method of deducting 10% equity price after the sale price calculation for shares of 56%

4) Even if there is only us a bidder’s bid price is higher than the estimated price, the bid price is to be selected as a priority bidder.

5) Nr.N.’s commitment to adjusting bid prices in favor of us

- By exposing bid price to us

- If the bid price for the competitor is low, the application of the low price;

7) Other

-the price adjustment after the inspection within the limit of 10 per cent of the bid price;

At that time, Defendant 4 reported the “N agency’s report” that arranged the contents of the above consultation with Defendant 1, and Defendant 3 also reported the result of the above consultation with Defendant 2 at that time, and Defendant 2 asked Defendant 2 at that time asked that “ Nonindicted Co. 3 would not have any effect on acquiring Nonindicted Co. 1’s stock company,” and Defendant 4 asked Defendant 2 that “ Nonindicted Co. 3 would adjust it to the price level of the second bidder if the first bidder is the first bidder.”

○○ Working Group 3 was provided with data, such as Nonindicted Co. 1’s sales plan (draft), Nonindicted Co. 1’s sales plan (draft), and Nonindicted Co. 1’s sale of equity interest (draft), and “a group of enterprises wishing to open,” which frequently contact and call with △△ working workers until the date of bidding.

On March 15, 2006, ○○○○○ selected Nonindicted Corporation 60 as the main agent for sale, and held a board of directors on March 29, 2006, and passed a resolution on the sale of shares in Nonindicted Company 1. On April 17, 200, after the public notice of sale on March 31, 200, ○○○ announced 7 companies, such as Nonindicted Company 61, Nonindicted Company 104, Nonindicted Company 3, Nonindicted Company 105, Nonindicted Company 62, Nonindicted Company 106, and Nonindicted Company 107, among the 14 acquisition-oriented companies received in the main agent for sale on April 17, 201.

○○ on April 28, 2006, Gisung sent a tender guide containing a MOU to the said seven companies, and Article 4(3) of the MOU states that “The parties may be adjusted according to their agreement according to the results of the commercial inspection; however, even if the purchase price is adjusted, the adjusted amount shall not exceed 10% of the purchase price stipulated in paragraph (1) of this Article.”

Around May 8, 2006, Defendant 3, through Nonindicted 13, notified the Working-Level of Nonindicted Co. 3 of the comprehensive and analysis of the desired prices, etc. of the opinions of Nonindicted Co. 3 through Nonindicted Co. 13, which read “The bid price should be stated in excess of 180 billion won because of Nonindicted Co. 61.”

○ Nonindicted 108, the representative of the agriculture economy in Dog terms, determined the minimum successful bid amount (the scheduled bid price) as KRW 154 billion by taking into account the stock market price and the valuation report on the bidding day immediately before the bidding date.

Defendant 4, on May 10, 2006, went with a bid bag stating four bid prices on the date of the tender, and immediately before the tender, he finally submitted the bid price of KRW 193.1 billion by hearing Defendant 3 to the effect that “at least KRW 180 billion should be made.” Nonindicted Co. 61 submitted the bid price of KRW 167.9 billion, Nonindicted Co. 106, and Nonindicted Co. 62 submitted the bid price of KRW 70.4 billion and KRW 143.1 billion, each of which is below the scheduled bid price.

○ on May 11, 2006, ○○○○ was selected and notified as a priority bidder by integrating the bid documents submitted along with the bid price on May 11, 2006.

○○ on May 18, 2006, L/C and Nonindicted Co. 3 concluded a memorandum of understanding at KRW 177.7 billion, subtracting 10% equity shares (15.4 billion) from the said bid price, and Article 4(3) of the said memorandum of Understanding provides that “The parties may be adjusted according to the results of the commercial inspection; Provided, That even if the purchase price is adjusted, the adjusted amount shall not exceed 10% of the purchase price (17,70,000,000) stipulated in paragraph (1) of this Article.”

On June 5, 2006, Nonindicted Co. 3 demanded reduction of the amount equivalent to 10% of the bid amount out of the scope of sales adjustment on the grounds that the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Co. 1 interfered with the actual inspection, and notified the cancellation of the memorandum of understanding. This was approved on June 29, 2006 by the board of directors at the meeting of the board of directors on June 29, 2006, which is the difference between the bid price with Nonindicted Co. 61 Co., Ltd. and the bid price with Nonindicted Co. 3, 25.2 billion won.

On June 30, 2006, Nonindicted Co. 3 entered into a share acquisition agreement with 165 billion won (1,77.7 billion won - 12.7 billion won) and then again reduced the amount of 17.7 billion won on the ground of false disclosure related to DNT, etc., and then deducted the amount of the compensation for executive officers of Nonindicted Co. 1 (1.763 billion won) from the sales price again on July 28, 2006, and finally reduced the amount of the sales price, and finally determined the amount of KRW 145.5 billion.37 billion.

around February 15, 2006, Defendant 2 deposited KRW 2 billion in the name of Nonindicted 33,32, a borrowed account via Nonindicted 76, the head of the peace branch office of △△△△△△△△, but was detained as a bribe case of Nonindicted Company 9 (5.10.), which was released as bail at the first instance trial (8.11.), and returned the above KRW 2 billion to Defendant 1 on October 17, 2006. Moreover, upon being acquitted at the first instance trial (2.0 billion) and again received KRW 4.3 billion from Defendant 1 on June 1, 2007 (2.0 billion + US$ 2.5 billion) and returned to the above account of Nonindicted 1, 2005, which was returned to Nonindicted 4.7 billion in the name of Hong Kong.

Defendant 2 was convicted in the second instance and was detained in court ( July 20, 2007). After that, on September 2008, the National Tax Service’s tax investigation on Nonindicted Co. 3 Company was conducted on and after the date of the first instance judgment, Defendant 2 returned KRW 1.5 billion in total, including about 22 copies of the certificate of deposit which was replaced in advance to Defendant 1 through his family members and about 50 million won in the balance of the securities account of Nonindicted Co. 33.

B. Whether to accept a bribe and accept a bribe [2008 Gohap1438 2, 1]

The legal interest of accepting bribery is the process of performing duties, the social trust in the performance of duties, and the non-purchase of the act of performing duties. It does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribe of money and valuables received because it does not require any solicitation or unlawful act. In addition, money and valuables are sufficient to have been received in connection with the performance of duties, and there is no need to specify the act of performing duties. Whether a certain profit obtained by a public official constitutes a bribe as an unjust profit with a quid pro quo relationship, shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official's duties, relationship between a public official and a benefit provider, whether a special relationship exists between a public official and a benefit provider, and the situation and time of receiving the benefit. In light of the legal interest of the crime of bribery is the process of performing duties, trust in the society, and purchase of the duty, the criteria for determining whether a public official's receipt of the benefit is doubtful as a fair performance of duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do499, Apr. 9, 2009).

In light of the above facts and evidence, Defendant 2: (a) carried out a long period of time from 199 to 11, 200,000,000 Won 20,000,000,000 Won 2,000,000,000,000 Won 2,000,000 Won 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00.

(c) Whether interference with tendering has been recognized (208 Gohap 1447 Defendant 2, 3, 1, 4).

(1) The crime of interference with tendering under Article 315 of the Criminal Act does not require the occurrence of danger when the fairness of tendering is harmed by deceptive means, threat of force, or any other means, and the “act detrimental to the fairness of tendering” in this context refers to the act of causing a situation that is likely to interfere with fair competition, i.e., causing an unreasonable impact on a reasonable price formation through fair competition, i.e., creating a situation where the fair competition would be likely to be impeded. It includes not only the determination of prices, but also the act of causing harm to the method of fair competition (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8070, May 31, 2007).

(2) According to the above facts and evidence, the Defendant Company 1 and the Defendant Company 3 agreed to sell Nonindicted Co. 3’s bid prices at a lower price than that of Nonindicted Co. 3, which had been offered to Nonindicted Co. 1 on the day of their bidding, based on the following facts: (a) Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 3 agreed to enter into a bid agreement at a lower price than that of Nonindicted Co. 3, supra; and (b) Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 were to enter into a bid agreement at a lower price than that of Nonindicted Co. 3 on the day of their bidding; and (c) Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 were to enter into a bid agreement at a lower price than that of Nonindicted Co. 3, supra; and (d) Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 were to enter into a bid agreement at a lower price than that of Nonindicted Co. 3, supra; and (e) Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 were to enter into a bid agreement at a lower price of 10%.

(3) Next, examining whether Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 3 participated in the bidding of Nonindicted Co. 1, 200, Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 3, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned basic facts and evidence, i.e., Nonindicted Co. 3’s order to acquire Nonindicted Co. 1 with Defendant 1’s order among Oct. 205, Nonindicted Co. 2, 2006; Nonindicted Co. 3, including Nonindicted Co. 4, decided to visit △△; Nonindicted Co. 2’s order to sell confidential materials to Nonindicted Co. 3; Defendant Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 1, 2006, on the following grounds: (a) Nonindicted Co. 3’s order to take part in the bidding of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd.; and (b) Nonindicted Co. 3’s order to take part in the bidding of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. 1, 2006; and (c) Nonindicted Co. 1, Defendant 2005.

Ⅱ 5 billion won and delivery in relation to the sale of ○ securities [208 Gohap1440, 1383, 1445 Defendant 2, 5, 6, 7];

1. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

A. Defendant 2 [the acceptance of bribe from Defendant 6 and 7]

Defendant 2, immediately after receiving Nonindicted 38’s phone on January 2005, 2005, he saw Defendant 6, 7 for the first time and took part in the process of acquiring ○○ Securities. After that, Defendant 2, upon Nonindicted 38’s request from Nonindicted 38 on March 1, 2005, she only saw Defendant 6, etc. to the effect that “the acquisition of ○ Securities will be examined by practical truth,” and did not intervene in the process of acquiring ○○ Securities.

In addition, Defendant 5’s statement from Defendant 5 that ○○ Securities may receive a honorarium upon acceptance of ○○ Securities, and did not instruct Defendant 5 to receive a honorarium. Defendant 5 did not receive any report on the fact that ○○ Securities was deposited in KRW 5 billion from Defendant 5, or used a short rate of one of the above money. Defendant 5 asserted that this case is a single criminal act for personal use after Defendant 5 received a large amount of honorarium from ○○ Securities under the name of ○ Securities Acceptance Agency, under the name of ○○ Securities Acceptance Agency.

B. Defendant 5 [the acceptance of bribe from Defendant 6 and 7]

Defendant 5, upon Nonindicted 15’s request, delivered a will to grant Nonindicted 16 corporation to Defendant 2, and pursuant to Defendant 2’s instruction, Defendant 2 introduced Nonindicted 17 corporation representative director Nonindicted 20 to deliver KRW 5 billion to Nonindicted 20 billion. Defendant 5 did not directly solicit Defendant 2 to acquire ○○ Securities, or to share and distribute KRW 5 billion as Defendant 2 in return. As such, Defendant 5 did not intend to directly make a solicitation to acquire ○○ Securities or to share and distribute 5 billion as Defendant 2, Defendant 2, it is a paper-based criminal, not a accomplice of the bribery. Moreover, Defendant 5 billion won should be excluded from taxes and public charges of KRW 460,109,165, including value-added tax paid from KRW 5 billion.

C. Defendant 6 [Offer of Bribe 2008, 1445]

Defendant 6 asserts that, in the process of selling ○○ Securities, Defendant 5 demanded from Defendant 7 the amount of KRW 3 billion in return for Defendant 2 to persuade Defendant 2 and provide internal information, Defendant 6 merely thought that the said amount was ordinary M&A advisory fee and accepted it, and that there was no instruction or conspiracy to deliver money to a specific person on solicitation in Defendant 2 or Dol YU.

D. Defendant 7 [Offer of Bribe 2008, 1383]

In the process of selling ○○ Securities, Defendant 7 heard that Defendant 5 demanded money from Nonindicted 15 in return for the purchase of Defendant 2 and the provision of internal information. Defendant 5 paid KRW 5 billion to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 17 designated by Defendant 5, but the said money did not provide M&A advisory fee to Defendant 2 or a specific working person of ○○ Agreement as solicitation.

2. Determination

(a) Basic facts;

According to the above-mentioned evidence, the following facts are recognized.

On February 22, 2002, Defendant 6 filed an administrative litigation against Nonindicted Company 109 on the ground of the revocation disposition of authorization against Nonindicted Company 109 and the order for the disposal of ○ Securities, a subsidiary, on the grounds of non-qualified investors in the holding company. However, on July 14, 2004, Defendant 6 was ruled against the Seoul Administrative Court and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Defendant 6, as seen above, entered Nonindicted 15 and 18 as an advisor of ○ Securities in order to sell ○ Securities around June 2004.

○ On the other hand, Gisung established and promoted a plan to establish or take over a securities company on November 2003. However, around the end of 2004, Nonindicted 110 Co., Ltd. attempted to take over the securities company. Since January 2005, the Investment Finance Headquarters created a securities company’s acquisition team centered on Nonindicted 93’s regular business from around January 2005, and carried out in full-time the acquisition of securities company, such as receiving a letter of intent to sell from a small and medium-sized securities company via Nonindicted 111.

On February 2, 2005, Defendant 6 submitted a letter of intent to sell to Nonindicted Co. 111 through Nonindicted Co. 15, and around March of the same year, Defendant 7 had Defendant 7 contact Nonindicted 38 with Defendant 2, and attempted to request the acquisition of ○ Securities by ○○.

○○ Securities Company’s underwriting team of ○○○○ was prepared with Nonindicted Co. 11, along with the documents submitted between them and the preliminary intention, and around May 2005, with the first order of ○○ Securities, ○○ Securities, Nonindicted Co. 112, 113, and Nonindicted Co. 114, and reported them to Defendant 2.

Based on Defendant 7’s statement on July 11, 2005, Nonindicted 16 Co. 95 written a statement on July 16, 2005, the summary of confirming that “3% of the total purchase price should be paid as a share sale commission (which shall be a condition and procedure not in violation of the law)” was written as “as of July 31, 2005.” On August 16, 2005, Nonindicted 16 Co. 95 written a statement on the business log “as of July 31, 2005,” and written on August 16, 2005, the term “one day Kim Jong-soo, the president of Sin-si, the president of Sin-si, the president of Sin-si, and the issue of fees for regular president - official/ official processing within 5% of the total purchase price - The payment scheme was written on the business log of Nonindicted Co. 16 Co.

○○ Securities Company’s acceptance was temporarily interrupted from June 2005 to August 2, 2005 with Defendant 2’s instruction and continued from September 2005.

On October 2005, Defendant 7 added “business related to acquisition, merger, or offering good offices in transaction” to the column of purpose business in the registry of Nonindicted Co. 17 (Representative Director Nonindicted 20) established by Defendant 5, and completed registration on November 2 of the same year, and ordered Nonindicted Co. 16 to take orders from Nonindicted Co. 101, 95, etc. around February 2006, and made a false report on the relevant advisory service agreement, etc. retroactively between Nonindicted Co. 17 and Nonindicted Co. 16 on January 27, 2005, as if the M&A agreement was concluded.

around November 2005, Non-Indicted 93 reported to Defendant 2 the acquisition proposal of ○○ Securities and Non-Indicted 114 Co., Ltd. subject to the final acceptance. Defendant 2 decided to accept ○○ Securities on the ground that KGI has a problem with foreign capital.

On December 6, 2005, ○○ Securities Subscription Agreement (LI) entered into with Nonindicted Co. 16, 2005.

Defendant 7, around December 16, 2005, transferred KRW 1 billion to an account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 17 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 17 with ○○ Securities borrowed ○ Securities as collateral.

On December 27, 2005, ○○○ Securities Trading Understanding (MU) entered into a sales contract with Nonindicted Co. 16 on December 27, 2005, and entered into a sales contract on January 28, 2006 and completed the payment of the price.

On February 17, 2006, Defendant 7 remitted KRW 4 billion to the account of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 17 on February 17, 2006, and Defendant 6 paid KRW 3 billion after deducting the amount of tax from the amount of tax on performance-based rates to Defendant 7 on February 27, 2006. Of the above money, approximately KRW 2.3 billion, excluding the amount of tax, was put on the side of Nonindicted 3.8.

○ 피고인 2는 수감 도중 언론의 ○○증권 관련 의혹이 불거진 2008. 1. 7.경 ♡♡♡ 병원에서 위 50억 원이 자신과 무관하다는 내용의 각서를 작성하여 피고인 5의 자필서명을 받았다.

B. Determination

(1) Whether Defendant 6 or 7 conspired to give 5 billion won to Defendant 2

앞선 증거들에 의하면, ① 피고인 6은 ○○증권의 대표이사 피고인 7에게 지시하여 2005. 초순경 □□□의 피고인 2와 친분이 있는 공소외 38로 하여금 □□□이 ○○증권을 인수하여 주도록 청탁 전화를 부탁한 후, 두 차례 □□□의 피고인 2를 찾아가 ○○증권 인수를 부탁하였던 사실, ② 공소외 15는 2004. 7.경 피고인 6으로부터 ○○증권 매각로비 업무를 위임받은 후 2005. 초순경 □□□의 증권사 인수팀을 담당하는 공소외 93을 접촉하여 □□□이 ○○증권을 인수하여 주도록 설득한 후 2월경 공소외 111 주식회사를 통해 □□□에 정식으로 매각의향서를 제출하였고, 2005. 4.경 피고인 6, 7과 함께 공소외 93을 만났던 사실, ③ 한편, 공소외 15는 2005. 5.경 피고인 2 회장의 측근이라고 알려진 피고인 5를 만나 그를 통하여 피고인 2에게 □□□이 ○○증권을 인수하여 주면 그 사례로 피고인 2 회장에게 30억 원을 지급할 의사가 있음을 밝히고, 그와 같은 지급의사를 담보하는 취지로 피고인 5에게 ○○증권 발행의 백지 당좌수표를 제공하였던 사실, ④ 그 후 피고인 5는 공소외 15에게 “ 피고인 2 회장이 M＆A관례상 5% 정도인 50억 원을 요구한다”고 하였고, 공소외 15로부터 그와 같은 요구를 전해 들은 피고인 6이 이를 수락하였던 사실, ⑤ 피고인 6, 7은 2005. 8.경 공소외 15의 소개로 피고인 5를 직접 만나 피고인 2에게 지급할 돈의 지급방법 등에 관하여 논의를 하고, 그 무렵 법인 대 법인의 자문수수료 형식으로 지급하기로 합의하였던 사실, ⑥ 피고인 7은 회계감사를 앞두고 2005. 12.경 공소외 15를 통하여 피고인 5에게 지급하였던 ○○증권 백지 당좌수표를 회수하고, 그 대신 피고인 5에게 피고인 6 소유의 ○○증권 주식 15억 원 상당을 제공한 사실, ⑦ 피고인 7은 공소외 17 주식회사에 지급된 돈을 적법한 자문수수료인 것처럼 가장하기 위하여 공소외 95 등에게 지시하여 관련계약서 등을 허위로 만들게 하였고, 이 사건 수사가 개시되자 수사에 대비한 문답서 등을 만들었던 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 여기에 기초사실 및 위 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① ○○증권은 모회사인 공소외 16 주식회사가 전체 주식의 48%를 보유하고 있고, 공소외 16 주식회사는 피고인 6과 그의 부인이 전체주식의 92%와 8%를 보유하고 있는바, 공소외 16 주식회사의 월급사장에 불과한 피고인 7은 피고인 6의 지시 없이는 독자적으로 ○○증권의 당좌수표 및 주식을 담보로 제공하거나 50억 원이나 되는 거액을 지출할 수 없다고 보이는 점, ② 피고인 6의 지시를 받고 □□□에 대한 ○○증권 매각 로비를 담당하였던 공소외 15도 검찰 제2회 조사 때부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 50억 원의 귀속주체는 □□□의 최고의사결정권자인 피고인 2이었다고 일관되게 진술하고 있고, 공소외 93도 공소외 15로부터 그와 같은 내용을 들었다고 진술하고 있는 점, ③ 피고인 7도 검찰 제6, 7회 피의자신문조사에서 50억 원은 피고인 6의 승낙 하에 피고인 5를 통하여 피고인 2에게 지급한 돈이었다고 진술하였고, 피고인 6도 검찰 제4회 피의자신문조사에서 50억 원은 적법한 자문수수료인 것으로 가장하여 피고인 5를 통해 피고인 2에게 지급한 것이라고 진술하였던 점, ④ 공소외 95가 작성한 2005. 8. 16.자 업무일지에도 피고인 6, 7이 피고인 5를 만나 피고인 2 회장에 대한 수수료 문제를 논의한 것으로 명백하게 기재되어 있고, 실제로 그 기재내용과 같이 법인 대 법인 형식으로 50억 원을 지급하였던 점, ⑤ 피고인 6, 7도 본건 ○○증권 매각과 관련하여 공소외 17 주식회사가 아무런 자문을 하지 않은 사실에 대하여는 다툼이 없고, ○○증권 인수업무와 무관한 피고인 5 또는 불특정 □□□관계자에게 50억 원이나 되는 거액을 지급할 아무런 명분이 없다고 보이는 점 등의 사정을 종합하여 보면, ○○증권의 실질적인 운영자인 피고인 6은 피고인 7과 함께 공소외 15를 통하여 피고인 2의 측근으로 알려진 피고인 5를 접촉한 후 □□□이 ○○증권을 인수하여 주면 사례금을 지급하겠다는 뜻을 피고인 2에게 전달하였고, 그 후 피고인 5를 만나 사례금 지급방법 등에 관하여 논의한 후 50억 원을 피고인 5가 설립한 공소외 17 주식회사에 M＆A 자문수수료 형식을 빌려 지급하였는바, 피고인 6, 7이 제공한 위 돈의 귀속주체는 □□□ 회장 피고인 2이었다고 넉넉히 인정할 수 있다.

Whether Defendant 5 received the above five billion won under the direction of Defendant 2

㈎ 이에 관하여 피고인 2는 피고인 5로부터 “ □□□이 ○○증권을 인수해 주면 수수료를 지급한다고 합니다. 제 친구가 운영하는 법인에 자문수수료 형식으로 지급받고 CD를 매입하면 문제없을 것입니다”라는 이야기를 듣고서 “세상에 비밀이 어디 있냐. 쓸데없는 짓 하지 마라”고 강력하게 거절하였으며, ○○증권 인수와 관련하여서는 별다른 관여를 한 바 없다고 주장하고 있으므로, 우선 그와 관련된 쟁점들을 차례로 살펴보기로 한다.

㈏ 첫째, 피고인 2, 5의 인적관계에 관하여 살펴보면, 피고인 2는 피고인 5가 과거 통합 전 ♥♥출신의 임원에 불과하여 심복이라고 할 만한 특별한 관계가 아니었다고 주장하나, 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 2는 1999. 초순경 □□□ 회장으로 선출된 후 분리되었던 □□· ♥♥ 등을 통합한 후 2002. 9.경 피고인 5를 공소외 38 주식회사의 대표이사로 임명하였고, 피고인 5는 그 무렵부터 □□□ 내에서 피고인 2의 ♥♥인맥과 호남인맥을 보완하여 주는 관계로서 수시로 피고인 2의 사저를 방문하였으며, 2007. 3.경에는 통합 전 ♥♥회장으로 불리는 ♤♤♤ 대표이사로 임명되었던 점, ② 공소외 15도 □□□ 내 소문에 의하면 피고인 5가 피고인 2의 핵심측근이라는 이야기를 들었다고 진술하고, 공소외 93 역시 피고인 5가 피고인 2의 심복으로 생각한다고 진술하고 있는 점, ③ 피고인 2의 진술에 의하더라도 피고인 5가 자신에게 수차례 ○○증권으로부터 사례금을 문제없이 지급받을 수 있다는 이야기를 한 적이 있다고 하는 점 등의 사정에 비추어 보면, 피고인 2와 피고인 5는 평소 다소 비밀스럽고 껄끄러운 사례금 수수에 관한 이야기까지도 스스럼없이 나누고 이를 지시할 수 있는 충분한 인적관계를 형성하고 있었다고 보인다.

㈐ 둘째, 피고인 2가 □□□ 회장으로서 ○○증권 인수에 관하여 한 역할에 관하여 살펴보면, 피고인 2는 2005. 7.경부터 □□□ 회장이 비상근 명예직으로 지위가 바뀌어서 이사회 의장으로서 이사회를 주최하는 이외에는 증권사 인수업무에 관하여 별다른 관여를 한 바 없다고 주장하지만, 앞선 증거들에 의하면, ① 피고인 2는 2003년경부터 증권사 인수방침을 결정하고 증권사 인수와 관련된 보고를 수시로 받아 왔는데, □□□의 공소외 110 주식회사 인수가 무산된 후 2005년 초순부터 증권사 인수팀을 만들어 공소외 93 상무를 실무책임자로 임명하고 증권사 인수작업을 본격적으로 추진하도록 지시한 사실, ② 2005. 3.경 공소외 38의 소개로 찾아온 피고인 6, 7을 만나 □□□이 ○○증권을 인수하여 달라고 부탁을 받은 직후 공소외 93에게 ○○증권을 잘 검토해 보라고 이야기하였고, 이에 공소외 93이 자신의 소신과 피고인 2의 의중을 고려하여 같은 해 4.경 내부적으로 ○○증권을 1순위 인수대상 협상자로 지정하고 인수업무를 진행하였던 사실, ③ 피고인 2는 2005. 6.경 공소외 93에게 증권사 인수업무를 중단하라고 지시한 후 2005. 9.경 다시 진행하라고 지시한 바 있고, 2005. 11.경 공소외 93으로부터 ○○증권과 공소외 114 주식회사를 최종 인수대상자로 하는 인수안을 보고받아 최종적으로 ○○증권 인수를 결정하였던 사실, ④ 피고인 2는 기존에 ○○증권 인수를 극구 반대하였던 이지묵 신용대표이사를 2005. 7.경 중임시키지 아니하였고, 그 무렵 취임한 공소외 116 신용대표이사는 공소외 93에게 기존에 진행되고 있었던 ○○증권 인수와 관련하여 별다른 지시나 관여를 하지 않았던 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실들을 종합하면, 피고인 2는 □□□ 회장의 지위가 비상근직으로 바뀐 이후에도 그 이전과 마찬가지로 최종적인 의사결정권자로서 ○○증권 인수업무에 깊숙이 관여하였던 것으로 보인다.

㈑ 셋째, 피고인 2가 2005. 12. 8.경 인도네시아에 출장 중인 피고인 5에게 전화를 걸어 ○○증권 인수를 챙기라고 지시한 사실이 있는지에 관하여 살펴보면, 피고인 2는 그 무렵 피고인 5에게 전화를 건 사실이 없다고 주장하나, 앞선 증거들에 의하면, ① 피고인 5는 2008. 11. 20.자 진술서(다만, 그 시기에 관하여는 2005년 여름경이라고 기재하였다)부터 이 사건 법정에 이르기까지 “인도네시아 출장 중 피고인 2 회장으로부터 전화가 와서 엉겹결에 대만이라고 말하였더니 피고인 2가 빨리 귀국하여 ○○증권 인수가 잘 되어 있으니 챙겨보라”는 취지의 통화를 하였다고 일관되게 진술하고 있는 점, ② 출입국조회내역에 의하면 피고인 5가 공소외 99, 117 등과 함께 2005. 12. 2.부터 11.까지 인도네시아로 출국하였던 사실이 인정되고, 그 무렵 인도네시아에서 피고인 5와 함께 체류 중이었던 공소외 37도 휴대전화 로밍문제 때문에 자신의 휴대전화로 남사장을 바꿔달라는 전화가 온 적이 있는데 남사장으로부터 “회장님에게서 전화가 왔는데 어디냐고 하여 대만이라고 했다”는 이야기를 들었다고 진술하고 있어 위 피고인 5 진술의 신빙성을 뒷받침하고 있는 점, ③ 피고인 2는 □□□이 2005. 12. 6. 공소외 16 주식회사와 사이에 ○○증권 주식인수 기본합의서(LOI)를 체결한 후 그 무렵 ○○증권 인수업무와 관련하여 아무런 관련이 없고 해외 출장 중인 피고인 5와 굳이 통화를 해야할만한 다른 중대한 사안이 있었다고 보기 어려운 점 등의 사정에 비추어 보면, 피고인 2는 □□□이 ○○증권 기본합의서를 체결한 직후 인도네시아에 출장 중인 피고인 5에게 전화하여 ○○증권으로부터 받을 사례금 문제에 관하여 잘 챙기라는 취지의 지시를 하였던 것으로 보인다.

㈒ 다섯째, 피고인 2가 피고인 5, 6과 함께 □□□이 ○○증권 인수한 직후인 2006. 3. 9. ■■■호텔 ‘ ▲▲▲’에서 점심식사를 한 사실이 있는지에 관하여 살펴보건대, 이는 만약 피고인 2의 주장과 같이 피고인 5가 자신의 반대의사를 숨기고 피고인 6으로부터 돈을 몰래 받은 것이라면 피고인 5가 50억 원을 지급받은 직후에 피고인 2와 피고인 6을 대면하게 하는 어색하고 위험한 상황을 만들 까닭이 없고, 피고인 2도 □□□의 ○○증권 인수에 별다른 관여를 한 바 없음에도 인수작업이 끝난 직후 새삼스럽게 피고인 6을 따로 만날 까닭이 없다는 점에서 피고인 2와 피고인 5의 상반되는 진술에 관한 신빙성을 판단하는 정황사실에 해당한다. 이에 대하여 피고인 2는 그 무렵 피고인 5와 함께 피고인 6을 따로 만나거나 ■■■호텔 ‘ ▲▲▲’에 간 사실이 없다고 주장하고 있으나(이 사건 법정에서는 기억이 없다고 주장하였다), 앞선 증거들에 의하면, ① 피고인 5와 피고인 6은 모두 일치하여 2006. 3.경 ■■■ 호텔 커피숍에서 차 한 잔을 하면서 피고인 2를 기다리다가 피고인 2가 도착하여 함께 ‘ ▲▲▲’ 일식집에서 식사를 하였고, 식사 도중에 피고인 2가 “ □□□이 안 사주면 ○○증권 주식이 오르겠냐. 잘 팔았다”라는 취지의 이야기를 하였다고 진술하고 있는데, 그 진술이 비교적 구체적이고 일관되며, 피고인 5의 수첩사본(2006. 3. 9.자 ‘ ■■■ 호텔 오찬 3층 ▲▲▲’) 및 신용카드 매출전표{ 공소외 16 주식회사 법인카드( 번호 생략) 2006. 3. 9. 11:50 ☆☆☆ 23,595원 결제, 같은 날 13:20 ▲▲▲ 252,104원 결제} 자료와도 부합하고 있는 점, ② 피고인 6이 위 공소외 16 주식회사 법인카드로 ‘ ▲▲▲’에서 결제한 내역(252,104원)을 자세히 살펴보면, 총 계산금액은 방어조림 3인분(165,000원), 하이트 맥주 2병(17,000원), 과일 3인분(30,000원), 커피 3잔(19,500원)에 대한 식대 231,500원에서 10%{23,150원, 다만, ■■■ 호텔의 재발행 영수증에는 식대비 할인금(-21,450)만 기재되어 있고 맥주 2병에 대한 할인금액(1,700원)은 기재되어 있지 않다}를 할인받은 다음에 10%의 봉사료(20,835원)와 10%의 부가세(22,919원)를 합한 내역인 것으로 확인되는데, 위와 같이 10%의 금원을 할인받은 이유가 당일 피고인 2 명의의 ■■■호텔 멤버쉽카드(회원번호 생략)를 이용하였기 때문인 것으로 밝혀졌고, 피고인 2의 수행비서였던 공소외 94는 이 사건 법정에서 위 ■■■호텔 멥버쉽카드는 피고인 2 회장 본인이 아닌 다른 □□□임원이 카드번호만을 대고 할인받은 경우는 없는 것으로 알고 있고, 2006. 3. 점심경 피고인 2 회장을 수행하여 ■■■호텔에 가서 ○○증권측 사람을 만나 ○○증권 주가에 관하여 이야기 한 적이 있다고 진술하고 있는 점, ③ 특히, 피고인 6은 이 사건 법정에서 50억 원을 피고인 2에게 제공한 것이 아니라는 취지로 부인하고 있어서 위와 같이 불리한 정황사실을 허위로 이야기할 아무런 이유가 없음에도 피고인 2를 만나 식사를 하게 된 경위와 대화내용에 대하여 비교적 자세히 진술하고 있는 점 등의 사정에 비추어 보면, 피고인 2는 ○○증권 인수가 마무리 된 후 피고인 5의 중재로 2006. 3. 9. 피고인 6을 만나 점심식사를 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

㈓ 여섯째, 피고인 2의 지시를 받아 50억 원을 수수하였다는 피고인 5 진술의 신빙성에 관하여 살펴보면, 피고인 5는 최초 이 사건 범행을 시인하는 진술서를 작성한 이래 이 사건 법정에 이르기까지 피고인 2의 지시에 따라 피고인 6을 직접 만나 피고인 2에게 지급될 사례금 50억 원의 지급방법에 관하여 구체적으로 논의를 하였고, 공소외 17 주식회사를 통해 지급받은 돈에 관하여 피고인 2에게 보고를 한 후 피고인 2의 허락을 받아 그 자금을 사용하였다고 하면서 피고인 6을 만나게 된 경위, 사례금의 금액결정과 지급방법에 관한 논의과정, 지급경위 등에 관하여 비교적 구체적이고 일관되게 진술하고 있으며, 이는 피고인 6, 공소외 15, 피고인 7 등의 진술과도 거의 일치하고 있다. 비록 피고인 5의 진술 중 그 구체적인 날짜와 지엽적인 대화 내용에 관하여는 다소 변경되었던 부분이 있으나, 통상적인 일에 대한 사람의 기억은 시간이 지나면서 점점 희미해지는 것이 일상적인 것이고, 오히려 상당기간 지난 시점의 일의 세부적인 사항까지 정확하게 기억하는 것이야말로 부자연스럽고 작위적인 것으로 보이는 점, 앞서 살펴본 관련쟁점들에 관한 피고인 5의 진술 중 특별히 사실과 배치되는 부분이 없는 점, 이 사건 사례금 지급논의는 피고인 2 자신을 비롯하여 ○○증권의 피고인 6, 7, 공소외 15, 18 및 □□□의 공소외 93까지도 그 대략적 내막을 알고 있어서 피고인 5가 피고인 2의 반대의사를 감추면서 혼자서 돈을 가로챌 수 있을 상황이 아니었다고 보이는 점, 피고인 2는 이 사건 무렵 피고인 1로부터 받은 금원을 차명으로 관리하도록 하면서 개인적으로 사용하지 않았으며, □□□ 회장 임기가 많이 남아 있었기 때문에 이를 자신이 관리하기보다는 오히려 중간역할을 하였던 피고인 5에게 그 관리를 위임하는 것이 자연스러웠다고 보이는 점 등 이 사건 공판과정에서 나타난 여러 사정에 비추어 보면 피고인 5의 진술은 매우 신빙성이 있는 것으로 판단된다.

㈔ 앞서 살펴 본 바와 같이 관련 쟁점에 관하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 5가 주위에서 □□□ 내 피고인 2의 측근으로 생각할 수 있는 가까운 사이였던 점, ② 피고인 2의 지시에 의하여 ○○증권 인수업무가 중단되었던 시기에 피고인 5가 피고인 6 등을 직접 만나 인수대가 지급문제 등을 논의하였고, 그 후 다시 피고인 2의 지시에 의하여 인수업무가 재개되었던 점, ③ 피고인 2는 ○○증권 인수업무에 깊숙이 관여하였고, 사실상 최종적으로 ○○증권 인수를 결정을 하였던 점, ④ ○○증권의 피고인 6, 7은 □□□의 최종 의사결정권자인 피고인 2를 설득하기 위하여 지속적인 로비를 하였던 점, ⑤ 피고인 2는 □□□이 기본합의서를 체결한 직후 해외출장 중인 피고인 5에게 전화하여 ○○증권 업무를 잘 챙기라는 지시를 하였던 점, ⑥ 피고인 2는 ○○증권에서 50억 원을 모두 지급한 직후인 2006. 3. 9. 피고인 5의 중재로 피고인 6을 만나 점심식사를 하였던 점 등 피고인 2, 5의 □□□ 내 지위와 역할, 위 ⑴항에서 살펴본 피고인 6과 피고인 7의 피고인 2에 대한 로비과정, 공소외 15를 통한 사례금 지급논의 경과, 피고인 2가 수수한 다른 금원들의 보관방법, 관련자들의 진술 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 5가 피고인 2의 반대에도 불구하고 피고인 6, 7, 공소외 15를 속여서 중간에서 50억 원을 받아 가로챘다는 피고인 2의 주장은 도저히 받아들이기 어려운 사후적 변명에 불과한 것으로 보이고, 이 사건은 피고인 5의 일관된 진술과 같이 피고인 2가 피고인 5에게 지시하여 피고인 6, 7로부터 ○○증권 인수와 관련하여 자문수수료 명목으로 가장한 사례금 50억 원을 교부받은 것이라고 충분히 인정된다.

Abstract Whether Defendant 5 is merely an accessory to a crime

The following circumstances acknowledged by the prior evidence, ① Defendant 5 did not merely simply deliver the opinion that Defendant 2 would be the case from Nonindicted 15 to Defendant 2, and was actively involved in the crime of bribery of this case, such as setting up the price for acceptance and discussing specific methods of delivery. ② Defendant 5 played a critical role in giving and receiving KRW 5 billion as advisory fees by allowing Nonindicted 20, a representative director of Nonindicted 17 corporation established by himself to make a corporate passbook and allowing Nonindicted 20, thereby giving and receiving KRW 5 billion under the pretext of advisory fees. ③ Defendant 5 said Nonindicted 20 to “I would like to know a good place of business because this money was not inside money but can be used for 1 to 2 years.” Defendant 5, in fact, was aware of the fact that Defendant 5 used the remaining amount of investment share in Nonindicted 19 corporation, which was demanding to pay more than KRW 1 billion, and Defendant 200,000,000 of the above 5 billion amount of investment shares, and Defendant 20,000.

· Whether the tax, etc. paid in the amount of 5 billion won received should be deducted

Although Nonindicted Co. 17 paid a tax amount of KRW 460 million due to the money deposited in the name of commission, the crime of bribery of this case is up to the number of times when the bribe was remitted to Nonindicted Co. 17, and the payment of the tax amount of KRW 460 million thereafter is limited to the amount paid by the Defendants in order to conceal the crime because the Defendants was disguised by advisory commission. Since the above amount of KRW 5 billion was not the actual sales of Nonindicted Co. 17, the above amount of KRW 5 billion is not the obligation to pay value-added tax. Thus, Defendant 5’s assertion that the above tax amount should be deducted from the above tax amount of KRW 5 billion cannot be accepted.

Ⅲ. Part of Defendant 1’s legal assertion

1. The occupation of tax evasion related to the transfer income tax;

A. Defendant’s assertion

The Defendant asserts that it does not constitute an active “Fraud or other unlawful act,” which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect tax, on the following grounds: (a) mass trading of ○ Securities and Nonindicted Co. 1’s stocks using a borrowed account and did not pay capital gains tax on the profits therefrom; (b) however, this is not an act using a borrowed account for the purpose of evading tax from the beginning, but merely resulting in a non-taxation limit in the process of trading stocks in a simple manner; and (c) as such, it did not report capital gains tax

B. Determination

(i)The basis of taxation

Article 94 Subparag. 3 of the Income Tax Act was newly established to include income accruing from the transfer of stocks or equity shares listed on the Korea Stock Exchange, which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree, in the income subject to the transfer income tax. Accordingly, Article 157 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act was newly established and subsequently amended by Presidential Decree No. 16664, Dec. 31, 1999 (Enforcement Date from January 1, 200), and (1) where one stockholder or one investor of a stock listed corporation, his relative or other specially related person owns 3% or more of the total amount of stocks, etc. of the relevant corporation as of the end of the immediately preceding business year immediately preceding the transfer date, or (2) where the market price of the relevant corporation as of the end of the immediately preceding business year immediately preceding the transfer date exceeds 10 billion won, the transfer income tax was reported and paid with respect to the income accruing from stock transaction.

Doz. Whether the act constitutes “sast or other unlawful act”

"Fraud and other unlawful acts", which are the constituent elements of a crime of tax evasion under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, means fraudulent and other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes by means of the intent to evade tax, and it does not constitute mere failure to file a return under tax law or filing a false report without accompanying such acts (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do535, Apr. 21, 2000, etc.).

살피건대, 앞선 증거들에 의하면, ① 피고인은 2004년경 ◆◆전자 주식을 100억 원 이상 대량으로 매입하였다가 30억 원 이상의 양도소득세를 낸 경험이 있기 때문에 피고인이 이 사건 차명계좌 개설을 지시할 당시에도 양도소득세 과세규정인 위 소득세법 조항을 잘 알고 있었던 사실, ② 피고인은 2005. 6. 28.경 자신 명의의 ○○증권주식 보유수량이 3%에 이르자, 공소외 47 명의로 2005. 6. 29.부터 같은 해 7. 21.까지 ○○증권 주식을 매수하였다가, 다시 공소외 48 명의로 2005. 8. 4. ○○증권 주식을 매수하였던 사실, ③ 피고인은 2005. 말경부터 공소외 1 주식회사를 인수하기로 결정한 후 □□□회장인 피고인 2에게 로비를 시도하여 2006. 5.경 이후에는 자신이 □□□의 공소외 1 주식회사 보유주식(48%)을 인수할 것이 예상되자, 2006. 4. 21.부터 같은 달 27.까지 공소외 48, 47 명의로 공소외 1 주식회사 주식을 매수한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실 및 앞선 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 피고인은 주식을 대량으로 매매하면서 오로지 소득세법에 따른 양도소득세를 회피하기 위한 목적으로 자신과 국세기본법상의 특수관계가 인정되지 아니하는 이 사건 차명계좌를 개설하였던 것이지, 이외에 다른 목적이 있었다고 보기 어려운 점, ② 피고인은 3개의 차명계좌로 주식을 거래하면서 발생한 이익금을 다시 약 8개의 차명계좌로 입·출금 반복하면서 이를 분산·관리하였던 점, ③ 과세관청으로서는 피고인의 금융거래내역을 조회하고 입·출금된 수표를 추적하지 않는 한 피고인과 특수관계에 있지 아니한 차명계좌를 발견하여 양도소득세를 부과하기란 거의 불가능하다고 보이는 점 등 이 사건 차명계좌의 개설시기와 목적, 차명인과의 관계, 주식거래의 규모, 거래자금의 관리 방법 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 차명계좌를 이용하여 대량으로 주식거래를 한 행위는 단순히 양도소득세를 신고하지 않은 소극적 행위에 그치는 것이 아니라, 세무공무원이 차명계좌의 주식이 모두 피고인의 소유로서 양도소득 과세대상에 해당함을 발견하는 것을 불능 또는 현저히 곤란하게 하는 ‘사기 기타 부정한 행위’에 해당한다고 인정된다.

2. The offering of each bribe to Nonindicted 50 and 4 and the offering of evidence in breach of trust to Nonindicted 5

A. Defendant’s assertion

(1) The Defendant asserted that, while issuing gift certificates to Nonindicted 50, Nonindicted 10, who was his own money, was able to appoint him to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Defendant did not make specific and explicit solicitation. The gift certificates issued to Nonindicted 4 were in good faith in relation to Nonindicted 4’s business, and KRW 300 million were in relation to Nonindicted 4’s business. As such, the Defendant asserted that each money and valuables granted to Nonindicted 50 and 4 did not constitute quasi-public bribe in relation to Nonindicted 50 and 4’s duties.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s delivery of USD 20,00 to Nonindicted 5 of the article that did not confirm to Nonindicted 5 does not constitute an “illegal solicitation” in the crime of giving property in breach of trust, on the ground that it was merely a representation of his position to the journalist in the position of the business person.

B. Determination

(4) The crime of bribery does not require a special solicitation or a specific act regarding the duties of a public official. The duties of a public official are not only the duties prescribed in the Acts and subordinate statutes but also the duties related thereto, such as duties which can assist or affect the decision-making authority, and duties which were previously in charge or are not actually in charge according to the division of duties in the future, but also the duties of a public official, such as duties under the Acts and subordinate statutes, are included in all duties to be performed on official duties (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Do364 delivered on February 28, 1992; 97Do2609 delivered on December 26, 197, etc.). The act of the public official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official are in a special relationship with the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official were in a special relationship with the candidate and the official and the official and the official and the official and the official duty are deemed to be given.

The crime of giving and receiving property in breach of trust refers to that the solicitation goes against the social rules and the principle of trust and good faith. In determining this, it is not necessary to comprehensively consider the contents of the solicitation and the amount of property delivered or provided in relation thereto, form, and integrity of the business administrator, who is the legal interest protected by the law, and such solicitation does not necessarily require explicit. (See Supreme Court Decision 9Do2165, Apr. 9, 2002, etc.) In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, ① the editor’s responsibility, who is a domestic representative party, exercised the right of editing in a fair manner, and the Defendant appears to have been in a position to not receive any gift disadvantageous from the news coverage counter, and ② the Defendant’s mere request for the issuance of an article related to Nonindicted Party 5’s own and an article related to it is merely a change or defense of the amount of money and valuables distributed to Nonindicted Party 2, who appears to have been distributed to Nonindicted Party 1, 206 and the Defendant’s offering of such article.

1. Defendant 1

In light of the above legal principles, the defendant's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted company's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted.

However, even if the primary purpose of tax evasion related to APC is to avoid the reduction pressure on the supply price of chip, it is a large amount of tax evasion amounting to 28.6 billion won, which constitutes a serious crime that constitutes imprisonment with labor for life or for not less than five years pursuant to Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. However, the Defendant raised a large amount of money in a foreign country by raising it, and used it as a bribe or illegal political fund, and thus, its nature cannot be said to be less than that of the crime.

In addition, in order to eradicate corruption, a strict punishment for the crime of bribery is required in society, but there is a limit to expect the integrity of the public service society to punish only the crime of acceptance of bribe. Thus, if a bribeer actively offered a bribe or acquired a benefit exceeding the amount of money given through the offering of a bribe, it is necessary to punish the bribe in the same manner as the bribeer. The defendant actively offered a large amount of bribe up to 4.5 billion won upon Defendant 2's request for active cooperation in relation to the acquisition of the non-indicted 1 corporation to the non-indicted 3 corporation. Accordingly, the defendant was selected as the priority bidder in the open tendering procedure in order to take over the non-indicted 1 corporation with a significant potential value, and the purpose of the offering of a bribe is achieved, and the defendant's general circumstances such as the defendant's motive for and the defendant's criminal intent to commit the crime of bribery and the defendant's criminal intent to eliminate the corruption and corruption of the public service society, and the defendant's criminal punishment should be determined by taking into account all the circumstances and evidence presented.

2. Defendant 2

The Defendant, who has been working for a long time as the president of the Dogir Federation, which represents farmers and has a great influence on the economic life of the people, provided preferential treatment to a specific business entity in relation to the sale of Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 1 and the acquisition of ○○ Securities, and received a bribe of USD 7 billion and USD 2.5 billion in relation to the purchase of ○○ Securities by using his position, and received a bribe of USD 2.3 billion in relation to Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 40, and received a bribe of USD 2.3 billion in order for the Defendant to promote personal dignity.

In addition, the defendant received a bribe of 5 billion won (2 billion won + 2.5 million US dollars + 2.3 million US dollars) even when he was detained as a case of bribery against Non-indicted 9 corporation, and the defendant received a bribe of 5 billion won (2 billion US dollars + 2.5 million US dollars) even in the process of being tried for a non-detained trial, and it is very significant that the majority of farmers and the people have been informed of the fact that the crime was interviewed and received, and that the amount of the money received is large, and that

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of his own confession and the pureity of money in the court of this case is strong, and there is no way to find out that the defendant's attitude has seriously divided the crime, and it is difficult to exempt him from punishment with very heavy criminality and criminality.

다만, 피고인이 8년 9개월간 □□□중앙회 회장으로 근무하면서 □□· ♥♥을 통합하여 성공적으로 구조조정을 하는데 공헌하였고, 농촌문화 복지재단을 설립하여 농촌 발전에 기여한 점, 판시 뇌물죄로 5년의 징역형이 확정되어 수감 중인데 이 사건 범행은 위 뇌물죄에 대한 판결이 확정되기 전의 범행으로서 피고인으로서는 두 개의 사건을 함께 재판받을 수도 있었던 점, 피고인 1로부터 받은 금원 중 15억여 원을 반환한 점, 그 밖에 피고인의 연령·성행·가정환경 등 양형의 조건이 되는 제반 사정을 종합하여 주문과 같이 형을 정한다.

3. Defendant 3, 4

In this case, the issue is a large-scale bid process with a total of KRW 154 billion, where the notice of the bidding of Doggg (i.e., a large-scale bid of which is up to KRW 154 billion, so that non-indicted 3 corporation, which has a special relationship with the Dogggggging Chairman, can take over the non-indicted 1 corporation, and thus, the case is significant and has not been committed.

However, Defendant 3 and 4 have no personal benefit, and they reflect their mistakes in depth, and they have been awarded a bid process to competitors, but they were awarded a bid more than the scheduled bid price for △ Magna, in the situation where it is difficult for Nonindicted Company 1 to refuse to follow the instructions of the highest decision-making authority as the practitioners of △ Magna and Nonindicted Company 3, it appears to lead to the instant crime, and there is no special criminal record, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the Disposition.

4. Defendant 5

Not only did Defendant 2 play a critical role in giving and receiving illegal money of KRW 5 billion from Nonindicted Co. 16, but also deposited and washing money in several passbooks, making it difficult to trace it difficult for Defendant 2 to pursue it, and some of the money was used for his own interest.

However, in full view of all the circumstances, including the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case under the direction of Defendant 2, who is the chairman of Dog terms and conditions of sentencing, and the age, character, family environment, etc. of the defendant, he/she shall be sentenced to a concurrent judgment as ordered by the court [the defendant wishes to be judged as a bribe of another case (Seoul High Court 2008No3296) at the time of his/her indictment as this case, but he/she has been sentenced to a delay of trial due to the examination of the co-defendant of this case and was sentenced to three years and six months in the court of final appeal (Supreme Court 2009Do56555) at the time of the court of final appeal (Supreme Court 2009Do5655). Since the above judgment has not yet become final and conclusive, the decision of this case or the sentencing of the defendant was not considered as a result of the above judgment].

5. Defendant 6

The fact that the defendant has contributed to the development of the national economy while operating the non-indicted 16 Stock Company, and that it has led to the crime of this case in the course of selling and disposing of ○○ Securities by obtaining an order from the Financial Supervisory Commission for the disposal of ○ Securities.

However, the Defendant: (a) provided non-indicted 15 and 18 to the office; and (b) attempted expenses for Defendant 2 on a systematic basis; (c) provided a bribe by actively proposing a large amount of honorariums; and (d) the Defendant was able to sell ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ to the non-indicted 2, 38; and (c) even if the sale price was determined based on the stock price, the ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○’s acquisition of ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ in the process of prosecution investigation and trial.

6. Defendant 7

Unlike the Defendant spent Defendant 2 through Nonindicted 38, who was the pro-friendly relationship with the former president at the time, the Defendant was involved in the discussion on the payment of honorariums to Defendant 2 through Defendant 5, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant is less liable in light of the degree of his participation, such as preparing false documents in order to pretend the name of KRW 5 billion as advisory fees, etc.

However, the defendant appears to have caused the crime of this case according to the orders of the defendant 6, the fact that he did not have the amount of profit acquired individually even though he did an illegal act, the defendant was detained at the investigation stage and cooperateed in the prosecutor's investigation by the prosecutor's investigation. The defendant's mistake is divided and seriously reflected, and all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character, family environment, etc., shall be determined as ordered by the order.

Judges Hong-Myeon (Presiding Judge)