(Recognized Crime : Conspiracy)

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

(c) Occupational embezzlement;

(d) Occupational breach of trust;

(e) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment;

(f) Property in breach of trust;

private, misappropriation misappropriation

2.(c)(d) B

3.g. C.

Attorney Choi Young-young, Attorneys Kim Tae-young, Kim Tae-tae, the highest winner, the head of Jin-jin

Attorney Hong Jong-Un (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

Hansung Law Firm (For the defendant C)

Attorney Kim In-sik

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

40,235,450 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above additional collection charges is ordered against the defendant.The defendant B of December 14, 2009 of the facts charged of this case is not guilty as to the occupational embezzlement of KRW 200 million on December 14, 2009 of the facts charged of this case, the violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

3. Defendant C

The defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of one hundred thousand won converted into one day.

To the defendant, the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine is ordered.In the facts charged in this case, the charge of giving property in breach of trust due to cash receipt shall be acquitted.

Defendant A is reappointed as the 19,20,21 Chairman of E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) established by D Act from May 2008 to May 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “D Act”) and has an overall control over its work and business.

As a member of Defendant B, from June 2006 to May 2009, from August 2012 to June 2014, 2014, Defendant B is a representative director of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”), a subsidiary in which E holds 100% equity shares, and has overall control over its business and business according to Defendant A’s instructions. Defendant C is a representative director of G Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “G”) who runs the wholesale business of scrap iron, and has been performing its business and business.

E is a legal organization established by the D Act enacted as H around December 31, 1973, and is under the supervision of the National Police Agency with retired police officers as its regular members and incumbent police officers as honorary members. E is a nonprofit incorporated association under the supervision of the National Police Agency. The purpose of E is to contribute to the peaceful unification and the protection of liberty among members (Article 1 of the same Act) by promoting friendship and promoting mutual aid among members, and to achieve this purpose, ① projects to promote the welfare of E members, ② projects to promote public security cooperation and support, ③ projects to strengthen friendship with relevant foreign organizations, such as foreign E, ② projects to foster and enhance the friendlyness and ties of foreign countries, ④ projects to foster the system of free democracy and the spirit of national defense, ④ projects to promote six children through mutual aid among members, ④ projects to carry out the above projects for profit-making projects and incidental projects, and projects prescribed by the articles of incorporation of the National Assembly (Article 3-2 of the same Act).

In addition, it has been made more.

E is a general meeting, board of directors, and federation under D law. The national general meeting shall pass a resolution (Article 23(1) of the E Articles of Incorporation) on the business plan, budget and settlement of accounts, matters concerning the acquisition and disposal of assets, matters concerning the acquisition and disposal of assets, matters concerning the acquisition and disposal of the business plan, budget and settlement of accounts, matters concerning the operation and disposal of the assets, matters concerning the operation and disposal of the assets, etc. (Article 30(1) of the Articles of Incorporation). The arbitration of the Federation is required to be appropriated with membership fees, government subsidies, donations, and other business profits (Articles of Incorporation Article 32) of its members and honorary members, and its budget and execution should be strictly controlled after conducting an accounting audit at the general meeting as of the end of each fiscal year. Accordingly, even if an enterprise for profit-making business is operated for a profit-making business, the board of directors of the Federation shall undergo the above-mentioned independent management and supervision by an entity under E.

Nevertheless, since Defendant A assumed office as the 19th president of E with more than one million members from May 2008, which is the time when I was authorized, Defendant A used the above-mentioned laws and regulations and the articles of incorporation, and used them as private credit cooperatives for the realization of his own individual political ideology by abusing substantial control over E and its affiliated companies, without disregarding the procedures and principles under the above laws and regulations and the articles of incorporation, and neglected all the duties and operation of E and its affiliated companies through the power of the representative of E and its affiliated companies for the realization of his own individual political ideology / [1] The privateization of E and its affiliated companies and the pursuit of private interests

1. Defendant A and B - Its subsidiaries holding 10% of the equity shares of 10%, enter into a sales contract with the J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) with the introduction of Defendant C, the president of the G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “J”) to purchase scrap metal at a lower price than its market price and sell it for profit. G substantially sells steel scrap metal to its steel companies without any way in the middle, and F has the structure to divide profits acquired from the J into G with its profits during the first contract period of 1 year, but from the 2008 contract to 206, 306, 306, 207, 209, 306, 207, 307, 209, 206, 306, 206, 207, 207, 306, 207, 2096, 206, 206, 2067, 27, 167, 27

In this situation, around 2012.10 and around 29.29, the J decided to conduct direct trade of scrap iron as of January 1, 2013, because it is necessary to secure transparency in the sale of scrap iron and utilize the proceeds from the sale of scrap iron as a social contribution source. Accordingly, the J sent an official letter to the effect that it will suspend transactions after the expiration of the contract period of 2012 to E on November 23, 2012. Defendant A, the chairperson of the E, who lost significant revenue source, mobilized K to use it as a major shareholder of the JJ, who is a bank exercising a strong influence over its operation, and led to the conclusion of a sales contract with the J for the year 2013, which is an essential resource for operation, support, political advertisement and holding repair assemblies.

Accordingly, Defendant A demanded the Bank to hold a meeting with executives such as the president of the Federation, and to hold a joint meeting with the J president’s victim N, 0 president’s office, P and I’s new staff meeting, and requested the K K, which entered into the business agreement, to provide support for the meeting, by ordering the employees of the E, including Defendant B, to hold the joint meeting.

한편, 피고인 A는 2012. 11. 26.경 서울 중구 R에 있는 E 사무실에서, 위와 같은 E의 집회 정보를 입수하고 집회 개최를 만류하는 JS 전무 등에게 "E와 사전 협의 없이 일방적으로 고철 거래 중단 공문을 보냈고, P 회장은 면담 신청을 했는데도 불구하고 면담을 거부하는 것은 E를 무시하는 처사다!"라는 취지로 소리를 지르면서 "내가 너희 같은 조무래기들과 상대해야겠냐? 격이 맞지 않다. P 회장과의 면담이 없으면 집회를 중단하지 않겠다!"라고 주장하면서, 당장 P 회장이 면담하지 않거나 J이 F과 사이에 2013년도 고철 매매계약을 체결하지 않으면 J 사장 피해자 N와 O은행장 P의 집 앞 등에서 집회를 개최하여 J의 경영과 피해자 N의 J 사장으로서의 신상에 어떠한 해악을 가할 듯이 행세하였다. 이렇게 하여 E 및 K 회원들은 피고인 A의 지시에 따라 ① 2012. 11. 27. 07:00경부터 08:30경까지, 17:00경부터 18:20경까지 서울 강남구 T아파트 단지에 있는 P의 집 앞에서 약 70명, 서울 서초구 U 단지에 있는 피해자 N의 집 앞에 약 40명이 집결하여 "7년의 동반자를 걷어찬 N는 자성하라!!", "P는 E를 장사꾼으로 착각 말라!!"는 문구가 기재된 플래카드를 펼치고 유사한 내용이 기재된 다수의 피켓을 든 채 그러한 내용을 다 함께 큰 소리로 제창하는 방법으로 집회를 하고, ② 2012. 11. 28. 07:20경부터 08:50 경까지 위 P의 집 앞에서 약 70명, 위 피해자 N의 집 앞에 약 40명이 집결하여 같은 방법으로 집회를 하고, ③ 2012. 11, 29. 07:30경부터 08:40경까지 위 P의 집 앞에서 약 90명이, 위 피해자 N의 집 앞에서 약 60명이, 같은 날 17:00~18:00경 P와 이다니는 서울 강남구 V에 있는 Q교회 앞에 약 250명이 집결하여 같은 방법으로 집회를 하고, ④ 2012. 11. 30. 07:30~08:40경 위 P의 집 앞에 약 150명이 집결하여 같은 방법으로 집회를 하고, ⑤ 2012. 12. 1. 09:00~09:50경 위 P의 집 앞에 약 150명이 집결하여 같은 방법으로 집회를 열어 J 측을 압박하였다. 이 과정에서, 피고인 A는 집회가 계속되고 있던 2012. 11. 29.경 자신이 실질적으로 지배하는 F의 대표이사인 피고인 B으로 하여금 K 서울지부장 W와 사이에 F 대표이사와 K 서울지부장 명의로 마치 2012. 8. 6.경 업무협약이 체결된 것처럼 날짜를 소급한 「업무협약서를 작성하게 하여 F은 K 서울지부에게 원활한 목적사업 수행 지원을 위해 "고철 판매 수익금의 20% 범위 내에서 보훈성금으로 할애"하되 "보훈성금은 2012. 12. 31.까지는 행사시에 지급하고 2013. 1.부터는 매월 말일 기준 지원"하기로 하고, 그 대신 K는 "F의 목적사업을 위한 업무추진에 적극 협조"하기로 상호 합의함으로써, E는F 명의로 K에 재정적 지원을 하고 K는 그 대가로 피고인 A가 개최하는 각종 집회에 참석하기로 하는 협력 토대가 본격적으로 마련되었다. 이렇게 피고인들이 K까지 동원하여 주도한 E의 집회에 겁을 먹은 피해자 N는 2012. 11. 27.경 경찰 출신 국회의원 X 의원을 면담하여 해결방안을 모색하기도 하고, 2012. 11. 29.경 J 임원진을 E 사무실에 보내어 은행의 무관성을 설명하는 한편 종교를 악용하는 행태에 대해 항의해 보기도 하였으며, Y대학교 경찰행정학과 Z 교수에게 전화하여 E 집회를 철회시키는 데 협력해 줄 것을 요청하는 등 백방으로 노력하였으나 집회를 철회시키는 데 실패하였으며, 그러한 과정에서 일요일로 예배가 예정되어 있어 다수의 신도가 집결할 것으로 예상되던 2012. 12. 2. 위 Q교회 앞에서 피고인들이 집회를 개최하려고 한다는 정보를 입수하고 그 전날인 2012. 12. 1.경 피고인 A에게 전화를 걸어 집회를 철회하여 줄 것을 요청하였다.

However, the defendant A refused the request of the victim N and forced the joint assembly between E and K in 2013, and did not enter into the scrap metal sales contract in 2013, the defendant A, at the time and the P, demanded the J executives and employees to negotiate with the E Vice-Chairperson, with the same attitude that it would cause harm and injury to the victim N's personal affairs by means of a single assembly before Q. Q. T.W.

Around 18:00 on December 1, 2012, the victim N who was unable to contact with Defendant A’s intimidation sent to AB hotel coffee stores with the head of JS electric affairs and the head of the AA company other than the AA company. Defendant A instructed the Vice-Chairperson of AC to “GIIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.

Defendant A refused to make a proposal by the J to the effect that even the existing profit of the F would be reduced somewhat, Defendant B, the representative director of the FS, sent a text message to Defendant B, to the effect that, around December 6, 2012, Defendant B continued to hold a meeting by forcing the FS former Professor to send the text message to the effect that, “No later than December 5, 2012, Korea and K which is related to the project in question, has been unable to pay for the failure of the commitment.” On December 8, 2012, if the commitment was not implemented, the said commitment will take all measures, such as regular assembly, from December 10 to our point of view. Accordingly, the responsibility derived therefrom is on your side, and the FF Dud” sent a text message to the effect that, by not later than December 12, 2012, Korea may call for a meeting without members’ seal in the sales contract and pressure until August 18, 2000.

As a result, around 08:30 on December 7, 2012, 2012, J and F ordered the Defendant to preside over the countermeasures at the Seoul JJ office and affix the seal to the scrap metal sales contract in 2013 at the request of the Defendants. JS et al. visited the above office on the same day and affixed the seal on the sales contract (from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 of the contract term) (this sales contract includes a provision that automatically renew the following year, but it was deleted at the JJ request, and on December 28, 2012, the other contents were changed from the "AE" to the "AE" while maintaining the same content as other contents, and the 2013-year scrap metal sales contract again was concluded and signed, thereby inducing the Defendants to purchase the victim's property status more than the "AE" at the 10-year price, thereby inducing the victims to purchase the victim's property status.

2. AF Embezzlement occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust related to the repayment of the AF 19th Chairperson, with the intent to carry on real estate business by establishing an asset management company under the Real Estate Investment Subsidiary Act with a view to promoting "AG development project", etc., Defendant A borrowed a total of KRW 1 billion from AH, KRW 50 million from AI, KRW 1.7 billion from AJ, and KRW 200 million from AJ, and around December 9, 2009, the above KRW 1.3 billion from AF 3 billion from E (or KRW 3.94%) and KRW 1.3 billion from AF , KRW 1.7 billion from AK 10 billion (or KRW 13.14%), KRW 1.4 billion from AK 10 billion from AJ , KRW 1.37 billion shares ratio (or KRW 1.27 billion) from AF 1.3 billion from AJ 200 billion, KRW 1.37 billion from A Bank 200 billion (or KRW 1.272.3 billion) shares ratio).3 billion.

On February 18, 2010, Defendant A, as a representative of the AF, submitted a proposal by organizing a consortium with AS as the representative of AS on or around May 10, 2010, and promoted joint progress with AU, etc. with a project supervisor around October 2010 to establish ATS and to raise funds and promote projects, Defendant A, as a representative of AF, renounced it due to financial shortage, etc., and eventually renounced it, around February 2012, Defendant AF’s shares, AT shares owned by AF, and AT shares owned by E (90 million won) worth KRW 390,000,000,000, out of KRW 390,000,000,000, among the newly constructed buildings around March 3, 2012, and eventually entered into a mutual agreement or development project with EV on condition that E is used free of charge.

(a) Defendant A - Occupational Embezzlements related to 300 million won out of the AI loans

On December 9, 2009, the Defendant established the Victim AF and received a continuous demand for repayment of KRW 500 million borrowed from AI among KRW 1.7 billion invested by the Defendant, the Defendant had the intent to pay the loan debt with the funds of AF, which the Defendant is working as a major shareholder, the Chairperson, and actually controlled.

On January 12, 2011, 30.30, the Defendant: (a) had the vice president AF, a general manager of AF, withdraw KRW 300 million from AF funds under the name of AW; and (b) demanded that the Defendant immediately use the funds in repayment of KRW 300 million out of the amount of loans of KRW 500 million to his AI. Accordingly, Defendant A used the funds in fact controlled and operated the victim AF and stored the victim’s funds in the course of business; and (c) embezzled them by arbitrarily using the amount of KRW 300 million out of the funds in his/her personal debt repayment to the AI.

B. Defendant A, B-AI loans, on the other hand, occupational breach of trust related to the disposal of AF stocks for 200 million won, and Defendant A was demanded to pay the remaining KRW 200 million from the AI side on which Defendant A borrowed KRW 500 million for personal investment in AF. At the time, Defendant A had no particular profit, and had no actual transaction with an unlisted company, and at the time, Defendant A was decided on August 31, 2012 to sell AF stocks from around December 14, 2012 to around KRW 200,000,000 per share, which were held by the NF Savings Bank from around December 14, 2012 to KRW 125,50 per share to be sold at a discount of KRW 150,000 per share.

Accordingly, Defendant A was urged to pay KRW 200,000,000 to Defendant B, a representative director, at the E office located in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, at around December 2012, when the public auction of the AF shares of the NF Bank began and the situation due to the suspension of the KJ's sales contract ends: Defendant B demanded to the effect that the purchase of KRW 40,000,000 (= KRW 5,000,000) would vary from F to 20: 30,000,000,000,000 : around December 28, 2012, 200: 20,000,000 : 30,000,000,000 : 20,000,000,000 : 20,000,000,000 : 20,000,000 : 20,00.

Defendant B continued to hold a board of directors on the same day formally, and then the FF board of directors on the above AX, "the Chairperson, as an organization for profit-making business, experienced difficulties in understanding the situation due to the recontract relationship for the purchase of scrap iron by JJ Co., Ltd. at the end of 2012, which was the principal hospital of the E company, at the end of the end of 2012. In order to create profits from the purchase of stocks of the AF Co., Ltd. at the higher rate of 200 million won due to the debrisonation of our income and the debrisonation of the economic recovery in 2013, the following decision was made after deciding on the AF Co., Ltd.'s investment in the purchase of stocks with a secret vote, and immediately voting was adopted with the consent of a full number of 0 billion won as a result of the immediate voting, and then the FF board of directors signed the seal of each of the members present at the board of directors meeting, and then, the NAF bank account (BBB) to the actual amount of KRW 10000 billion.

3. Capital gains in breach of trust related to the receipt of rebates from F customer G;

A. Defendant A - For the purpose of paying false benefits to his family members

The Defendant, as well as the chairperson of E, was in the position to exercise overall control over F by substantially controlling F, who is a subsidiary of E, as described in the above paragraph (1) and led K to pressure and pressure to enter into a sales contract between J and F for the year 2013 (from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013). The Defendant, as the representative director, notified the Defendant B, to the Defendant C, the chairperson of G, in order to secure the funding for K in accordance with the "Business Agreement between F and K Seoul, as of August 6, 2012", he notified the Defendant C of the distribution ratio of earnings for the year 2013 from the sales contract between J and F [F] to the representative director of G [F: 5:3] and the representative director of G], and prepared the agreement between B13 and B13.

As such, Defendant C had no choice but to accept the Defendant’s request made to the effect that it is the subject of a contract for the purchase and sale of scrap metal, despite the reduction of the profit accrued from the F, and the need to recover the ratio of profit distribution with F to the level of 2012 has disappearedd, Defendant C received notice from its executives and employees around October to November 201, 2013 to the effect that the volume of high-life metal transactions with G would be divided into those with other companies. At that time, Defendant C’s finding for the following reasons: (a) there was an employee under the premise that “I would well harm the quantity so far; (b) there was a difference between NF and NFF’s opinion to the effect that “The name and the whole amount of the previous G would have changed to enter into a contract; and (c) around December 2013, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s request to register the above ratio of profit distribution from the KF’s family members to the extent that the Defendant’s family members demand the above ratio of profit distribution as above to the KF’s demand to pay.

After all, the defendant C received the defendant's request and notified ASEAN of the personal information and account number of the above defendant's family members, and ordered BE to register the defendant's family members as an employee as if he were employed and work normally in the BF, the representative director, and the BE registered the same as a employee of BF, and accordingly, registered the same as the employee of BF.

Accordingly, around February 25, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 3,043,840 from BF to the above AL bank account as a salary for the above Defendant’s family. From around that time to March 25, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 40,235,450 in total from BF over 14 times in the same manner as indicated in the attached crime list (2).

Accordingly, the defendant acquired a total of 40,235,450 won in exchange for an illegal solicitation.

B. Defendant C - Property in Breach of Trust

The Defendant, as described in the above A., made an illegal solicitation on the provision of convenience related to scrap metal transactions and the ratio of profit distribution to the G operated by Defendant A, who actually operates the F, as described in the foregoing paragraph, and remitted KRW 40,235,450 to Defendant A’s family members as remuneration. 4.

Although the Defendant continued to amend the E Articles of Incorporation that restricts the reappointment due to strong organizational disorder, he succeeded to the reappointment of three consecutive terms as the president of E, 19, 20, and 21. However, around May 2017, the Defendant promoted the revision of the E Articles of Incorporation in order to ensure the expiration of the term of office of the chairperson of E scheduled to serve as the president and to permanently re-appoint the president on a permanent basis. However, considering all the circumstances, such as public opinion, etc. that violates the Defendant’s permanent maintenance of the president’s permanent position, the Defendant’

On the other hand, on December 9, 2009, the Defendant agreed to purchase KRW 1.7 billion shares of AF owned by AF and became a major shareholder. On the other hand, the Defendant agreed to purchase KRW 1.7 billion shares of AF owned by AF and to purchase KRW 2.2 billion shares of AF in AF bank from AF bank to make investments (amount to KRW 5,000,000). On the same day, the Defendant agreed to purchase KRW 70 million (amount to KRW 5,000,000, KRW 1.40,000) with AMF bank in the process of having the AF bank invest KRW 70,000,000, and the Defendant agreed to purchase KRW 2 billion shares of AF in AF bank from the date of its establishment to AMF bank and the Defendant agreed to purchase KRW 1.40,000 shares of AMF bank from the AF bank to the AMF bank in fact.

However, the AF controlled by the Defendant did not have any actual profits and did not distribute dividends to investors only once after its establishment, and even in such circumstances, the AF’s funds were appropriated for the “BG expenditure,” which is a political activity, and the financial situation has deteriorated, and thus, the Defendant was placed in the situation where the Defendant is obliged to pay the contributions to the AF and the AMF Savings Bank depending on put options given to the AF and the AMF Savings Bank.

In particular, on January 30, 2015, the AL Bank determined that the Defendant was practically incapable of purchasing stocks according to put options and agreed to pay KRW 551,00,000 to the AL Bank for one year after determining the minimum purchase price of stocks according to the agreement with the Defendant on January 30, 2015, but the Defendant did not perform the period for the performance of the obligation to purchase the Defendant’s stocks for one year; however, on June 17, 2016, when the Defendant started to recover the stocks in advance from December 2, 2015 and urged the Defendant to pay the Defendant’s obligations, the Defendant did not pay the amount of 551,00,000 won as penalty if the Defendant did not purchase the stocks between the Defendant and the Defendant, which was subject to put options, at the end of three years from the date of establishment of put options, which was a condition for exercising put options, and the Defendant did not request the Defendant to pay the amount of the obligation to the Defendant as the amount of non-performing loans.

This huge personal debt will be a e-chairperson's reappointment work in the future of the defendant, and if the defendant is unable to be reappointed to the chairperson, the defendant was able to continue his/her personal burden and lead to a lawsuit. Therefore, the defendant judged that he/she would urgently settle the case when he/she maintains good faith as the chairperson of the E-listed, and instead he/she did not lead to an urgent time, and he/she was able to resolve his/her personal debt with the above AL bank and BH Savings Bank (the AM Savings Bank changed to BH Savings Bank on November 2014) with E funds.

Accordingly, the defendant feel the need to give legitimacy to the fullest extent by utilizing the procedures prescribed in the articles of association in order to properly pack the above individual debt settlement, and created an atmosphere to the effect that the defendant made a sacrifice of 1.7 billion won for the establishment of M through the executive members of the E Federation, etc. who are malicious by the defendant, and around October 13, 2016, he shall take over 1.6 billion won of AF AF's request for purchase of AL Bank from the E Fund with the E Fund, and shall take over 70 million won shares of AF's AF's AF's AF's AF's AF's AMF Savings Bank's AF's request for purchase in the future at the 2016th meeting of the 2016th meeting of the 2016th meeting of the 2016, which was held on October 28, 2016, and shall have the 2016th meeting of the 16th meeting of the 2016th meeting.

계속하여 피고인은 2016. 12. 19.경 위 BI빌딩 5층에서 개최된 2016년도 제3차 임시이사회에 의장으로 참석하여 같은 분위기를 조성하면서 별다른 조사도 하지 않은 사실확인위원회 위원장 BJ로 하여금 E가 피고인에게 AL은행 보유 AF 주식 등을 매입할 수 있도록 법적 요건을 갖추어 자금을 대여해 주는 안건을 제시하게 한 다음 "그런데 문제는 이 17억이든 참 AL은행, 저축은행 것을 E가 인수했을 때에 그러나 앞으로 몇 달 후에는 E 전부 지휘부가 바뀝니다. 그러나 다 이런 것을 이해도 하지만 나는 지금 요즘에 상황을 보니까 대단히 걱정스러운 부분도 많습니다. E 20억 있다고 해서 대주주 행사하고 그러면 저는 뭐 아무 것도 관여도 못하고 저는 나와야 합니다. 그래서 그런 보장이 내가 있다면 또 변호사도 대여가 더 좋다고 합니다. 그렇게 나왔죠? ...... 그러면 그런 것을 담보로 해서 대여를 받아서 제 이름으로 들어가는 것이 더 AF를 장악하는데 도움이 된다는 의견을 받아서 그게 나온 겁니다."라는 취지로 발언하면서 E 이사회로 하여금 E가 10년간 무이자로 향후 피고인이 인수하게 될 AF 주식을 담보로 하여 피고인에게 자금을 대여하는 방안을 의결토록 하고, 2016. 12. 23.경 위 BI 6층 대회의실에서 개최된 2016년도 제7차 임시총회에 의장으로 참석하여 총회에 참석한 재석대의원 263명 중 '찬성 252명, 반대 없음, 기권 11명'으로 위와 같은 E의 피고인에 대한 자금 대여 방안을 통과시켰다.

Accordingly, around December 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) lent 51,00,000 won of the funds to AL bank to the Defendant for 10 years as a result of the above E general meeting; (b) provided 200,000 won of the funds for purchase of shares to BL bank; (c) provided 385,700,000 won of the funds for purchase of shares to BH savings bank to the Defendant as security; (d) provided 300,000 won of the funds to BH bank to pay 140,000 won of the funds to BH savings bank; and (e) provided 30,000 won of the funds to the Defendant’s funds to the Defendant’s account opened in the name of BL bank; (e) transferred 50,000,000 won of the funds to the Defendant’s account opened in the name of BL bank; and (e) transferred the funds to BH bank’s account seller on December 29, 20016.

2. Matters related to the development of political activities using the E funds.

1. Defendant A and B-F’s occupational embezzlement related to K support entered into an agreement with E on June 24, 201 with the intent to mobilize K to the repair assembly held by him/her, even though the F did not have any grounds for supporting the said fund, and on November 28, 2012, the Work Convention between E and K and the Seoul K branch (the Work Convention between F and K as of August 6, 201) (the Work Convention between F and K branch office (the Work Convention between F and K as of August 6, 2012).

In particular, Defendant A’s pressured KJ on December 2, 2012, success in concluding the scrap metal sales contract with Haman on December 2, 2012 may lead to actual performance of K utilization as it had its own intent. Upon confirmation, Defendant A, at the E office located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, with intent to fully provide financial support to K, and around January 8, 2013, Defendant B and director A, who is the F representative director, paid KRW 9,020,000 from the F Fund to the Seoul Branch for “gold-gu Seoul Branch Contribution” under the name of “gold-gu Seoul Branch Contribution”. From around that time to July 22, 2016, Defendant A spent KRW 37,000,000 from the F Fund for all kinds of donations to the Seoul Branch for 49 times as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (3).

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to keep the victim’s funds as the actual operator of the victim F in the course of business, and embezzled the victim’s funds at will by arbitrarily consuming the total amount of KRW 377,020,00 among them (However, Defendant B is limited to KRW 367,020,000 in total of KRW 1 through 48 per annum of the annexed crime list (3). 2. Defendant A-BG- occupational embezzlement using the E president position.

(a) Basic facts;

The Defendant, as a member of more than one million voters, has been holding more than one million voters, was to strengthen the status as a political organization of E sufficient to attract the interest of candidates each time of presidential election, and to impose political activities by inserting advertisements that protect the position of women and president in E in the name of E whenever major political issues arise whenever I and BM continue to exist in the position of the government.

(1) Any governmental political activity in violation of the duties of the E president.

피고인은 2012. 3.경 당시 여·야간 첨예한 정치적 쟁점이었던 한·미자유무역협 정(FTA) 폐기와 제주해군기지 백지화 문제에 대해 『한·미FTA』 『제주해군기지 건설』 정쟁의 제물로 삼는 일체의 행위 중단하라!! 한국 200만 E회원 동지는 「한·미 FTA 폐기」 「제주해군기지 백지화」 주장은 국익을 등지는 반국가행위로 규정하고 단호히 규탄한다!"는 등의 내용이 기재된 E 명의 광고를 2012. 3. 14.자 BN에 게재하는 등 여당과 대통령 측 입장을 옹호하는 태도를 취하였다.

계속하여 피고인은 BO 선거에서 BM 후보자가 당선되자 이와 같은 기존 여당 지지 기조를 계속 견지하면서 E를 이러한 피고인의 개인적인 정치 이념 실현에 활용할 것을 마음먹고, 2013. 2.경 BM 당선자에 대해 내각 인선 문제로 긍정적인 평가가 지속적으로 하락하고 있는 상황에서 북한의 3차 핵실험을 이용하여 BM 당선자 측 입장을 옹호하는 "한반도 평화 가로막는 北核 禍根 뿌리 뽑자!! 머리에 핵을 이고 평화를 구걸 할 것인가? 死卽生의 각오로 민족의 이단아 BP 집단 스스로 무릎을 꿇게 만들어 진정한 자유와 평화를 이루어 내자! ...... 150만 E회원 일동은 국민적 열망 속에 출범하는 대통합 국민행복시대 「BM 정부」를 진심으로 환영하며 그 성공을 위해 뜨거운 성원과 함께 국가안보와 사회안정 확립에 신명을 바칠 것이다!" 라는 등의 내용이 기재된 E 명의 광고를 2012. 3. 22.자 BN, BQ, BR에 각 게재하는 등으로 정치활동을 벌였다. (2) E 회장으로서의 임무에 위배한 BM 정부 시절 정치활동

피고인은 2013. 3. 24.경 BS이 BM이 당선된 BO 선거와 관련하여 소위 '국정원 댓글사건'으로 출국금지되고 국정원 문제가 여 · 야간 첨예한 정치적 쟁점으로 부각되어 2013. 6.경 야당인 BT당이 국정원 국정조사를 촉구하고 국정원의 선거개입을 규탄하는 촛불집회가 곳곳에서 개최되었으며, 국정원 선거개입을 규탄하는 대학-단체들의 시국 선언이 확산되는 가운데, BU의 NLL 관련 발언 논란이 재점화되고 2013. 6. 24.경 국정원이 남북정상회담 대화록 발췌본과 전문을 공개하자 BM 측 입장을 옹호하는 「BU.BV 대화록」 공개 大환영! 국기문란 즉각 중단하라!! 대통령이 적의 수장에게 '영토주권을 포기하겠다'고 했다면 조국과 국민을 버린 '背信'이요, '大逆'이다. 더 이상 國紀를 당리당략의 볼모로 삼지 말고 조국을 위해 산화한 영령들을 욕되게 말라! 150만 E회원 일동은 정치싸움으로 영토주권이 훼손되고 국가안보와 헌법수호활동이 위축되는 것을 결사 반대하며, 反헌법·反자유민주주의 세력 타도에 앞장 설 것이다!"는 등의 내용이 기재된 E 명의 광고를 2013. 6. 25.자 BN, BQ, BR에 각 게재하고, 계속하여 "BW" 제하 "국가최고정보기관 무력화 책동 반역세력, 박살내자!!", "사초(史草) 증발 관련자 전원 색출, 이적죄로 처단하라!!", "제2 광우병 촛불난동 획책 불순세력, 이 땅에서 몰아내자!!", "대한민국 안보의 최고 정보기관 '국가정보원'을 정치싸움의 볼모로 삼고 그 기능과 역할을 왜곡 · 무력화시키는 일체의 음모를 중단하라!"는 등의 내용이 기재된 E 명의 광고를 2013. 8. 8.자 BN, BQ에 게재하는 등 유사한 방식으로 '국정원 댓글사건' 등과 관련하여 불리한 입장에 있는 BM 측 입장을 옹호하는 정치활동을 지속적으로 전개하였다.

또한, 2014. 4. 16.경 BX 침몰 사고가 발생하고 이 문제가 여·야간 정치적 쟁점이 되어 BX 국정조사가 국회에서 논의되자, 피고인은 2014.5.23.경 "BY ….. 선박안 전 관련법처럼 BZ법이 왜 국회에 묶여있는가! 국가개조는 국회를 위시한 소위 우리사회의 권력 엘리트의 노블리스 오블리제(Noblesse Oblige)의 전제 없이는 절대 불가능하 다! 국회부터 개조하라!!......"는 내용의 광고를 BN, BQ, BR에 게재하고, 2014.8.27.경 BX 관련 장외투쟁을 벌이고 있던 야당을 비판하고 BM 정부의 정책을 옹호하기 위해 "이런 국회 필요있나?? - 경제소생의 싹이 거리의 정치에 짓밟히고 있다!! - …… 대한민국 국회는 정치인을 위한, 정치인에 의한, 정치인의 국회인가!! 국민을 위한다고 하더니, 정치혁신을 하더니, 그 공약은 언제 개(犬)한테 주었는가! BX 때문에 이 나라가 침몰해도 좋단 말인가! ......"는 내용의 광고를 BN, BQ, BR에 게재하는 등 BM 정부에 대한 국회의 비협조를 비판하였다.

나. 'BG' 창설 및 그 활동비 지출 명목 업무상횡령 범행 이러한 상황에서, 2015년 초순 BM에 대한 국정 지지율이 하락하고 이른바 'CA 리스트 사건'이 불거지자 BM은 BU 정부 시절 단행된 CA 前 CB 회장 사면에 대한 특혜를 철저히 규명할 것을 주문하는 반면, 야당 측에서는 이러한 BM의 태도를 비판하는 등 BM과 국회 간 대치 국면이 지속되었고, BM이 2013년 취임 이후 「정부조직법」 개정안 처리 문제로 요구해 온 「국회선진화법」 개정이 계속 무산되는 등으로 국회가 BM의 입법 추진과 정책 수행에 협력하지 않는다는 인식 하에, 피고인은 2015. 2. 27.경 국회를 비판하고 BM 측을 옹호하기 위해 "CC …. 국회독재에 발목잡힌 'BM 정부 구출하자!! ….. 정치권은 BM 정부보다 더 나은 정책 대안 제시는 하지 않고 서민경제를 인질 삼아 BM 정부를 흠집내는 일로 날 세우며 많은 민생법안을 필요한 시기에 통과시키지 않아, 아직도 경제활성화 법안 30개 중 11개가 국회에 묶여 있다!!......"는 내용의 광고를 게재하였다.

On the other hand, around April 28, 2015, 2015, BM and the National Assembly have continued to conflict between BM and the National Assembly, such as disclosing the message that "it should be developed more systematically by clarifying the truth and systematically," in relation to the so-called CA list situation.

Therefore, the defendant, in real control over the E and its affiliated business chain F and AF established by himself as a major shareholder under the pretext of promoting the construction of M. In particular, E aims to promote friendship between members and encourage mutual assistance, thereby contributing to the peaceful unification and the protection of freedom of peace, and can carry out projects as prescribed by the D Act and the articles of incorporation in order to achieve this objective. As such, the defendant, the chairperson of the defendant, has the duty to take measures to avoid using E in political activities prohibited by law and to take measures to use E in compliance with the above purpose while preventing the use of E in political activities prohibited by law, despite the fact that the defendant, as the chairperson, has the duty to support BM and its government, and at the same time, to refuse the National Assembly's non- cooperation with BM government by utilizing the name, human resources and budget of E, so-called "BG, a new political organization," which is an organization of the defendant's political inclination similar to the defendant's route, thereby creating a new "BG" to realize the defendant's individual political ideology through this.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as the beginning of “BG” around April 30, 2015, indicated that “EA” is the sponsor of 21 repair organizations, such as EE, in the name of E, and developed the Defendant’s individual political ideology to realize the Defendant’s individual political ideology to the effect that: (a) around October 19, 2015, the Defendant posted the advertisement to criticize the behavior of the members of the National Assembly under subparagraph B Q and BR as its title; (b) four standing representatives, including the FFC B; (c) five standing advisers; (d) the Central Member FC; and (d) twenty members of remuneration organizations, including the Central Member DoLFD; and (d) from that time to August 31, 2016, the Defendant should reform the National Assembly under the name of EN and safeguard the position of the members of the National Assembly; and (e) has to implement the Defendant’s individual political ideology to realize the political ideology.

In this process, around April 30, 2015, the Defendant voluntarily used the amount equivalent to KRW 1,381,460,285 out of the E capital for 206 times from around 206 to May 15, 2017, as shown in the crime list (4), for the purpose of creating and operating “BG” in E office located in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul.

In addition, around January 12, 2016, the Defendant voluntarily used the FF director of the E office and the E-Financial Management Director, the director of the E-Financial Management Office, to withdraw KRW 60,000,000 from the F capital for the purpose of ‘BG' activities.

On March 14, 2016, the Defendant continued to use KRW 200,000,000 as AF Fund for the purpose of “BG activities” through two times, such as the list of crimes (e.g., the list of crimes) from around that time to July 6, 2016, at the above E office, the Defendant embezzled the sum of KRW 1,381,470,285 among the victims’ funds as the chairperson of the victim E in the course of business, and embezzled the sum of KRW 60,00,000 among the victims’ funds as the actual operator of the victim’s funds, embezzled the sum of KRW 1,381,470,285 among them, and embezzled the sum of KRW 60,000 among the victims’ funds as the actual operator of the victim’s funds, and embezzled the sum of KRW 00,000 among the victims’ funds as the actual operator of the victim’s funds.

3. Defendant A - Occupational embezzlements related to payment, including fines for illegal acts in the course of political activities.

Although the defendant has duties to prevent E from engaging in political activities as the chairperson under the aforementioned D laws, the issue of CI's resignation from the police in the case of BO election, such as the external pressure of the National Assembly members, and the issue of CI's election, which he would receive as a candidate for the CI's National Assembly members at the time, has emerged as an extraordinary political issue, and it would be easy to publish a political advertisement to criticize such public discipline at the E office located in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, and on July 14, 2014, as the title "CL" is called "Seoul-gu, Seoul, as the act of "FL" in the name of the police organization, the defendant would not be able to find out new concerns by being released to CI with the official ceiling of the party, and it would be difficult to understand that it would be a "FI't know that it would be a false public official," and that it would be difficult to understand that it would be a "FI't know that it would be a new one of the police organizations."

On the other hand, since the election campaign period (CN-CO) has yet to commence, there was an investigation into the violation of the Public Official Election Act as a result of the election campaign prior to the election campaign period, etc., the above political advertisements were published, and the facts were all determined and implemented by the defendant. However, the defendant, despite the fact that the Secretary General, ECP used the so-called "general" for the publication of the above political advertisements, was investigated by the defendant. The CP was prosecuted as a violation of the Public Official Election Act at the end of the statement as if the CP itself was the person responsible for the publication of the political advertisements from the election stage to the police and the prosecution stage, and the CP, who was not the defendant, was not the defendant, at the Seoul Central District Court of Seoul on July 9, 2015, sentenced a fine of KRW 2,000,000 and appealed, and the defendant was punished as a fine of KRW 70 million from Seoul High Court on September 24, 2015, and the defendant was punished as the actual person responsible for the final appeal.

In the process of concealing the facts of Defendant’s participation in the investigation and trial process, the Defendant appointed a defense counsel of the CP at the expense of the CP’s overall control as the chairperson and ordered him to respond to the criminal procedure. On November 19, 2014, the Minister of Finance and Economy, around the amount of KRW 5,500,000, in terms of attorney fees, paid KRW 11,000,000 from E in terms of attorney fees to the CP law firm on July 20, 2015. On October 12, 2015, the Defendant continued to pay KRW 2,00,000,000 from E in terms of attorney fees for the appellate court, and paid KRW 70,000 in Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office around January 20, 2016.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as the chairperson of the victim E, embezzled the sum of KRW 19,200,00 among them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A and B’s legal statement, Defendant C’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of witness S, AW, CTS, CTS, CG, CP, AX, and Y;

1. The entry of witness N and each part of AA in the first trial record, and the statement of Defendant C in the second trial record;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. A copy of each protocol of suspect examination of the prosecution against CU and W;

1. AV, CW, CY, CY, CY, CY, CY, Z, AY, DA, DB, DB, DC, DD, DD, S, DE, DF, CP, CG, CG, DG, DI, DI, DJ, AW, DJ, DJ, DK, DL, and each prosecutor's statement against Defendant B; 1. AY, AAA, and CN, and DN (DM and DN);

1. As a result of the analysis of purchase and sale transactions, each investigation report (FG) shall be accompanied by the purchase and sale details in 2009 to 2014, the list of newspaper advertisements confirmed from among those made up of BG-related expenses, the confirmation of the contents of the advertisement, such as the application for proportional representative National Assembly membership candidate for the 19th general election of the suspect A, the confirmation of the receipt of benefits from the DE's BF owners, the confirmation of the execution basis of the funds stated in the 'BG expenses' document, the confirmation of the change of the shares of the FF in the KF, the attachment of the attached documents related to E advertisement, the attachment of the attached documents related to the 'BG expenses', the report on the completion of the public sale process of the FF 40,000 shares of the KG bank holding the KF bank, the submission of the contents of the advertisement, the analysis of the contents of the E-party name, the contents of the E-party contents of the advertisement and execution, the report on the progress of the AD regulations and the enforcement purpose of entry.

1. A copy of each investigation report (to be accompanied by materials, etc. submitted voluntarily by the head of the financial management department before the former EM, and a copy of the documents submitted by the head of the department in charge of the Category AA out of J J

1. Copy of the corporate register, F corporate register, GF corporate register, BF corporate register, BF corporate register, part of the registered matters, and E legal register; and

1. Report related to the suspension of transactions of scrap metal, a list of purchase and sale tax invoices from F 2007 to 2015, and 18 copies of photographs at each date of demonstration;

1. Promotion of the settlement details of advertising and advertising expenses related to Q submission; four copies of receipts; copies of legal advice for law firms; copies of legal advice for DSS; BG-related expenses; payment of money in 2015 (Reserve Fund Account); E political activities (National Assembly Legislation Investigation Office); changes in future-oriented and reform;

1. A copy of the report on the results of the inspection and verification of the M Promotion Committee on the process, etc. of implementation, a copy of the minutes of the second temporary board of directors in 2016, a copy of the minutes of the third temporary board of directors in 2016, and a copy of the minutes

1. AQ㈜ 출자협약서 사본, AL은행-A 등 간 합의서 사본, AG개발사업 용역비 지급요.청 공문 및 전자세금계산서 사본, 사업타당성분석 및 사업관리 용역계약서(AG 개발사업) 사본, 2016. 12. 29.자 금전소비대차계약서(E-A 551,000,000원), 2016. 12. 29.자 금전소비대차계약서(E-A 385,700,000원), 2016. 12. 30.자 주식매매계약서(AL 은행-A), 2017. 2.자 주식매매계약서(BH저축은행-A), 주식양도 및 담보신탁계약서 2부, 2015. 1. 30.자 추가합의서(AL은행-A 외 2), 2016. 12.자 주식가치 산정보고서 (DT회계법인), 2017. 3. 2.자 주식매매계약서(㈜AN 저축은행의 파산관재인-DE), 사업추진 변경 협약서, 주식매매계약서 사본 4부, 주주간협약서, AM저축은행 내부결재 공문(DU) 출자의 건), 유가증권운용심의위원회 의사록, 주식매수청구권행사 관련 통지서 3부, 주식가치평가 결과보고서(DV회계법인, DW 회계법인) 2부

1. Two copies of the business agreement (E-K) and one copy of the file file file file in the name of the external partner company;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to a copy of the Seoul High Court Decision 2017No1650, a copy of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2015No1994, a copy of the Seoul High Court Decision 2015No1957, a copy of the Supreme Court Decision 2015Do15957, Nov. 19, 2014, < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26324, Jul. 20, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26773, Oct. 12, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 2781, Jan. 20

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

A. Defendant A: Articles 350(1), 30(1), 356, 355(2), and 30(a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 357(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Criminal Act”); Article 357(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016; hereinafter “former Criminal Act”); Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 356, 355(2) (including occupational breach of trust against Victim E); Articles 356, 355(1), and 30(a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, 356(1), and 35(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 35(3) and 5(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B: Articles 350(1) and 30(a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 355(1), and 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 350(1), and 350(a)

C. Defendant C: Article 357(2) and (1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 1006, Feb. 1, 2006)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: The first sentence of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is the largest penalty and the penalty provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust);

(b) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for the crime of occupational embezzlement with the largest punishment);

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A: The proviso to Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A, C: Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A, B, and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the public conflict with J relating to the interruption of a sales contract for scrap metal (crimes 11-1): Defendant A and B

A. Summary of the assertion

1) “E, without intimidation, which is the means of intent of conflict and public conflict, unilaterally suspended scrap metal transactions, and demanded either the J and PO president’s unfair wife, or the J to comply with the negotiations, and there was no intent to obtain direct property or property benefits. In addition, “E” has opened an assembly within the permissible scope under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, such as the use of ciphers, banners, and relief as mentioned above, and the use of violence that may threaten the victim N or tort. In light of the purport of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of assembly, the assembly cannot be deemed as an act of conflict solely on the grounds that K members participated in the assembly, or that some assemblies were in front of Quah with P. P.

2) The conclusion of a scrap metal sales contract with E in 2013 by the J that there was no causal relationship between the assembly and the victim N’s dispositive act is not due to the fact that the victim N was released by the assembly.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Intimidation, the means of coercion or threat, which is a crime of coercion, refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be frighten to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of criminal conduct of fact. The threat of harm and injury is sufficient if, even if not explicitly stated, it would have the other party perceived that it would cause harm and injury through speech or action, and may be indirectly made through a third party other than the person under threat. In cases where an offender demands the delivery of property or pecuniary benefits by using illegal consolation money based on his/her occupation, status, etc., and the other party refuses to comply with such demand, it is also the threat of harm and injury and injury. The realization of the harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require that it is unlawful. Even if the threat of harm and injury was used as a means of realizing the right, it is established where the other party frighten as a means of intimidation and the method of realizing the right exceeds the extent permitted by social norms or social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do16174, Apr. 15, 2015).

2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances such as the process and place of assembly, method of mobilization, the relationship and response method between the O bank and the J, and the time and process when the J concluded a scrap metal contract in 2013, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court as to the intention of conflict, intimidation, and causation, the notice that the Defendants notified the Defendants that “it would take all measures such as coal assembly at the time when it would not conclude the scrap metal contract, and all the responsibilities derived therefrom would be attributable to you.” The Defendants’ act constitutes intimidation, which constitutes a means of a crime of conflict, directly or indirectly involved in the management with the power of appointment and dismissal of the representative director, and the causal relationship between the Defendants’ intention to conflict and the conclusion of the scrap metal sales contract in 2013 may be sufficiently recognized, and even if the Defendants refused to meet with the P and thus did not have any influence on the Defendants’ individual act during the process of the assembly.”

A) On October 29, 2012, the J issued a public notice to the effect that it will suspend transactions after the expiration of the contract period of 2012 to E on January 1, 2013, since it is necessary to secure transparency in the sale of scrap iron at the TMT meeting and to utilize profits from the sale of scrap iron as a financial resource for social contribution activities. As such, the J decided to directly trade the scrap iron as of January 1, 2013, and around November 23, 2012.

B) Most of F’s profits were used as E’s operating capital, and its profits were almost generated from the scrap metal transaction with J. At the time of 201, F’s profits were to account for approximately KRW 1/3 out of the total revenues of KRW 1,397,466,869 in E 201, and approximately KRW 4 billion in total revenues of KRW 1/3,000 in E 201. From the perspective of E, the suspension of scrap metal transaction had to take a big economic burden upon the suspension of scrap metal transaction. In fact, upon the K’s notification of the suspension of scrap metal transaction, E’s officers, including the Defendants, were suffering from a considerable crisis.

C) Since the term of the contract was one year after the first contract was entered into on March 2006, F and J have been concluded every year, F have no right to unilaterally request the contracting party to enter into the scrap metal contract in 2012. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the scrap metal contract with J has a strong economic support for the contracting party (if the contracting party sells the scrap metal at the market price because the unit price is above the market price, it can remain a profit if the purchased scrap metal was sold at the market price) and other repair organizations including E, including E, wished to enter into the scrap metal contract with J and there were disputes between them. Since G actually performed all business, F did not have any separate expense for the scrap metal transaction, since it had been deleted from the existing contract in 2008, it cannot be viewed that the trust in the conclusion of the scrap metal contract for 2013.

D) On November 23, 2012, upon receipt of the notice of the suspension of transaction, Defendant A opened a strategic meeting (the president’s meeting) on November 23, 2012, and attempted to hold an interview with Company N and P at the time when the J president was not the victim N, and, at the same time, decided to hold an assembly before the Victim N and P, who was in front of J or 0 Bank, and requested for cooperation to K. Defendant A around November 29, 2012. Defendant B, upon the direction of Defendant A, supported the payment of veterans benefits within the limit of 20% of the sales proceeds of scrap metal in the K Seoul Branch’s name, and the K Seoul Branch concluded a business agreement with the F that actively cooperates in the F’s business promotion, and made the date retroactive preparation on August 6, 2012.

E) At the time, S, the head of the funding division at the time, was in a foreign country, listened to the awareness that E is going to hold a regular meeting related to the discontinuance of transaction and returned to Korea, and returned to Korea on November 26, 2012, which is the day before the first meeting is held, sought the E office to explain the reasons for the discontinuance of transaction and to claim that there was no violation of the contract at all. Defendant A refused dialogue on the grounds that the attack is not consistent with the contract. Defendant A refused dialogue on the grounds that the cause for the discontinuance of transaction and the suspension of transaction is not related to P, while E explained to the effect that the suspension of transaction was not related to the reason for the discontinuance of transaction.

F) At the time P.O.’s position as president: 1: The above 2-1-26% of the total outstanding shares was owned by the Korea Asset Management Corporation; 19.11% of the shares was also entrusted; P was entitled to demand management responsibilities, such as resignation of representative directors; and P was directly or indirectly involved in J management (Seoul High Court Decision 2017No1650, Article 13(1)7 of the DX Act). From 07: 0: 07: 00 to 08: 18: 200,000 before the above 2-20,000 P.M. assembly; 3:5:00 p.m., from 0 to 18:0,000 before the above 2-7:0 p.m. assembly; 4:00 p.m., from 0 to 18:20,000 before the above 200 p.m. assembly.

H) On November 30, 2011, the Bank Planning and Coordination Office contacted AA every day to look at the status of the E assembly, etc., and the employees were able to directly look at the site of the assembly. On November 27, 2012, the date on which the assembly commenced, the Seoul Central District Court applied for a provisional disposition prohibiting assembly and demonstration, but no decision was made until December 1, 2012.4) S and AA made a report on the situation of each assembly on a daily basis, and made a report on the progress report regarding the suspension of the E scrap metal transaction, referred to as "P" as "chairperson," and prepared a report on the suspension of the assembly. On November 30, 2011, S returned to the E office, followed by the direction of the victim N., and tried to talk with the Defendant B, and Qu Dop in response to the assembly that Q Q Do head made at the time of Qu Do p.

I) The victims N.N. presided over several countermeasures, sent S, etc. to E office to emphasize the irrelevantness of the O bank, and expressed resistance to the behavior abusing religion, etc. In addition, they continued to contact with E by having J executives and staff. In addition, on November 27, 2012, after having talked with the National Assembly X members from the police station, I tried to seek solutions by holding a meeting. On December 2, 2012, Y University Police Administration Department and Z of the Republic of Korea, I asked the professor to cooperate with the withdrawal of the E meeting. On December 12, 2012, Y University Police Administration Department and Z of the Republic of Korea: (a) obtained information to hold a meeting prior to the above Qbridge; and (b) requested the Defendant to withdraw from the phone and make efforts to resolve the issue, but (c) made efforts to request the victim bank to continue to comply with the request.

(j) Meanwhile, as the J was planning to use profits arising from direct trade of scrap metal initially for social contribution activities, such as support for industrial accident victims, it was the position of opposing the conclusion of the scrap metal sales contract with F in 2013. The J Labor Relations Commission visited E on November 28, 2012, the day following the date on which the E assembly started, asked Defendant A to hold an interview. During that process, the J Labor Relations Commission sent an official document to E and reported the assembly in its name. On November 30, 2012, the J Labor Relations Commission decided not to withdraw the assembly regardless of the currency with Defendant A, and then sent to Defendant B’s meeting to Defendant B and Vice-Chairperson on December 18, 2012, and then, reported the assembly in its name.

l) Ultimately, an assembly as scheduled on December 2, 2012 did not open. However, at around 13:13 on December 5, 2012, AA expressed that the preparation of a fixed contract was delayed, and that this would not be absolutely low to believe that the head of “B” National Assembly was able to do so. It is the same as the union’s re-Visits and assembly that has been considered, and that it would be impossible to adjust the contractual schedule with one another. One would be to wait for the decision if we continue to maintain a mutual cooperative relationship with each other by making it possible. In addition, S, “I swear that I will make a multilateral effort for the normal contract, and I will see that I will see that I will continue to negotiate the text message,” and “I will not see that I will continue to do so with my opinion that I will not know that I will continue to do so pursuant to the No. 17:20 of the No. 3144, May 17, 2012.”

(m) On December 6, 2016, Defendant B sent a text message to S on December 17:28, 2016, stating that “AX will take all measures, such as regular assembly, from December 10 to December 10, 201, if the commitment was not implemented, K, which is related to the project of E, will not be able to use.” On December 8, 2016, Defendant B sent a text message to S. On December 7, 2012, “The responsibility derived therefrom is on your side.” On December 30, 2012, the victim NJ was at the KJ office, and on December 7, 2012, the Defendant visited and sealed the contract of sale and purchase as the request of the Defendants, and signed the contract of sale and purchase and the contract of sale and the contract of sale and the order of the JJ office for 2013.

2. As to the occupational embezzlement related to the payment of KRW 300 million among AI loans (crimes 11-2-B): Defendant A

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Because the Defendant cannot be deemed to have actually controlled AF’s funds at the time, the custodian was not in the position.

2) It is true that W borrowed money from AF and repaid the Defendant’s loan obligation. However, W borrowed 300 million won lawfully from the Company as a security of performance-based bonus to be received from AF, and the Defendant did not have an intent to obtain unlawful acquisition. Since then, W did not have an intent to obtain unlawful acquisition, support the Defendant’s assertion that there was no intention to obtain unlawful acquisition even if AW actually paid the loan debt by offsetting it with its performance-based bonus.

B. Determination

1) As to the custodian’s status

A) Relevant legal principles

In the crime of occupational embezzlement, “business” refers to not only an act by law, contract, but also an act by which the same act is held in accordance with the custom, or is not de facto or de facto, but also an act by which the same act is repeated. In the crime of occupational embezzlement, not only a contract related to the entrustment of the custody of property, but also a contract related to the entrustment of the custody of property may be established by administrative affairs, customs, cooking, and trust rules, etc., and it is sufficient to establish only a factual relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do17396, Mar. 24, 201; 2009Do13751, Oct. 13, 2011)

B) Specific determination

In addition to the above legal principles, the following facts and circumstances can be duly adopted and recognized by this court, i.e., ① AF was a company established to generate profits by expanding various businesses including E-related business and distribute profits. ② The Defendant was a major shareholder holding 2.34% of the AF shares as at the time of 201, 12,30, which would have been to withdraw KRW 300,000,000, (26.28% if the Defendant included 3.94% of the E-shares as chairperson). At the time, the AF officers were only DY, In-house director AW, Defendant B, and Defendant B, on the recommendation of the Defendant, who had no major shareholder (DY became a Vice-Chairperson around June 2014, Defendant B was finally the representative director of the FF) and that there was no other shareholder's opinion, such as the president of the AFF bank, and that there was no other shareholder's opinion that the Defendant would have been directly using the AF executive officer's opinion.

2) As to the intent of unlawful acquisition

A) Relevant legal principles

A company’s representative director’s temporary withdrawal and use of large amount of company funds for any purpose other than expenditure for the company is without an agreement on interest or maturity for payment, and the company’s failure to undergo lawful procedures such as a resolution of the board of directors goes beyond the generally acceptable scope and without going through a resolution of the board of directors may be deemed to constitute an occupational embezzlement crime by taking advantage of the status of representative director, etc. for private purposes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do135, Apr. 27, 2006; 201Do15857, Feb. 23, 2012). The intent of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement refers to the intention of disposal, such as the case of ownership of another person’s property held in violation of his/her duty to pursue his/her own or a third party’s interest, and even if he/she wishes to return or compensate for it later, it does not interfere with the recognition of the intent of unlawful acquisition, and even if so, it does not need to be deducted from the amount of ex post facto embezzlement or preservation (see, etc.

B) Specific determination

In addition to the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of withdrawing a large amount of KRW 300 million from AF through AF for the repayment of personal debt constitutes an occupational embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition and disposal of AF funds, such as the case where AF funds are owned by himself/herself, beyond the generally acceptable scope.

(1) AW did not make any agreement with regard to interest and payment period, and withdrawn KRW 300 million from AF, did not prepare a monetary loan agreement, and did not pay any interest even after four years, and did not receive payment demand from AF. The monetary loan agreement certificate (No. 554) entered into between AF and AW provides that the interest shall be treated in consultation with B (AF) within five years from the date of use, while CG was ex post facto prepared by discussing the payment of the performance rate with AW around November 7, 2015.

(2) AW stated to the effect that “the Defendant was proved to have the amount of KRW 500 million out of the amount invested by DJ at the time, and the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was to have repaid the amount of KRW 500 million in the name of AF.”

(3) Article 6 (Performance Rating) of the annual salary contract contract between AW and AF (No. 553) provides that "a company shall pay 30% of the revenue amount contracted on the day following the following month salary from the date of deposit of revenue according to the results received by individuals and teams, and the allocation of performance rates shall be entrusted to the head of the headquarters in charge of the business," and some of the other employees of AF entered into an employment contract with the same performance-based bonus agreement. Therefore, AW did not receive 30% of the revenue earned by AF as performance-based bonuses, and it is determined that the right to request payment of performance-based bonuses was not finally created until the amount of performance-based bonuses is determined by the degree of contribution determined by AF.

(4) On February 9, 201, AF entered into a “business feasibility analysis and business management services agreement” with AT and the total service cost of KRW 1.97 million. After entering into a service termination and settlement agreement on June 3, 2013, and received down payment KRW 250 million around June 3, 2013 and KRW 1.72 billion in balance on June 5, 2013. AW sent a written request for payment of performance rates from around two years and five months before, to AF around November 6, 2015, there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that there was a request for payment of performance rates to AF.

(5) On November 13, 2015, AF held a board of directors and resolved to pay AW the balance of service costs 1.72 billion won, 2.3 billion won, which is 2.5 billion won. On November 13, 2015, AF paid KRW 41,5810,000,000,000,000 won, which is 2.5 billion won. On May 31, 2016, AF paid KRW 10,529,529,14, total amount of KRW 516,39,114,000,000,000 won, which is 2.5 billion, in light of the fact that AF was in a state where AF was in a state of debrising capital due to business depression, the amount of piece rate is excessively large even if AF has increased its contribution.

(6) At the time, the AF representative director CF and the vice president CG stated to the effect that, as the Defendant paid performance contribution to AW, the Defendant instructed AW to arrange the loan of KRW 300 million, and that it was handled as above because it was impossible to do so.

(7) As above, the offset of KRW 300 million was 4 years from December 30, 201 when the amount was withdrawn, and the Defendant has not paid the said KRW 300 million to AW so far.

3. With respect to occupational breach of trust (crimes 1-2-c) with respect to the disposal of AF stocks to pay KRW 200 million among AI loans: Defendant A.

A. Summary of the assertion

In most of the facts charged, however, the value of the AF shares at the time when F purchases the AF shares owned by the Defendant was higher than KRW 1800 per share, and thus, the amount of damage of the victim F is less than KRW 128 million.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In the context of breach of trust, property damages refer to cases where a company’s representative director, etc. inflict property damages on the company’s own property status. Thus, it is reasonable to view the amount of damages incurred by the company as the difference between the market price and the sales price of the shares in question in cases where the company has purchased shares of another company at a higher price. In the case of trading unlisted shares, if there is a normal transaction example that reflects the objective exchange value of the unlisted shares properly, the market price should be evaluated by considering the market price. However, if there is no such transaction example, it shall be reasonably determined by comprehensively taking into account various methods of assessment generally recognized, such as the situation of the relevant unlisted company and the transaction party at the time of the transaction, and the characteristics of the relevant business (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do856, Apr. 29, 2005).

2) Specific determination

In addition to the above legal principles, it would be reasonable to determine the estimated price of bidding by making an emergency discount as above, taking into account the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court: ① in the public auction procedure for AF stocks held by the NF Savings Bank as indicated in the judgment, the net asset value per share of the AF evaluated by the DZ Accounting Corporation as of December 13, 2012, KRW 2,565, and the estimated price for bidding was KRW 1,800 at a 30% non-listed stock; ② ② The price for bidding is non-listed stocks; ③ the stocks subject to the public auction during the above public auction procedure was 40,000 shares were total price; ③ the price of the stocks subject to the public auction was 40,000 shares was 40 shares at the first bidding time, and the representative director was able to purchase the shares at the above price if the FF participated in the public auction procedure, and the time when the FF purchased shares was 10,000 shares at an objective market price.

4. As to the acceptance of rebates from F business partners G (crimes 1-3-a, b) related to the receipt of rebates: Defendant A

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Although it was true that Defendant C received KRW 40,235,450 from Defendant C for the benefit of his family, it does not constitute an illegal solicitation.

2) The Defendant’s person who provided the benefits to the Defendant’s family is not the Defendant C, but the BE or the BF operated by it, and thus, the Defendant’s family member is not subject to criminal breach of trust.

B. Determination

1) As to the consideration for an illegal solicitation

A) Relevant legal principles

"Unlawful solicitation" in the crime of taking property in breach of trust or taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 of the Criminal Act refers to solicitation against social norms and the principle of trust and good faith. In determining this, a comprehensive consideration of the contents of solicitation, the kinds, amounts and forms of assets or property gains acquired in relation thereto, the method and manner of providing property benefits, and the integrity of transactions, which are protected legal interests, should be taken into account. The solicitation is not necessarily required to be explicitly or implicitly made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9238, Apr. 25, 2013).

B) Specific determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant is deemed to have received a total of 40,235,450 won from the family account under the name of his/her family upon receiving a request from Defendant C to maintain the existing volume of transactions and return ratio to 4:4.

(1) Defendant C told from the prosecutor’s office that the ratio of profit distribution in the year 2013 to 4:4:5:3 [FG] of the previous year (2012) was changed to 4:4:5:3 [G], and that the ratio of profit distribution was changed to her previous ratio of profit distribution. From October to November 201, 2013, Defendant C stated that the amount of profit distribution would be divided from employees and employees of E would be divided into other companies. At that time, Defendant C maintained the volume of the Defendant and said that the ratio of profit distribution would be restored to the Defendant’s previous ratio of profit distribution, and the Defendant would be restored to the Defendant’s father’s father’s wife’s wife’s payment of benefits. The Defendant stated that there was a need to pay money in G as his father’s wife wanted to do so. The Defendant stated the following large time and time of profit distribution by dividing the above conversation, and the circumstances during which the Defendant’s payment was commenced from the several months thereafter, and consistently testified in this court.

(2) The terms and conditions of transaction between F and C have been substantially determined by the Defendant and the Defendant C, at the time of the conclusion of the contract in 2014, the Defendant B, the representative director of F, stated to the effect that “Defendant C should not have made it difficult for the Defendant to make any circumstances G,” and F and G changed F and G return from February 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 to “A:4 of the same way as the previous ones” to “5:3. (3) Although the statement was reversed or unclear as to the circumstances in which the Defendant CF want to divide the volume of the transaction from other companies, it is consistent with the purport that the Defendant would divide the volume of the transaction from the E executives and employees of the E before the conclusion of the contract in 2014, and that the Defendant maintained the volume, thereby making a consistent statement on the facts that the Defendant gave rise to maintaining the volume.

(4) Defendant C paid money under the name of salary by assuming that he/she was employed by his/her father and wife to the company of the Defendant’s son, and the salary was paid only until March 2, 2015, immediately after the completion of the settlement of accounts between F and G pursuant to the scrap metal sales contract between F and G, and the total amount of KRW 40,235,450. (5) Although the Defendant’s father and wife did not actually work, the Defendant’s assertion regarding the reason why the Defendant’s father and wife continued to receive the payment from the company operated by the Defendant C, and the reason why the return on profit between F and G was changed favorably to G is difficult to obtain a formal payment.

2) As to the part on which the management company of ASEAN other than Defendant C paid the benefits

The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act is not a crime whose legal interest is the integrity of a person who administers another's business or the property of a person who has provided property or profits as the legal interest protected by the law of integrity of transaction. It is not a crime whose legal interest is the property of a person who has provided property or profits. The elements of the crime require a relationship between illegal solicitation and property or profits, and the person who has given an illegal solicitation does not require a direct provision of property or property profits on his/her own account. Therefore, insofar as Defendant C's son paid benefits according to Defendant C's instructions, even if the expenditure is not for

5. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) (Offense No. 1-4) relating to the arrival of funds to fulfill the obligation to purchase AF shares: Defendant A.

A. Summary of the assertion

In the course of the establishment of M, the Defendant assumed an inevitable obligation, and E loaned money to the Defendant to compensate for the Defendant’s loss by recognizing the Defendant’s contribution in the establishment of M. E had lawfully passed a resolution at the board of directors and the National Assembly, and the lending of money does not violate the articles of incorporation, thereby not constitute a breach of trust.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

A) The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another’s business obtains pecuniary advantage or has a third party acquire it through an act in violation of one’s duty and thereby inflict loss on the principal. The term “act in violation of one’s duty” includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act that is naturally expected under the provisions of law, the content of the contract, or the good faith principle, or by performing an act that is expected not to perform as a matter of course in light of the specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business. In addition, “when an act in violation of a fiduciary relationship occurs” includes not only cases where a loss is actually done but also cases where a risk of actual damage to property has occurred. As long as the risk of damage has occurred, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust even after the damage

The judgment should be judged based on the economic perspective in relation to the property status of the principal. Thus, even if the act of breach of trust is null and void by a legal judgment, if the act of breach of trust causes a real loss to the principal or a risk of actual damage to property, it constitutes a case of causing property damage. The mere fact that an executive officer of a company has obtained the understanding of a major shareholder or has passed a resolution of the board of directors as to the act of breach of trust does not constitute a crime of breach of trust. Even if the defendant had the intent to pursue the victim's own interest, it is only an incidental, and if it is proved that the intent to gain or harm was the principal, it shall be deemed that there was an intention of breach of trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do4857, May 14, 200

B) If a director, etc. of a company has already been aware that it would cause damage to the company if he/she had already lost his/her ability to repay his/her corporate funds to another person, or has lent his/her funds to a third party only without taking reasonable and reasonable measures to recover claims, such loans shall be an act of making another person gain profit and causing damage to the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3373, Sept. 7, 2007). In cases where a crime of occupational breach of trust is established due to an insolvent loan, it shall not be deemed that only the amount borrowed in excess of the value of the collateral or the amount actually impossible to recover is not deemed as the amount of damage, and if a third party has acquired it, it shall be deemed that the full amount of the loan falls under the value of property acquired by the third party provided for in Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do33194, Mar. 29, 2001).

2) Specific determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant's act of borrowing KRW 936,700,000 from E for a period of 10 years without interest to provide accurate information and leading the general meeting to pass a resolution and without reasonable measures to recover the right.

A) The above share purchase funds amounting to KRW 936,700,000 is a very large amount in light of E’s revenue and budget, etc. and may not be withdrawn without a resolution of the General Assembly of Representatives.

B) The contents of the resolution at the Eth extraordinary general meeting held on December 23, 2016 do not require the Defendant to pay KRW 936,700,000 for the purchase of the said shares, but are to lend the said amount to the Defendant. Even if the Defendant decided to lend the said amount as a performance bonus in consideration of the Defendant’s contribution to the construction of MM, it is not a decision to pay the amount equivalent to the interest for the ten-year interest as a performance bonus, or not a decision to pay the purchase of the said shares itself. If the board of directors or a general meeting resolves a loan of funds, it shall be deemed that the said resolution is premised on the possibility of recovering the claim, and the Defendant, the E president, should not induce the Defendant to make a resolution on a loan without possibility

C) On December 16, 2016, E sought advice on whether the instant loan constitutes a breach of trust, and the law firm DDR’s response may be evaluated as having taken reasonable measures to recover claims even if it is reasonable and reasonable as the shares to be acquired by E as a pledge are sufficiently secured by the right of pledge.

I suggested the opinion that the possession of the problem will be lowered."

D) However, at the time of the above general meeting, the Defendant had no property under his/her name except AF shares, and even if there was little value, the AF shares to be offered as security did not notify such circumstance at all at the time of resolution by the board of directors and special general meetings. If the value of AF shares is assessed according to the method of appraisal of non-listed shares under Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the amount of KRW 659 per share as of March 2016, and KRW 411 per share as of March 2017 (as of February 2016, DT accounting corporation assessed the value of AF shares as KRW 2,983 per share at E’s request, but this is difficult to believe that it was based on the presumption of future sales offered by E, which is close to the time of the above general meeting resolution. In fact, the Defendant received a successful bid for KRW 541 per share from public sale around February 17, 2017, the Defendant stated that there is no value in the AF.

E) Considering the fact that AF had continued capital erosion due to business depression, it is anticipated that the collateral value of AF shares will be much lower than that of AF shares after the lapse of 10 years from the lending period of this case. However, the Defendant, while lending the purchase fund of shares to himself/herself, requested additional security or the early enforcement of security rights even if the value of the secured shares has lowered, the security right of E does not fall short of the additional new shares that he/she will acquire in the future, and if there is a dividend, the profits have been paid by him/her. In addition, since AL bank and BH savings bank bear not only the Defendant but also the obligation to purchase shares, the Defendant may exercise the right to indemnity against AJ and W if the Defendant independently performs the obligation to purchase shares. Nevertheless, the Defendant, despite being informed of such fact or did not provide the said right as security.

F) At the above special meeting, the chairperson of the DG verification, the director of the CP, and the vice-chairperson of the DY had the possibility that the shareholders of AF would be inefficient due to litigation. Thus, the defendant could block the strengthening of the control over AF through the loan of this case. During the process that AF shareholders including AF continued to acquire shares and the so-called business rights in AV, E continued to be a shareholder, and eventually acquired the right to use MP in return for dividends by the shareholders' rights. However, in the process, there was no loss between AF and AF, and as a result, E did not have the possibility of success in the business and could not cover funds necessary for the business, it is only a result of a different choice between AF and AF, one of the shareholders of AF, and BF, who were the shareholders of AF, regardless of the possibility that AF shareholders was responsible for the AF executives for this reason, the defendant could not take any legal measure against the EF executives, and the defendant could not obtain the right to use MP funds of this case.

G) On January 15, 2015, BH Savings Bank notified the Defendant of the request for purchase of shares without any particular measure, but rather, the Defendant actively proposed the purchase of shares, and the Defendant’s wife was awarded a successful bid of KRW 541 per share of KRW 40,000 per share in the public sale procedure on February 9, 2017, etc., the Defendant intended to borrow the purchase price of AF shares with intent to increase the AF’s shares and to secure control, and this does not coincide with the interest of E. The Defendant did not directly purchase the shares of AL Bank and BH Savings Bank, and it does not coincide with the interest of E. The Defendant also purchased the shares of the AF Bank from the E and purchased the shares from the E: “If AL Bank and other shares were purchased after the E’s change, it would be reasonable for AF to use the shares after the EM was changed, and thus, it would be reasonable at the time of the board of directors’ meeting to consider that the Defendant’s 1’s shares were in the form of AF.

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Defendant AF entered into a business agreement with J for the purpose of concluding a sales contract for scrap metal in 2013 with K, and accordingly, paid veterans benefits to K. Accordingly, this is only made within the scope of the purpose business for F’s interest, and there is no intent of unlawful acquisition because it is not for the interest of the Defendant.

2) Defendant B

Since the Defendant held office as F’s representative director from August 1, 2012 to June 24, 2014, the Defendant did not constitute a crime of occupational embezzlement since he/she did not have a status as an occupational custodian since he/she was left in the position of representative director (No. 30 to 48 of the attached Table of Crimes (attached Form 3)).

B. Determination

1) Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A) Relevant legal principles

(1) Since a stock company is an independent right holder separate from a shareholder, it does not necessarily coincide with the interests of the shareholder, if the shareholder or representative director arbitrarily disposes of the company’s property for private purposes, regardless of whether there was a resolution by the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors regarding such disposal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17396, Mar. 24, 201). In the event that the shareholder or representative director donated the company’s property to a reasonable extent, it cannot be said that the shareholder or representative director intended to acquire unlawful profits if it was made within the reasonable scope for the purpose of promoting the company’s interests, but the liability for the crime of embezzlement cannot be exempted if it was made for another purpose

(2) Since a company should not be a means to commit a criminal offense in the course of its business activities, the provisions of the law prohibiting bribe offering should be observed in the course of its business activities. Therefore, if a director, etc. offered a bribe with the company’s funds kept in violation of his/her occupational duty, it is reasonable to deem that such offering was made for the purpose of pursuing the benefit of the other party to the offering of bribe or for any other purpose rather than solely for the purpose of pursuing the company’s profit. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such legal doctrine applies to a case where the company’s representative director, etc. secures the means of public conflict with its funds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do9238, Apr. 25, 2013).

B) Specific determination

In addition to the above legal principles, if the defendant excluded from the fact that he is a full-time adviser of K, it is an organization that has no relationship with F and E. The F's payment of the F's money seems to have basically been intended to give public notice of the defendant's influence on K. ② The F's payment of the money to K was commenced as recognized by the defendant in J in 2013. As seen in the above 1., the E's assembly was used as a means of attack. ③ Although the payment of the money to K does not constitute a new crime, it cannot be viewed as a means of permission for business activities because it does not constitute a new crime, it cannot be viewed as a total of 377,020,000 won for the purpose of distributing the criminal proceeds of public conflict to the defendant, and it cannot be viewed as a means of giving public interest to the defendant in 2015.375,000 won for the purpose of promoting the profit of K in 205,3714,205.

2) Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

A) In a case where a part of the crime committed by the Defendant, which is a single comprehensive crime, was committed after the Defendant went away from the accomplice relationship, but the remaining crime was committed by another accomplice, the Defendant is liable for the part in which the Defendant did not participate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9927, Jan. 13, 2011). If the Defendant conspired with the Defendant A before escaping from the accomplice relationship, and within the extent foreseeable from it, the Defendant is liable for the occupational embezzlement committed by the Defendant A after the resignation of the representative director.

B) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following can be acknowledged: (i) F’s support to K was commenced for K to attend an assembly in the process of concluding a sales contract for scrap metal in 2013 with J; (ii) according to the Work Agreement of August 6, 2012 in which the Defendant participated, F was to provide veterans benefits within the limit of 20% of the proceeds from the sale of scrap metal (Article 3(1)); (iii) the period of the Convention is from August 6, 2012 to December 31, 2015 (Article 4); and (iv) the payment of funds is continuously made even if it is not regularly made on the last day of each month. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable for the act of enforcement by at least December 31, 2015.

7. As to the occupational embezzlement (criminal charge 21(2)) relating to 'BG' using the president’: Defendant A

A. Summary of the assertion

1) BG activities (hereinafter referred to as “BG”) are intended to pursue the development of the National Assembly as a member of the people regardless of the interests of the people, and they are within the scope of the objective E (Article 5(1) of the Articles of Incorporation) and are not political activities prohibited by Article 5(4) of the D Act. E is an internal decision-making process, and is engaged in BG activities and bears necessary expenses, and thus there is no intention of unlawful acquisition.

2) A significant portion of the attached list of crimes (iv) is unrelated to political activities or disbursed irrespective of BG.

3) The Defendant received a request from DL to lend KRW 100 million each around March 2016, and around July 2016, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million each from AF representative director, CF and Vice-president CG. The Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million each from CG to DL, and the Defendant paid that KRW 200 million was repaid from DL to AF, including the interest of the recipient, around September 2016, and there was no intention to acquire unlawful profits.

B. Determination

1) As to the argument regarding the intention of unlawful acquisition

A) The meaning of "political activities" prohibited by Article 5 (4) of the D Act

(1) Article 5(4) of the D Act provides that “E shall not engage in any political activity.” In light of the following: (i) E is an incorporated public association established by D Act and has a strong public nature, such as receiving subsidies from the Government (Articles 2 and 15(2)); (ii) E is a retired police officer as a regular member; and (iii) incumbent police officers are closely related to a police officer’s request for political neutrality (Article 4 of D Act); and (iv) in the case of a retired police officer as a regular member, there is no penal provision that prohibits only political activity at E level without prohibiting individual political activity; and (iv) in the case of a police officer as a regular member, there is no penal provision that prohibits a police officer from violating the D Act. In light of the D Act’s provision prohibiting political activity, public law organizations related to police officers distort the process of forming democratic intentions; prevent any harm to the fairness of election; and thus, it is difficult to deem that the legislative purpose of the D Act violates the minimum provision to achieve the legislative purpose thereof.

(2) On the other hand, the D law does not provide for the meaning of political activities, and the term "political activities" can be defined in various ways, but the meaning of political activities prohibited in consideration of freedom of association and freedom of politics under the Constitution should be interpreted very limited. However, when referring to the legislation that prohibits the above legislative purpose, political activities, political activities, and participation in political activities to a certain extent and disclosing the meaning of such act or inducing specific acts, at least to support or oppose the platform of a specific political party prohibited to E, or to support or oppose a specific candidate for public office (see Article 14 of the Act on the Establishment of Organizations by Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, Article 29 of the Honorable Treatment of War Veterans, etc. and Establishment of Related Associations Act), "an act supporting or obstructing the formation or joining of a political party or political organization," "an act supporting or opposing a specific political party or political person," or "an act of gathering opinions or opinions against a specific political person or a specific person for the purpose of forming public opinion, it should not be included in an election campaign activity more likely at the time.

B) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court as to whether BG activities constitute political activities, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s establishment of BG through E and the series of activities constituted an act of organizing a political organization, gathering opinions on support of a specific political party and a political party, and constitutes political activities prohibited by D law.

(1) Since the first regular meeting of the board of directors in April 16, 2015 set up that E should participate in the campaign to reform political rights, on April 30, 2015, the Defendant first regular meeting of the board of directors in the year 2015, published an advertisement related to the National Assembly reform on a total of six occasions on a total of six occasions after publishing an advertisement in the Central daily newspaper on April 30, 2015. On April 13, 2016, the election of National Assembly members implemented on April 13, 2016 did not remain for six months (No. 359).

(2) BG declares that a specific political intention or the ties of a political force should be raised under paragraph (4) of the strong age, and its appearance appears only to present an opinion unrelated to a specific political party or a particular political person, such as the introduction of the National Assembly dissolution system, the introduction of the national summons system, the deprivation of privilege to arrest, the deprivation of privilege to immunity, the abolition of a basic organization head and a member's authority, deprivation of a member's qualification, such as the abolition of an important criminal conviction, and the destruction of the National Assembly Transition Act, etc., as its main task, during the National Assembly reform.

(3) However, in light of the following advertising contents published in the Central daily newspapers under the BG's purport (10: 9357 pages of investigation records) and E and BG name, the National Assembly's professed campaign is a political activity that supports women and BM under the awareness that the National Assembly would be prone to the government's national administration. Most of its actual activities are ① the CA rist and special amnesty, BX case, the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Government, the Government's comments, the Government's comments, the National Assembly's Advancement Act, the EB farmers, the EB farmers' impeachment, the BM impeachment, and the posting of resignation, etc., and criticizes the opposition and the politically controversial issues. ② The National Assembly's activities are to criticize some members of the National Assembly as counter-state forces.

I have the honor to make an advertisement of the President B.O.M. No. 5 of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. It is necessary to make an advertisement of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family No. 7 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Family No. 5 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 5 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. The Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 5 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 1 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 7 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. The Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 5 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 5 of the Ministry of Home Affairs and No. 5 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 5 of the Ministry of Home Affairs and No. 5 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 5 of the Ministry of Home Affairs and No. 5 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 5 of the Ministry of Government Administration and No. 5 of the Ministry of Home Affairs No.

The spirit of "ObG" is as follows. The National Assembly of the Republic of Korea is the head of the deceased government. The 28 persons are in violation of the National Security Act or antipublic law, and the 18 persons among them are the members of the dual organizations. The National Assembly of the Republic of Korea is obliged to abolish the advancement of the National Assembly, i.e., to create the National Assembly and inefficiency." ("BG's launch on October 12, 2015." ("BG") "The Labor Relations Act, various reform bills, economic activation methods, terrorist prevention laws, etc., that the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea is urgent for the future of the Republic of Korea." (OG's name on January 8, 2016.) The National Assembly of the Republic of Korea has expanded beyond harming (OG's name on January 28, 2016. It is the most responsible that the President should participate in the national police movement on the street, and if any, it is the National Assembly's most responsible that the National Assembly will not be 2G.

What is the President's "if you have to go under, what you want?? What you will go to go to the next king? Is you go to go to the Cheonge and go to the Cheong. It has been observed by having only EE go to the past? We now? We want to see the North Korea's attitude toward the North Korea's security in some of the political districts. We want. The North Korea has developed the nuclear weapons with USD, and there is an objection to the gricking of the nuclear weapons." (Advertisements in the names of E, BG, etc. on November 17, 2016)

○ “As soon as the early withdrawal decision of the President was announced, the Party appears to be the only length of impeachment by walking it,” “(3) Defendant led the creation of BG in the name of E, BG, etc., and became a full-time representative.” However, the Defendant was 195 organizations in BG, but most of the activity cost was borne by E funds.

(4) At the end of 2013, the EF instructed the CU of the NIS to the effect that “E is engaged in various activities, such as assemblies, and there is an empty space.” The CU has directed the CU of the NIS to support E, which is the chief of the EG Group Planning and Coordination Department, requesting to provide support to E, the Vice-Chairperson E, who is the chief of the EG Group Planning and Coordination Council. Accordingly, F purchased a scrap metal from the KI and the EJ, entered into a contract for transportation and management of scrap metal, which sells the EK, and without any role, led AE to an interest of 10 US dollars per ton of scrap metal from AE without any role, and raised profits exceeding approximately KRW 2.2 billion in the year 2014 and 2015. As such, the BM government pressured the EG Group through the NIS group, and indirectly supported EF, which is closely related to the EG’s activities or activities.

C) Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant’s intentional intent and intent to illegally obtain evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant can be sufficiently recognized as being used for BG activities with the intent to pursue his/her individual political belief or political desire, regardless of the interests of E, with the knowledge that the aforementioned BG activities constitute prohibited political activities, regardless of the interests of E.

(1) On April 11, 2012, the Defendant was leading to the election of the 19th National Assembly member, and submitted an application for the candidate of proportional representative National Assembly member by the DO party on March 9, 2012.

(2) Thereafter, from March 2012 to December 2016, the Defendant posted a political advertisement several times in the name of E in a daily newspaper, and disbursed a total of KRW 874 million for advertising expenses. Of these, a considerable number of people support or criticizes the opposition (i.e., the constitutionality of December 5, 2013; (ii) the National Assembly’s request for the expulsion of the Government Force against the constitutionality on December 11, 2013; (iii) the expression of opposition to the National Assembly’s death on December 20, 2013; (iv) the reform and judicial criticism of the National Assembly on March 7, 2014; (v) the criticism of the National Assembly and the political branch on August 27, 2014; (v) the election of the National Assembly members of the Republic of Korea and the legislative branch on May 21, 2014; and (v) the criticism of the legislative branch on the non-government activities of the National Assembly on September 27, 2015.

(3) Due to such activities, E had approximately KRW 780,000,000 in 2013, but the rapid increase in the cost of security events in 2013, which led to expenditure of KRW 1.3 billion. AY determined that it is difficult for AY to predict the opposition of the Chairperson of the E-City/Do Council and to report it true, and partly offset the details of the expenditure of the donation revenue and security event, and then, the donations amounted to KRW 31,00,000,000,000, and the cost of the security event was prepared to undergo deliberation and resolution at the Assembly (No. 310, the AY Prosecutor’s statement No. 510).

(4) On September 2015, the National Assembly Research Service responded to the purport that such advertisements are "political advertisements", one of the political activities prohibited by D law, and around September 2015. In addition, around August 2015, E received the result of legal advice with the purport that it is highly likely for E to constitute political activities prohibited by D law to engage in activities through BG. In that sense, the Defendant does not stop the formation of BG and is in the capacity of an individual, not BG activities, and the relevant expenses are to be borne by BGs, not E, and thus, it was required to pay funds (No. 333 and No. 391).

D) Sub-committee

Ultimately, Defendant’s BG activities are political activities prohibited by the D Act and activities for pursuing his/her individual political belief. The use of E, F, and AF’s property for private purposes is not a voluntary disposal of it for private purposes, but cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of embezzlement regardless of whether there was a resolution by the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors regarding the disposal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17396, Mar. 24, 201).

2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court on the detailed disbursement details, it is reasonable to view all of the expenses indicated in the annexed crime list (4) as expenses incurred by E in relation to BG activities.

A) According to AY’s prosecutor’s statement (CY No. 310), “BG’s statement” document (CY No. 251), “Reserve Fund (C. 2015, C. 2015), copy of data stored in file files (C. 353), “BG (C. 2015, C. 2015),” copy of file files (C. 2016, E.), “BG (C. 2016, E.),” and “EM budget case (C. 357, E. 10, E. 9604, E.), the fact that the expenses indicated in the attached Table (C. 4) were paid can be sufficiently recognized, and the expenses related to the event held by BG and EG are all paid for political activities. As seen earlier, the expenses incurred in relation to the political activities, which are all prohibited by BG activities, should be considered as expenses incurred in relation to the political activities.

B) The relevant advertisements No. 1 through 11 of the annexed crime sight table (4) are those published in the process of forming BG as seen earlier, and even if they are in the name of E, they can be seen as advertisements related to BG activities. Furthermore, unlike the assertion by defense counsel, the advertisements listed in the annexed crime sight table (4), No. 185, 186, 189, and 189 are those paid in the joint name of E, BG, etc. (No. 359.C.) are those paid in the joint name of E, B, etc. (No. 359.C.). In order to promote EN around December 1, 2015, it was difficult to set up an EO advertising plan of KRW 55,00,000 to KRW 6,000 (Additional No. 109317), and that they should be signed on the BG website by means of signature movement (No. 1437).

3) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court with respect to AF funds of KRW 200 million, the Defendant’s withdrawal from AF under the name of provisional payment can be sufficiently recognized as realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition in the position of the custodian.

A) As seen earlier, the Defendant was in a de facto custody of AF funds as a major shareholder and president.

B) After the withdrawal of KRW 100 million on March 14, 2016, the balance of the AF’s ordinary deposit remains equivalent to KRW 200 million, and the AF’s ordinary deposit balance after the loan of KRW 100 million on July 6, 2016, there were only approximately KRW 100 million, and approximately KRW 400 million in the AZ account after the loan of KRW 100 million on July 6, 2016. Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) stated that CG borrowed money without any mentioning the place of use of money and the due date for payment, etc.; (b) CG transferred each of KRW 100 million to its own account under its own name; and (c) made a loan for consumption after cash payment; and (c) made a loan for consumption after cash payment.

C) At the prosecutor’s office, on March 15, 2016, and July 6, 2016, the Defendant made a statement consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that he/she would have paid KRW 200 million individually from the Defendant. However, ① the above KRW 200 million is considered as expenses incurred in signing the Internet, and ② the Defendant paid KRW 400 million for expenses incurred in signing the Internet in addition to the above KRW 200 million, ③ DL was given a receipt to the Defendant on the ground that it was difficult to view the above KRW 200 million and received KRW 200 million as interest, and the Defendant would not have paid the above KRW 20 million to the Defendant, ④ The Defendant was found to have paid the above KRW 200,000,000,000 to KRW 30,000,000,000,000 to KRW 20,000,000,000,000.

D) The Defendant paid 200 million won interest to AF around September 29, 2016. However, even if the Defendant had an intention to return, compensate, or preserve it later from the beginning, there is no difficulty in recognizing the intention of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3431, Jun. 2, 2006). Such repayment is merely an circumstance following the establishment of the crime of occupational embezzlement.

8. As to the occupational embezzlement (criminal facts / [2] - (3) related to payment of fines, etc. for illegal acts in the course of political activities: Defendant A;

A. Summary of the assertion

A criminal case against the CP is about the act committed by negligence that the CP did not recognize illegality in the course of performing its duties. Therefore, since it is a criminal case against E, it constitutes a case where attorney fees, etc. can be paid at the expense of E, and such expenses do not go against the social rules.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

As a matter of principle, attorney fees that can be paid at the expense of an organization are limited to cases where the organization itself becomes a party to a lawsuit, the attorney fees for civil and criminal cases in which the representative of the organization becomes a party to the lawsuit cannot be paid at the expense of an organization. It is exceptionally permitted to pay attorney fees for civil and criminal cases in which a representative of the organization becomes a party to a lawsuit or other legal procedures, or for which a dispute arises in connection with acts performed by an individual in his/her status as a representative for legal reasons, due to the fact that an individual becomes a party to a lawsuit or acts lawfully conducted for the sake of an organization or the status of a representative, etc., the pertinent legal dispute may be paid at the expense of an organization only when there is a special need to conduct a lawsuit for the interest of the organization or respond to a complaint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do6280, Oct. 26, 2006; 209Do3982, Sept

2) Specific determination

위 법리에 더하여 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정을 종합하면, CP에 대한 형사사건의 실질적인 이해관계가 E에 있다고 볼 수 없기 떄문에 E 자금으로 변호사비용 등을 지출할 수 있는 경우에 해당

It can not be said that these expenses do not go against the social norms.

A) Advertisement in the name of E as indicated in the ruling of the CP includes any content opposing a specific political party and politician, and thus constitutes an act of violating the Public Official Election Act and at the same time constitutes political activity prohibited by the D Act.

B) The defense counsel asserts that, according to the outcome of the criminal case against the CP, since CK or CH could claim damages against E due to defamation or other unlawful acts, E was in need of active involvement. However, the above criminal case was a violation of the Public Official Election Act, and whether there was a purpose to affect the election, and it is difficult to deem that the result of the trial directly affects E’s recognition of civil liability for damages under the Civil Act. Moreover, it does not appear that CK or CH actually intended to file a civil lawsuit against E. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that E has a special need to respond to the above criminal case.

C) As the final and conclusive judgment of conviction against the CP was presented, the CP appears to have been informed by the election commission that all the advertisements prepared by the CP and the CP violated the election law, but only some phrases have been revised and published in the central daily newspaper. Such an act was intentional, and cannot be deemed as a negligent act in the course of performing the E business.

D) The CP revised the Defendant’s advertisement contents at the prosecutor’s office, but the Defendant could not be punished, and the Defendant, among the practitioners, concluded that he was punished by him, and that not only himself but also other employees were not directed by the A Chairperson at the time of investigation (in this court, the CP stated to the effect that the Defendant’s instruction to advertise was not in violation of the law, and that it would be responsible for it, but also that it was merely that the Defendant’s reasoning and opinion was expressed. In light of this, the Defendant could be subject to the CP’s sole criminal punishment, and such circumstance affected the decision to pay attorney fees, etc.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment for not more than 15 years;

(c) Defendant C: Fines not exceeding five million won;

2. Scope of the recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines (with respect to imprisonment);

A. Defendant A

1) Basic crime: Each crime of occupational embezzlement, occupational breach of trust, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement 500 million won or more, and less than five billion won (type 3)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] 2 years - 5 years (Basic Area)

2. The first concurrent crime: the crime of taking property in breach of trust; and

[Determination of Punishment] < Amended by Act No. 30 million won or more of misappropriation Acceptance of Misappropriation; Act No. 50 million won or less of 50 million won (Type 3); Act No. 1483, Dec. 31, 2008; Act No. 1504, Feb. 29, 2001>

3. Concurrent crimes: Crimes of robbery;

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes of Assaults under 30 million won (Type 1 08)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] This aggravated element: Where a person leads or directs a crime;

[Scope of Recommendation] 10th - Two years and six months (Aggravated)

4) The range of final recommendations based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: 3 years9) to 7 August 15 shall be added to the upper limit of the amount of recommendations for basic crimes 1, 2 and 1/3 to the upper limit of the amount of recommendations for concurrent crimes 1, 2 and 1/3 respectively.

B. Defendant B

1) Basic crime: Crimes of occupational breach of trust and occupational embezzlement;

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement 100 million won or more, and less than 500 million won (Type 3) 10

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] 1 year - 3 years (Basic Area)

2. Class I Crimes: Crimes of robbery;

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes of Assaults under 30 million won (Type 1)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] 6 months - 1 year (Basic Area)

3) The range of final recommendations based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: one year - the maximum of the recommendations for the basic crimes in March 1 and 2 plus one-2 of the maximum of the recommendations for the first concurrent crimes.

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years and six months;

The Defendant, while working as the president from May 2008 to May 2017, 201, had been in office for nine (9) years, and operated as private organizations. Despite many criticism and legal advice that DGs constitute political activities prohibited by D law, the Defendant formed a political organization called BG in the name of E and provided K with support for BM government and political activities, and used E, F and AF’s money in excess of KRW 2 billion in total, and obtained pecuniary gains in order to secure revenues as the basis of the above activities. From May 2008 to May 201, the Defendant took advantage of the fact that the E-related business could take advantage of the position of the president, and actively used it as one of its own funds to attract investors to engage in 1.7 billion won in a political activity supporting BG government in the name of E and/or to cooperate with it in political activities, and then used E, E, F and AF’s money in excess of KRW 1.5 billion in the process of exercising one’s own funds.

E, F, and AF's financial insolvency due to the Defendant's criminal act, and E, which has retired or incumbent police officers as a regular member and honorary member, was transferred to a specific political group, and the name of the government-oriented organization was turned to a specific political group.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not recognize his mistake. Even though all crimes are aimed at the benefit of the Defendant, such as promoting the economic interest of the Defendant, realizing political desire and faith, or expanding influence, the Defendant did not make any reimbursement for damage, and the Defendant B and other accomplices are liable for all the burden of recovery of damage because there are little assets in its name except the AF shares with little economic value, and there are little assets in its name. favorable circumstances: aged, and health conditions are not good. The EP is a primary offender with no criminal power. There was a M that E can use for a period of 30 years. Some of the embezzlements against AF were repaid.

(b) Defendant B: One year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution; and

○ Unfavorable Normals: Defendant A’s participation in the crime of embezzlement, embezzlement, and breach of trust; Defendant F’s loss amounting to approximately KRW 495 million is not much much.

The favorable circumstances of ○: Defendant A was led by, and there is no benefit acquired by the Defendant individually. A confessions a significant portion of his/her criminal act. Elderly and health conditions are not good. It is the first offender who has no criminal power.

C. Defendant C: Fines of three million won

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The increased amount exceeds KRW 40 million.

The favorable circumstances of ○: Defendant A actively responded to Defendant A’s active demand, which led to confession of his criminal act. It is the first offender who has no criminal record.

D. The Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances of each of the instant offenses, and the circumstances after the commission of the offense, etc. shall be comprehensively considered to determine the punishment as set forth in the orders, taking into account the various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

Parts of innocence

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (public conflict) against Defendant A and B N

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants conspired to threaten the victim N to enter into a scrap metal sales contract in 2013 between J and F by threatening the victim N as stated in the facts constituting a crime 11-1, thereby resulting in financial gain equivalent to F’s gross profit of 852,482,286 won.

B. Determination

In accordance with the facts charged, the victim's act of disposal by intimidation of the Defendants itself is to enter into a scrap metal sales contract in 2013. However, the profits that F can obtain through the scrap metal sales contract in 2013 are different depending on the quantity of scrap metal supplied by J, and there is no standard to determine the amount of scrap metal supply at the time of entering into a contract, which is a disposal act.

Ultimately, the defendants' acquisition of the above dispositive act is limited to the amount of "the status of contracting parties to purchase scrap metal at a price higher than the market price for one year from J", and the F obtained gross sales profit of KRW 852,482,286 in accordance with the scrap metal sales contract in 2013, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendants acquired the above 852,482,286 won (or the difference between the market price of scrap metal and the purchase price) by intimidation.

2. The point of occupational embezzlement of Defendant A’s AJ loans 200 million won

A. Summary of the facts charged

On December 9, 2009, the defendant established AF and was willing to pay KRW 200 million borrowed from AJ among KRW 1.7 billion in his/her own investment, and the defendant is serving as a major shareholder and the Chairperson and has de facto control over AF's funds.

The defendant, around December 14, 2009, paid by AF, the representative director of AF, before the establishment of AF, paid KRW 130 million for the establishment registration of a corporation, such as acquisition tax, etc., with the AF funds, the defendant pretended that AF would pay the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million for the 12th floor office in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, to have the defendant repaid the loan of KRW 200 million with the AF funds.

As a result, the Defendant de facto controlled and operated the Victim AF, and kept the Victim's Fund in the course of business, and embezzled KRW 200 million among them at will by using the Victim's Personal Debt Repayment to AJ.

B. Defendant’s assertion

AF deposited KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

1) AW leased the 12th floor office of the Seocho-gu Seoul E Q building under its own name from around August 2009, 2009, before AF was established, and paid KRW 200 million of lease deposit with personal borrowed money.

2) The Defendant: (a) borrowed a total of KRW 330 million in the name of AJ from BH Savings Bank (at that time, AM Savings Bank) in the name of AM Savings Bank; (b) guaranteed the obligation; (c) paid the Defendant’s share price of KRW 200 million; and (d) used the remainder of KRW 130 million in the registration of incorporation and the registration of incorporation for a certified judicial scrivener.

3) On December 2, 2009, AF approved five bills by holding a board of directors for the establishment of a new company. Among them, "the proposal for the conclusion of a contract for advisory services for the establishment of a company" refers to the conclusion of a consulting service contract for 300 million won with ES and remuneration. AF was established on December 9, 2009 after the inaugural general meeting was held on the same day.

4) On December 14, 2009, AF paid KRW 200 million to AW for establishment expenses (AW), KRW 130 million for establishment expenses (certified judicial scrivener), and KRW 200 million for office rent deposit (AW). On December 16, 2009, AF paid KRW 100 million for establishment expenses (AW) to AW.

5) AJ re-established a lease agreement on August 26, 2009 in the name of AF with respect to the above office, and received receipts for KRW 200 million from ER.

6) On January 18, 2010, the Defendant paid two copies of the KRW 100 million Check to AW.

D. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as rejecting the defendant’s above-mentioned change, and the facts charged that the defendant embezzled the AF funds in repayment of the loan obligation amounting to KRW 200 million to AJ cannot be deemed as having been proven without reasonable doubt.

1) It is reasonable to view that AF paid KRW 20 million to AW on December 14, 2009, KRW 300 million on December 16, 2009, and KRW 300 million on the contract for the establishment of a company approved for the establishment of a new meeting by the board of directors. The scope of advisory services determined by the above contract is “(1) business plan, preliminary authorization application and other documents related to the establishment of a company, ② preparation of documents related to the establishment of a company, ② preparation of promoters and other investment shareholders, ③ support for the formation of a company, ④ holding of a new office, holding of an inaugural general meeting, and payment of stock price, ⑤ establishment expenses of a company (including corporate public charges, notarial acts, and certified judicial scrivener fees, etc.), ⑤ all incidental services related to the establishment of a company and lease contract of a company, and remuneration for such advisory services are paid in consideration of such advisory services. In such case, the lease deposit paid in accordance with the above contract cannot be deemed to include KRW 200 million.

2) Under the preceding table, the above KRW 300 million and KRW 200 million paid to AJ on January 12, 2009 are different from each other’s “provisional payment of the establishment cost” and “the deposit for actual lease of office.” As alleged by the Defendant, AF employee E-T may have been paid to AF employee E-T because the AF employee E-T had affixed the AF representative director on the lease agreement as alleged by the Defendant.

3) AW made a statement to the effect that KRW 200 million is included in the lease deposit amount of KRW 300 million that he/she directly received at the prosecution, and that prior AJ made a statement to the same effect in the case of a complaint filed by AW for occupational embezzlement. The above KRW 300 million is separate from the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million is paid by AJ to the effect that the Defendant would preferentially repay the money borrowed from the BH savings bank in the name of AJ for the purchase of shares. The statement in this court is not inconsistent with the aforementioned objective materials, and it is difficult to readily dismiss the previous statement in AW, while it is difficult to readily dismiss the statement in this court, there is a false possibility to avoid the suspicion of occupational embezzlement.

4) The AJ stated at the prosecution, on December 14, 2009, that the amount of KRW 130 million out of KRW 330 million paid to it, including acquisition tax, shall be KRW 130 million, and the remainder of KRW 200 million shall be KRW 200,000,000,000, which is part of KRW 1.7 billion, of the amount invested by the president of A. However, the above statement was made during the examination on the premise that the amount of KRW 200,000,000, which was paid to AW, includes KRW 300,000,000,000, which is KRW 200,000,000,000.

5) As a result, AF spent a total of KRW 630 million in need of expenditure (=20 million in lease deposit + KRW 130 million in registration of establishment + KRW 300 million in advisory service fees + KRW 300 million in advisory service fees). AW, which was paid prior to the lease deposit, had the authority to dispose of KRW 200 million paid to AJ, and there is room to view that the Defendant paid KRW 200 million to AW, which was paid to AW, late payment of its own shares, which was paid in lieu of AW.

3. The point of giving property in breach of trust or giving property in the name of support payments for Defendant A and C, a political person from the police station

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) Defendant A

The Defendant not only is the president of E but also is in a position to exercise overall control over F by substantially controlling F, a subsidiary of E, and led to the success in entering into a scrap metal sales contract between J and F in 2013 (from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013) by pressure with K in the process of entering into a scrap metal sales contract in 2013 with K.

Until now, G, which has been in accordance with the scrap metal sales contract between J and F, was able to obtain an opportunity to enjoy profits from J by means of the above pressure measures of E and K, as well as to obtain a further opportunity for DK to participate in the scrap metal transaction with J around March 2006 at the time when the original Defendant C, which was the representative director of J, retired from office on March 2012, and at that time N was appointed as the senior representative director, the Defendant C had no choice but to depend on the Defendant who exercised absolute influence over the contracts between J and F, and between F and G.

Defendant’s attempt to demand money and valuables to Defendant C by using such dynamic relations;

On December 2012, 2012, Defendant C provided money and valuables to Defendant C at the E office located in the Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of providing support money to support a politician from the police origin. The amount of KRW 2 million to KRW 3 million, and Defendant C accepted Defendant C’s solicitation to request convenience in view of F’s exclusion of other companies and conclusion of a scrap metal sales contract with G.

Accordingly, around January 2013, the Defendant received KRW 3,00,000 in cash from Defendant C as a support fund for a politician from the police officer in accordance with the purport of the above solicitation. From around that time to February 2014, the Defendant received KRW 22,00,000,000 in total from Defendant C under the same name as in the attached crime list (1) as shown in attached Table 1, from around 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation and received KRW 22,00,000 in total,00 in return for the illegal solicitation.

2) Defendant C

The Defendant, as described in the foregoing paragraph 1, made an illegal solicitation to Defendant A who practically operates F in relation to the provision of convenience in scrap metal transactions related to G in the operation of the Defendant, and granted KRW 22,00,000 in cash in return.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the fact that Defendant C delivered a sum of KRW 22,000,000 upon Defendant A’s request is recognized.

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that there was an implied solicitation that “F is given the convenience to exclude other companies and conclude a sales contract with G” between Defendant A and Defendant C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) Since the commencement of the scrap metal transaction around March 2006, F and G have not become a problem in selecting other companies since the renewal of the contract every year, and F have not become a problem in selecting other companies. A half of scrap metal sold from F to December 2008 was sold to G via EU, but this is not due to Defendant A or E’s will.

2) There is no evidence to deem that there was a discussion about replacing a trader in F even around December 2, 2012 or around January 2013. Defendant C consistently stated to the effect that there was no talk about the continuation of the transaction relationship between F and G when the Defendant and the support payments were divided into talks about the relationship between F and G, and that there was no fact that the Defendant attempted to change the trading company if he did not provide support payment.

3) Defendant C consistently states that the principal was requested by Defendant A after the end of 2012, prior to the conclusion of the contract for the scrap metal transaction in 2013. However, Defendant C consistently states that the time is whether F was before or after receiving the notice of the suspension of transaction from J. In addition, Defendant C does not appear to have memory as to the portion for which the payment of false benefits was made in the name of Defendant A’s family member. On the other hand, Defendant C does not make a statement on the grounds that the time of solicitation and the time of payment were clearly stated to some extent as to the part for which the payment of false benefits was made in the name of Defendant A’s family member, while Defendant C does not make a statement on the grounds that the payment was made on or around January 2, 2013 through December 2, 2012 (the first payment was made after January 31, 2013 according to the details of withdrawal by Defendant C, etc.). As such, it is doubtful whether there was prior to the conclusion of the contract.

4) Defendant C stated that the reason for payment of money has considerably influenced the human relationship with Defendant A.

4. Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment by Defendant A

A. Summary of the facts charged

As indicated in the facts charged in the judgment below, the Defendant received the criminal proceeds amounting to KRW 40,235,450 in total, as stated in 11-B, from the above Defendant’s family account under the name of the above Defendant’s family member, and pretended to acquire the criminal proceeds, as if they were normal benefits to work and receive from BF.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

"Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment" under Article 3 (1) 1 of the "Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment means an act that disguises the acquisition of criminal proceeds, etc. as if they were properly acquired, or an act that disguises the fact about attribution as if they were not attributed to the criminal proceeds, and "the act that disguises the fact about the cause of criminal proceeds" under Article 3 (1) 2 of that Act refers to an act that disguises as if there exist no facts about the cause of criminal proceeds, or as if there exist no facts that exist no facts about the cause of criminal proceeds. Such an act means an act that can be evaluated as an act separate from the pertinent criminal act that generates criminal proceeds, and it does not constitute such act in itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4408, Sep. 4, 2014).

2) Specific determination

The act of falsely registering a defendant's family member as a BF employee as stated in the facts constituting a crime of 11-3-B in the judgment of the defendant, and transferring money under the name of the above family member is a series of acts of taking property in breach of trust which generate criminal proceeds, and it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was the most favorable act that can be evaluated as a separate act.

5. Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, as stated in paragraph (1), conspired with Defendant A to keep the funds of the victim in the course of business as the actual operator of the victim F, and embezzled KRW 10,000,000 as stated in attached Table No. 49 among them.

B. Determination

1) In a case where the defendant, who committed part of the crime, which is a single comprehensive crime, deviates from the accomplice relationship, but the remaining crime was committed by another accomplice, as seen earlier, the defendant bears the liability for the part in which he did not participate. However, in this case, the part in which the defendant bears the liability for the crime is limited to the part which the defendant conspired until he left the relation of accomplice relationship and the part which is foreseeable from

2) The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, F’s support to K, began at the meeting of J and J during the process of concluding a scrap metal sales contract in 2013; ② According to the Work Agreement of August 6, 2012 in which the Defendant participated, F intended to provide assistance to veterans within the limit of 20% of the profits from the sales of scrap metal (Article 3(1)); the term of the Convention was from August 6, 2012 to December 31, 2015 (Article 4); ③ the Defendant resigned from the office of the representative director on June 24, 2014; and the sales contract between F and J terminated terminated in 2014; the Defendant and the Defendant’s Defendant’s recruitment period of the above Convention was insufficient to recognize that there was a lack of evidence to support the Defendant’s embezzlement and the Defendant’s performance of duty during the period of the embezzlement; and there was no evidence to acknowledge that there was a lack of evidence to support the Defendant’s performance of duty.

6. Conclusion

Since all of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is necessary to determine innocence against the Defendants pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the facts charged as stated in Articles 58(2) through 4. are to be pronounced not guilty, but the summary of this part of the judgment is not publicly announced in accordance with the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act because Defendant A and C consented to the pronouncement of a judgment

However, the facts charged as stated in paragraph (1) are found guilty of the crime that is contained in this part of the facts charged [the facts charged as stated in paragraph (1)], and the facts charged as stated in paragraph (5) are the facts charged as a single comprehensive crime with this part of the facts charged / [2] as long as the facts charged as the crime of occupational embezzlement as stated in paragraph (1)

Judges Kang Jin-han

Judges Do Residents-ho

the following shall be recognized:

2) The purport that the proportion of '5' belonging to F is reverted to K as equal to '1'

3) The F and J Sales Contract Act of 2012

Article 2 (Term of Validity of this Agreement) The term of validity of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2012 to January 12, 2012, and 31.

4) Article 8(5) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that a resident or manager shall file a report on assembly in the residential area, the area surrounding the school, and the area surrounding the military installations.

If a request is made for the protection of a facility or a place, an assembly or demonstration may be prohibited or restricted. This is provided in a residential area, etc.

Since the assembly is highly likely to infringe upon the private property rights, privacy, etc. of others, it is necessary to seek harmony between such rights and freedom of assembly.

Although the above provisions are not expressly stated, assemblies in the neighborhood of religious facilities can also be seen as corresponding to this.

5) As alleged by the Defendant, the value of the AF shares calculated by the prosecution by the method of net asset value assessment is KRW 2,567 as of March 2012, which is the value of the AF shares.

1,796.9 won shall not exceed 1,800 won even if 30% of the non-standing discount is made.

6) The remaining capital out of the total amount of 6 billion won: 2,393,00,000,000 as of March 2, 2016; and 1,850,000,000,000 as of September 2, 2016; and standard for March 2017

1,525,00,000 won

7) determine the type on the basis of the sum of the amount of profit from embezzlement and breach of trust for the same concurrent crimes.

8) Since a person acquired an unproperty interest in the amount as a crime of conflict, the amount of profit shall be deemed to be equivalent to the amount of profit less than 30 million won.

9) The lower limit of the applicable sentences under the law is higher than the lower limit (two years) of the recommended sentencing criteria set forth in the sentencing guidelines, set at the statutory lower limit of the applicable sentencing range.

10) The type shall be determined on the basis of the sum of the amount of profit from embezzlement and breach of trust for the same concurrent crimes.

11) Since a person acquired an unproperty profit in the amount as a crime of conflict, the amount of profit is deemed to be less than 30 million won.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.