Residence

Permanent domicile

Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Shin Sung-sung, and leapn

Law Firm Seyang, Attorneys Park Byung-hee et al.

From March 1, 1967 to August 10, 1993, the Defendant is the president of the National University; from December 24, 1996 to September 16, 204, as a general manager of overall management, such as personnel affairs, finance, etc. of school foundations and short-term schools; and the “Private School Act” is divided into 9.3 accounts belonging to school foundation (hereinafter referred to as “school accounting”) and accounts belonging to the school foundation (hereinafter referred to as “corporate accounts”); 9.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4. The Defendant’s loan account is further divided into 9.9.4.4.4.4.4.4. The Defendant’s loan account and its affiliated hospital account; and 9.9.4.4.4.4.4.4.4.4. The Defendant’s loan account and its affiliated school foundation’s loan account.

Around January 199, at the office of a university or college located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul. Around that time, the office of a university or college located in Yongsan-gu, Seoul. Around that time, the office of a university or college requested that the lecture room be able to use the library building (basic property for profit of a corporation) being newly constructed at a special graduate school. In such a case, although a school foundation has a duty to secure and use necessary lecture rooms at a university, it shall be able to rent the above building to the university and receive rental deposit from the school foundation, and the office of the school foundation is short of funds necessary for leasing the library building from 90,000 won to 10,000 won under the pretext of rental deposit, from 10,000 won for the total amount of 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 196,000 won for 196.

2. 1989. 12. 경 미합중국 오레곤주 ( Oregon Ashland East main street 199 ) 에 설립한 단국대학교 부속 동양학연구소가 1990. 12. 5. 경까지 사이에 취득한 주택 3동, 연구소 1동 및 농장 1개는 교육용 기본재산이어서 이를 처분할 경우 교육부의 사전 허가를 받아야 할 뿐 아니라 처분 대금은 다시 교비회계로 입금하여 대학교를 위하여 사용하여 함에도 불구하고, 이를 처분하여 학교법인의 부족한 운영자금에 충당하기로 마음먹고, 교육부 허가도 받지 않은 채 , 1997. 11. 경 위 학교법인 단국대학 사무실에서 위 연구소장 임○○에게 위 부동산들의 매각을 지시하여, 임○○가 이를 미화 1, 209, 371달러에 매각하여 그 대금을 단국 대학교를 위해 업무상 보관하던 중 , ( 1 ) 그 중 미화 1, 166, 418달러 ( 한화 1, 688, 975, 296원 ) 는 1998. 1. 31. 부터 2003. 8. 26 .경까지 사이에 10회에 걸쳐 피고인 명의의 외환은행 예금계좌 ( 071 - * * _ * * * * * - * ), 임영재 명의의 우리은행 예금계좌 ( 577 - * * * * * * - * * - * * * ) 및 김ㅇㅇ 명의의 신한은행 예금계좌 ( 330 - * * - * * * * * * ) 로 별지 범죄일람표 2 기재 내용과 같이 나누어 송금하도록 한 후 ,

1) From February 2, 1998 to May 22, 2001, the Plaintiff deposited the total of KRW 1,494,028,592 by pretending the loans from the above ○○○ in the corporate account, and voluntarily consumed the corporate debt repayment funds, etc.; 2) withdrawn KRW 52,00,000 on November 27, 2003, and voluntarily consumed the Defendant’s lapsy as the director’s expense to the head of △△△ branch; and (2) withdrawn the remaining US$ 42,952, which was not remitted to the Republic of Korea on September 9, 2001, and paid KRW 20,00 (Korean Won 28,960,142) to the previous head of the office for the consumption of the loans under the name of the Defendant’s non-permanent head of the office; and (3), 1,475,784,758,747, and 142.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendant’s partial statement in the court; 1. The witness’s legal statement in this court; 2. The witness’s new O, Kim○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, and Ma○○, each legal statement

1. Each part of the protocol of examination of the accused by the prosecution against the accused;

1. 이 ㅇㅇ, 김○○, 장○○, 김ㅇㅇ, 신ㅇㅇ, 김ㅇㅇ, 염○○, 서○○, 양○○에 대한 각 검찰 진술조서의 각 진술 기재

1. The Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation's report on the request for investigation (No. 3), the investigation report (no. 94, such as the approval for temporary use of office buildings), the investigation report (no. 99), the report on the filing of each copy of the draft lease agreement and each copy of the lease agreement at a university or college related to the lease of office buildings (no. 157, No. 157), the report on the filing of copies of the draft lease plan at a university or college related to the lease of office buildings (no. 168), the report on the request for investigation (no. 168) by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation related to the filing of evidentiary materials related to the purchase of the draft lease plan at a university or college related to the building lease of office buildings (use of the purchase price at a university or college of the United States in the same school institute), the report on the filing of the evidentiary materials (no. 201), the report on

1. Report of investigation (a summary order against the loyalty, No. 74), investigation report (a bound copy of the summary order, No. 152), and each description of each attached document;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the act of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, choice of limited term) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 35

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Punishment for Specific Economic Crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Punishment for Specific Economic Crimes under paragraph (1) of the same Article)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Determination as to the assertion by the accused and the defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55(1)3(3) of the Criminal Act

1. As to the crime No. 1 of the holding

A. Summary of the assertion

1) At the time, in order to change the difficult financial situation, the school juristic person changed the library building which was newly built as basic property for education from the Ministry of Education to the property for profit-making purposes, and disposed of it so that the school juristic person can use the library building for securing the repayment of its revenue. Thus, even if the school juristic person leases the library building to a third party without selling it, it is legitimate as it does not go against the purport of the above permission to dispose. Therefore, if the school juristic person leases the library building to the third party, it is necessary for the school juristic person to directly construct the lecture room or lease the building from a third party. Therefore, it is appropriate for the expenditure purpose of the school tuition account restricted by the Private School Act. (3) At the time, the only university Seoul campus was an act suitable for the use of the library tuition account restricted by the Private School Act, and it was impossible for the school juristic person to rent the library to the third party due to the lack of the lecture room from a third party, and the school juristic person could not find a third party to purchase the library building at an appropriate price.

B. Determination

(1) Basic facts

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

① In order to expand school taxes, a university of a single school juristic person’s college was able to build a new medical hospital attached to a medical college in the Yaus mainly dependent on external loans (around 140 billion won was required for construction expenses, and on April 29, 1994, the financial failure or the final settlement on March 7, 1998. At the time of the bankruptcy, the school juristic person was liable for approximately KRW 120 billion, and approximately KRW 30 billion was a bad debt borrowed from the bond company.

(2) As a result of the Ministry of Education’s special audit of a university of the branch of a school foundation and a university of the branch of a university of the operation thereof from March 9, 1998 to March 22, 198 following the default on payment of a university of the branch of a school foundation: Provided, That the branch of a school foundation has been using approximately KRW 21.677 billion in total to an affiliated hospital and an affiliated hospital from March 3, 1990 until February 2, 200, such as the payment of wages to its employees from the affiliated hospital in its general accounts, etc. from around 1990 to around 1.5 billion won (as of February 1, 2005, KRW 6.77 billion has been repaid from among them to March 5, 1997; KRW 1.6 million has been used for the loan of approximately 9.7 billion from March 3, 199 to around 19 to March 5, 199.

③ On April 3, 1998, the Ministry of Education, in principle, shall revoke the approval of the chief director of a school foundation's branch office for the defendant who was the chief director of a school foundation's branch office. However, the Ministry of Education, in order to grant one-year period of time to normalize school foundation, and then decides to revoke the approval of taking office for all the seven directors, seven temporary directors, and two auditors. In addition, the Ministry of Education, in order to order the school foundation's branch office's shipment by May 4, 1998, a detailed repayment plan for the amount of debts.

④ On the other hand, on March 30, 1999, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 10 million as a violation of the Private School Act, with regard to the diversion of school expenses of KRW 71.28 billion and borrowing KRW 56 billion without obtaining permission.

⑤ At the time, in order to secure basic facilities for education in the Seoul Campus, a university of a school foundation as of September 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “university”) promoted the new construction of a government-owned building on the land outside 18 and 90 lots of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “west-gu”) from around September 1989, invested a school foundation’s general account fund of KRW 10.11 billion, KRW 5.67 billion, and KRW 5.7 million in the accounts of school expenses. However, as of July 1997, the construction project is out of money shortage.

The circumstances were the single situation.

② On March 18, 1997, the board of directors passed a resolution on March 18, 1997 to the effect that a newly-built junior college changed the above senior secretary from the basic property for education to the basic property for profit-making purposes, sold more than the appraised value, and used it as the funds for redemption of debts and operation, and the Ministry of Education applied for permission to change the use of the basic property and to dispose of the basic property on December 15, 1997, and the Ministry of Education in the Ministry of Education.

12. On April 19, 198, the Ministry of Education permitted the change of the use of the library building, which is an fundamental property for educational purposes, into the basic property for profit, and the disposition was not permitted. In addition, the school juristic person's college's non-payment order and the Ministry of Education ordered the sale of the library, which is an fundamental property for profit, to the effect that it will sell the library, which is a basic property for profit, and to prepare the funds for the collection of debts, on April 6, 1998. The Ministry of Education issued the permission for the disposal of basic property for profit to the Ministry of Education on April 11, 1998. Accordingly, on the order of priority, the Ministry of Education issued the "permission for the disposal of basic property for profit, on the condition that it can only use the library building, which is an basic property for profit, only in repayment of debts, and on the condition that it can not be used for any other purpose, the order of priority was 36.31 billion won in loans of the university, 9.2 billion won in Seoul.

7) However, on January 7, 1999, the university of a single school foundation established a "Ligue rental plan for the improvement of the educational environment in the specialized graduate school" in which the university of a single school foundation, which was a basic property for profit of a school foundation and has not yet been completed as a basic property for the use of educational facilities from the school foundation, established a "Ligue rental plan for the improvement of the educational environment in the graduate school." Accordingly, on March 5, 1999, the university entered into a lease agreement for the first 10th and 11th of the Seo-gu, with deposit money of 3.4 billion won between the 17th of the 1999 university and the 3.3 billion won of the 36.3 billion won of the 36.3 billion won of the 6489,000 won of the lue deposit, from that date to March 29, 2002.

8) At the time of the first lease agreement on March 5, 1998, since the construction was interrupted, and thus, it was impossible to use the house. However, the school juristic person’s college was 1.8 billion won in addition to the construction cost of the school juristic person transferred from its school expenses until the said time as the construction cost of the school, and its construction cost of about 10.2 billion won, including it, began to use the house for the purpose of the lecture room, etc. after obtaining approval for temporary use on November 12, 1999, and obtained the approval for temporary use on December 4, 200 after the completion of the construction on February 23, 200 and after obtaining the approval for temporary use of the house on December 4, 201. The school juristic person’s college returned 1.8 billion won in addition to the construction cost of the school juristic person’s short-term loan of 1.8 billion won in total, 1.6 billion won in total and 9 billion won in general, 9.6 billion won in general account.

(9) On March 27, 2003, the Korean Teachers' Association filed a civil petition with the Ministry of Education, on the one hand, that a school juristic person uses registration fees for part-time students in a timely manner, and the Ministry of Education filed a civil petition with the Ministry of Education on May 16, 2003.

On September 2, 2004, the educational foundation made a demand for correction to the effect that it should return approximately 36.3 billion won, etc. which is exclusively used by the school foundation for school expenses as a security deposit for the library deposit, to the school foundation, by September 2, 2004, but the defendant et al. failed to comply with it. However, on September 16, 2004, the approval of taking office was revoked for the defendant and the two auditors.

① From March 5, 1999 to March 29, 2002, the prosecutor brought the instant public prosecution only against the Defendant’s exclusive use of KRW 36,316,489,00, totaling 14 times after the summary order issued on March 30, 1990, among the exclusive use of KRW 29,946,489,00,000, which was executed by the Seoul District Court.

(2) The purpose of the legislation of the Private School Act is to establish and operate a 'private school', and the 'private school' is merely an educational facility operated by the 'school foundation', not an independent corporate entity (Article 2 of the Private School Act). Accordingly, the 'school foundation must have facilities and equipment necessary for the establishment and operation of the 'private school' and the 'private school' (Article 5 (1) of the 'private school').

In light of the nature of the school juristic person and the purport of the provisions of the Private School Act, it is clear that school juristic person must provide education facilities necessary for private schools free of charge and can not receive any consideration from private schools.

Therefore, the argument that the lease contract for educational facilities can be legally concluded between the school juristic person's single university's "one university of school foundation" and "one university established and operated by the former university" and accordingly that the school juristic person's single university is legitimate even if it receives rental deposit from a single university is not valid.

2) The Private School Act divides the accounts of private schools into the corporate accounting and the school accounting; further classify the corporate accounting into the general business accounting and the profit-making business accounting; divide the school accounting into the school accounting and the accounts of affiliated hospitals; and strictly limit the use so that the accounts of school expenses may not be transferred or lent to other accounts (Article 29 of the same Act). The revenue of the accounts of school expenses is primarily raised through entrance fees and tuition fees collected from the students, and the expenditure is limited to the expenses directly needed for school education (Article 13(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act).

As such, the Private School Act strictly limits the use of the school expense accounts and prohibits the transfer of the private school to other accounts, to the extent that the management of the private school entirely depends on the school juristic person, it is intended to protect the legitimate expectations of school personnel and students in relation to the quality (level) and continuity of school education by allowing students and school personnel attending the private school to use the funds raised with at least school enrollment fees, regardless of the good and pleasure of the school juristic person’s financial status and management ability.

Therefore, in cases where the funds of school expenses are used for purposes other than those permitted by the Private School Act, in particular, if students do not have any expectation or expectation at the time of entrance and they cannot receive proper education, then school juristic persons and their managers should be liable for damages caused by tort against the students' property damage and mental suffering (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da48412 delivered on January 27, 2005).

As such, in principle, the enrollment fee of students should be used for the education of the paid students, so it is for the expenses directly required for the school education.

In addition, it is inappropriate to take precedence over the education of the present students under the sacrifice of the students who will enter the future by raising and spending school expenses by excessive loans, and to set up excessive school expenses for the future purposes, which is therefore inappropriate to take precedence over the education of the future students under the sacrifice of the present students. Therefore, there is an account item of "facilities cost" and "land and building purchase cost" as property creation cost in the school expenditure budget and resolution of the attached Form 7 of the Financial and Accounting Rules of Private Schools, which is the Ordinance of the Minister of Education, and even if there is an account item of "reserve" in Sub-Section 11, excessive property creation, accumulation and excessive loans are not permitted.

Therefore, due to the characteristics of school expenses, the transfer of school expenses to school foundation and the lending of the school foundation shall be limited to the reasons provided for in each subparagraph of Article 29(6) of the Private School Act and Article 13-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, upon deliberation and resolution by the board of directors of the relevant school foundation, requests the head of the relevant school foundation to transfer and lend the school to the principal after deliberation and resolution by the board of directors. It is only possible that the head of the

An act of using funds for purposes other than the purpose of being entrusted with a strictly limited fund by a third person is established as embezzlement, as it is an act of using funds to realize the intent of unlawful acquisition, even if the funds are exempted from the personal purpose, as well as the personal purpose of using funds. In a case where funds for school expenses are transferred without going through the above procedure and used for another purpose, the crime of embezzlement is established (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do1779, May 10, 2002; 2002Do235, May 30, 2003; 2005Do3929, Sept. 28, 2005, etc.).

On April 6, 1998, the Defendant was planning to dispose of the library in accordance with the permission of the Ministry of Education to dispose of the library, but insufficient funds. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15783, Apr. 6, 1998>

In the second half, the Red machine professor, who was the head of an opportunity for the Han National University at the time, established a plan to adjust the quota of the campus so that 5 departments, such as the astronomical Campus, and the drama film, etc., can come up to the Seoul Campus in 1999, on his own initiative without any side of the school juristic person, and accordingly, it was anticipated that the Seoul Campus will face serious shortage in the lecture room from 1st semester of 1999 to the public announcement of the recruitment of new students.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., ① the president of a university of the Republic of Korea applied for the adjustment of the fixed number of university students in the Ministry of Education on August 5, 1998, and was notified by the Ministry of Education on October 199 of the result of the adjustment of the fixed number of university students in the Ministry of Education on October 1998. According to the results of the adjustment, although the fixed number of the departments (department) and the number of the departments (department) and the weekly and night classes are adjusted, the fixed number of admission for the year 98 and the year 9 was equal to the number 2,380 of the 99-year fixed number of students in the 199-year Seoul Campus in the 199-year, considering the characteristics of each department, the demand for lecture room was finally increased compared to the year 98.

6. From 1980s to 198, it is difficult to see that the 19th anniversary of the fact that it was difficult to use the 19th anniversary of the fact that the 19th anniversary of the fact that the 1st 6th th th th th th th th g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g.

Therefore, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s act of using school expenses in violation of the strict use limit under the Private School Act and arbitrarily transferring school expenses constitutes embezzlement. Therefore, all of the Defendant’s assertion that the school juristic person is able to pay is rejected.

2. As to the crime No. 2 of the holding

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Even if the establishment of a university was only partially used for school expenses of a single university, and the ownership of a local government of the United States newly established in the United States, it is not in essence a basic property for domestic school juristic person, and 2) the disposal of the research institute of the United States is to overcome the national foreign exchange crisis at the time, and the defendant's disposal of the research institute of the United States is to overcome the financial difficulties of a difficult school juristic person, and most of the funds were incorporated into the scholarship fund, and the portion of the funds already paid to the single university of the Republic of Korea, which is subject to the decision to determine the scholarship of the single university of the Republic of Korea. The portion of the funds already paid to the defendant's father's father as the director's expenses is beyond the limited purpose of the disbursement of the school expenses. However, since the defendant's father was already provided as a collateral for the defendant's family member, it is unreasonable that the defendant's disposal of the funds was merely embezzlement of the funds already raised by it but immediately recovered the funds.

B. Determination

1) According to the evidence mentioned above, ① the above school juristic person has borrowed 2 US dollars 50,00 from 190 to 200,000 won of its own account, ② the school juristic person has not reported the acquisition thereof to the Ministry of Education, but the school juristic person has managed the pertinent real estate as its basic property in 190 to 200,000 won, ② the real estate was transferred from 200 U.S. dollars 9 to 200,000 won to the above private school juristic person’s account; ② the defendant has been in the name of 206,000 won to 196,000 U.S., 200,000 won to 196,0000 won to 20,0000 won to 196,0000 won to 20,0000 won to the above private school juristic person’s own property, 3.0,000 won to be transferred to the above private school juristic person.

The facts that deposited the account in the name of the school juristic person, and (4) the defendant was pointed out that the funds created as above were donated to the school juristic person. The defendant and the school juristic person associates with the school juristic person associates with the scholarship donation on October 12, 2005 and transferred the funds to the real estate sales account for school expenses. Ultimately, the crime of embezzlement is established on the ground that the funds were used arbitrarily for the purpose of the school juristic person's general account, such as the money to repay debts to the school juristic person, etc., and the crime of embezzlement was already examined in the judgment as to paragraph (1) of the crime. In addition, according to the above evidence, as the above evidence lacks of the director expenses of the school juristic person head of Mari-dong around November 27, 2003, the defendant, separate from the funds that were disposed of with loans borrowed from Ha Young-dong in the above real estate sale fund, and it was recognized that 50 million won was used as the funds deposited in the United States with the above real estate sale fund, and thus, the funds were immediately returned after the establishment of the crime.

4) Meanwhile, the above evidence shows that ① the Defendant was an employee of the school foundation, who had been in the name of 0 or more than 10 years old, and was sent to the U.S. university for 1 year since September 1, 204 because it was difficult for the Defendant to use the funds for his own account at the time of 0th anniversary of the fact that it was difficult for the Defendant to use the funds again for 0th anniversary of the fact that the Defendant was in the name of 0th school foundation to use the funds again for 0th school foundation’s own account, and that it was difficult to use the funds again for 0th school foundation to use the funds again for 0th school foundation’s own account, and that it was difficult to use the funds again for 0th school foundation’s own account to use the funds again for 0th school foundation’s own account at the time of 0th anniversary of the fact that the funds were distributed to the Defendant for 2nd school foundation’s original purpose, and that the funds were not distributed to the Defendant during 2nd school foundation’s.

The defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

The reason for sentencing is that the founder or his/her family immediately establishes a private school has an independent position that contributes to the public interest and functions of the State and society by starting the category of simple private property that can be disposed of in the mind of the mind. Therefore, the operator of the private school including the founder of the private school must endeavor to enable the private school having independent status to properly perform his/her own role and functions.In addition, for the diversity and autonomy of learning and education, the private school managers enjoy autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution, but it is only possible to the extent that it complies with all relevant legal provisions, such as the Private School Act, which can be called as the minimum community norm necessary to prevent the private school managers from doing

From March 1967 to August 1993, the Defendant, a founder of a single-national university, was appointed as a single-national professor at the age of 3 years of age 26, 1958, and was in possession of a permanent position, such as the president of a single-national university and the director of a school foundation, from March 26, 1967 to August 1993. The Defendant, subject to an audit by the Ministry of Education in relation to the principle of illegal admission expenses in 1993, submitted a resignation report to the president on August 1993. However, on December 13, 1996, the Defendant, who was appointed as the president of the school juristic person and was revoked the approval of taking office from the Ministry of Education for the diversion of the school expenses in this case, has been practically controlling and managing a single-national university regardless of the official position for the past 40 years from September 16, 2004.

The financial difficulties, insolvency, and the diversion of school expenses of a single school juristic person seems to be ultimately attributable to the establishment of an affiliated hospital of a astronomical medical college based on the loan without a close plan for the mobilization of funds, notwithstanding the fact that the existence of a medical college is one of the important indices to determine the status of a university. Of course, the development of a university, in essence, is secured by securing sufficient financial resources and able teaching personnel, securing outstanding students, and securing them to enhance the research work of professors and train able human resources, but it is possible to achieve by creating an affiliated hospital of a large scale medical college and an affiliated hospital of a university and expanding the size of a camp. However, even depending on the loan, it becomes a source of this problem.

In order to recover insolvency financial institutions, it has been invested more than 95.9 billion won as a national tax. In addition, in order for a school foundation's college to repay the principal and interest of its obligations, it has been used from 1990 to 10 billion won, but has yet to be returned the amount of money to 10 billion won.

When the business that is transferred to Hannam-dong Seoul Campus is completed, the Defendant can repay all the foreign liabilities of school juristic persons and their dedicated school expenses through the development gains. As a matter of course, the exclusive school expenses must be fully refunded, and this court also does not go to the progress of such a project. However, the Defendant does not fully consider the damage to the single-party students who have made a sacrifice for the defendant's unreasonable attempt to expand school taxes for ten or more years. However, the reputation of the single-party branch was accumulated until the 1980s, and the damage and wife suffered by the students who were enrolled in the single-party branch in the 1990s after receiving the false education during the 1990s can not be easily recovered or cured even if the dedicated school expenses are returned to the future. The provisions of the strict restriction on the use of the Private School Act in the Private School Act are to protect the rights and interests of the students and to prevent the transfer of the private school managers.

The Defendant had already been sentenced to the suspension of the disposition of cancellation of appointment by the president of the Ministry of Education with respect to the exclusive use of school expenses until the time when the school juristic person was insolvent on March 7, 1998, and the Seoul District Court was also sentenced to a fine of KRW 10 million due to the violation of the Private School Act. Until then, the Defendant, who had the power to guide within the university, has been still at the core of the Defendant, and was expected to distort the illegal act and contribute to the normalization of the university of the university of the father of the university of the university. However, the Defendant had failed to expect such expectation. However, the Defendant was unable to transfer the school expenses simply as a loan under the previous general account as far as the relevant authorities had followed the regulations on the restriction of school expenses under the Private School Act and make the appearance of the Defendant’s voluntary use of the school juristic person’s funds for the purpose exceeding 30 billion in general account.

At the time of the bankruptcy, the Defendant was able to repay the liabilities of school juristic persons and normalize the college by continuing innovative restructuring to the existing irregular structure and selling the intangible assets that are unnecessary at the time of the default. However, the intention to reduce the expanded external type of punishment was no longer, and the Defendant could no longer borrow new funds from the outside. In the end, the Defendant tried to resolve it through the diversion of school expenses.

In addition, the Defendant contributed to the establishment of a single university by contributing a significant amount of money to the Defendant, and contributed to the development of a single university by contributing a considerable amount of money to the Defendant, and the Defendant contributed to the development of a single university in various aspects, including the sports community. However, the failure to punish such errors would result in the collapse of the State and society. Furthermore, even if the Defendant received one-time advance notice on the significant overcoming errors until the time of the nonperformance, the Defendant would be subject to punishment for the portion of his/her refusal.

However, in this case, since the diversion of school expenses was caused by the expenses for the establishment of an affiliated hospital for medical colleges and the new construction of a library, it should be sufficiently considered that the school expenses can be seen that the value of the school expenses is converted to a medical school, an affiliated hospital for medical colleges, or a library, and therefore, the exclusive school expenses are transferred to outside of the accounts of school expenses, but they were not transferred to outside of the school foundation’s framework or used for the direct private interest of the defendant.

Considering such circumstances and the criminal defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings shall be determined within the scope of the sentence mitigated by discretionary mitigation.

Judges Lee Jae-chul

Judges and higher morals

A person shall be appointed.