(b) Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

2. B

Law Firm F, Attorneys G and H (Defendant B)

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant B is innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant B is publicly announced.

1. Criminal history records and status of Defendant A;

(a) Criminal records;

On December 17, 2009, Defendant A was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution in the Seoul Central District Court for a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 14, 2013.

(b) Status;

Defendant A owned 3.69% of the shares of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Co., Ltd.") from March 21, 2010 to the "Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd.

2. The outline of the relevant company;

I is a corporation established on April 3, 1996 and listed on the KOSDAQ with the purpose of developing and supplying system software, etc. The purpose of which is to develop and supply system software, and the Dispute Resolution Committee (which, from March 25, 201, to "CY"; hereinafter referred to as "CY") is a non-permanent corporation established for new drug development projects, etc. on April 3, 1998, and is a subsidiary company of the Dispute Resolution Committee. The Dispute Resolution Committee is a corporation established for the purpose of electric vehicle research and development, etc. on February 7, 2002, and the Dispute Resolution Committee is a corporation established for the purpose of changing the system software to "CYN" on June 2, 2008, and the Dispute Resolution Committee is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing electronic equipment manufacturing business, etc. on June 22, 2008, and the Credit Resolution Committee is a corporation established for the purpose of selling fertilizers and sales business on December 29, 198.

3. On November 25, 2009, Defendant A, who has operated the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. at the time of this case, will acquire the shares of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (3.68%) and the right of management held by the largest shareholder, representative director, in order to acquire the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. with capital without capital. ① The Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (I at the time of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.) shall cooperate with K so that it can be separated or sold from the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. under the direction of K, and ② Defendant A shall pay the current remuneration to a person designated by K or K until the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd is separated or sold. ③ Defendant A and K shall cooperate with the owner of the preemptive right to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. issued at the time to acquire the shares of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Defendant A shall not participate in the management of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., with one executive officer in charge of finance or one executive officer, and SK shall appoint a new Dispute Resolution Co.

However, at the time Defendant A acquired the shares and management rights of the company at the time of the acquisition of the shares and management of the company, the cumulative company's net loss in the year 2008 up to 28.7 billion won in the total amount of 47.3 billion won and 48.3 billion won out of the total amount of 50.7 billion won was in a situation where it is impossible to recover. The assets held for business activities were limited to 2.4 billion won, and the existence of the company itself was not clear.

4. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to violation of duty of report or disclosure by listed corporations, etc.

Defendant A agreed to acquire management rights and equity shares of K in 209. On November 2009, after raising funds through the third party allotment of the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K in the K market, and the K in the K in the K the K 2 the K in the K 1. the K in the K 381.

Accordingly, Defendant A made a false statement or representation on each of the important matters of the securities (Correction) statement and the investment prospectus as above.

5. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to violation of duty to report stocks.

Any officer or major shareholder of a stock-listed corporation shall report to the Securities and Futures Commission and the Exchange the ownership status of specific securities, etc., which he/she owns on his/her own account regardless of in whose name he/she is named.

Defendant A was in a position to appoint an executive officer of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. and to exercise a dominant influence over major decision-making or the execution of business affairs, such as management strategies, organizational restructuring, etc. of the said company, from November 2009, and was allocated 1940,000 shares (1.8%) to a third party on or around December 30, 2009 and did not perform his/her duty to report stocks owned by him/her even though the major shareholder was allocated 1942,00 shares (1.8%).

6. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

When Defendant A lends funds to other corporations such as a subsidiary company, etc., Defendant A is unlikely to repay the loan in light of the financial status and operation status of the relevant corporation, he/she shall take appropriate measures, such as not lending funds or receiving security from the relevant corporation even if he/she does not lend funds. In addition, even if it is not necessary for the management of the relevant corporation, Defendant A has a duty to ensure that no loss is incurred by lending unnecessary funds to a large shareholder or a subsidiary company for the substantial interest of a management right holder.

L at the time is very low that annual sales do not amount to 70 million won, and there was a large amount of business losses and net losses each year, and the cumulative losses by the end of 2009 were unable to engage in normal business activities by the end of 29 billion won. As of 2009, the loan 20.4 billion won appropriated by the L in the LAB as of 2009 was raised from the LAB, the parent company, as the whole parent company, and the dependence on the parent company was absolute, and the above loan was publicly announced that it was used in the total amount of research and development expenses, but it was almost unlikely to receive repayment even if it was additionally lent by December 2009, because there was no virtual outcome.

Nevertheless, when acquiring shares and management rights without capital from K, it is necessary for the above K to provide the existing shares of the K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K. K-P.

As a result, Defendant A violated his duties, thereby causing property damage equivalent to KRW 4.75 billion to the damage company, which is the damage company, and acquired property profit equivalent to that of the same amount in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness V and K;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning W;

1. Each prosecutor's statement of the prosecution against X,Y, Z, AA, AB, K, D, AE, AF, AH, AI, AJ, K, AL, and AM;

1. Each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 75, 137, 156, 158, 234, 277, 324, 328, 355, 49, 514, 516, 518, 520, 551, 599);

1. The current status of subscription and allotment of the share price and trading volume ( January 2010), third-party allotment certificates ( December 30, 209), details of sales of all third parties, status of transfer of received stocks and sales, details of calculation of penalty surcharges against A; details of calculation of penalty surcharges against A; details of calculation of penalty surcharges against B; details of calculation of penalty surcharges against A; details of bank transactions by L, A, L, and I; copy of the check paid to K; copy of the check withdrawn from A and AL account by K deposited into an investment association; and details of deposit and withdrawal transactions in which K deposits into an investment association;

1. Copy of corporate register, corporate information, certified transcript of corporate register, corporate information and corporate information, certified transcript of corporate register, corporate information, and corporate information, the certified transcript of corporate register, and the certified copy of corporate register;

1. A review report on the stock value of each accounting corporation (Evidence Nos. 56 through 58), I audit report (Annual 2009), summary and financial information among the quarterly financial statements on March 4, 2009, and audit report on the audit report in 209, and audit report on U financial statements;

1. Written agreement dated November 16, 2009, agreement between A-K on November 25, 2009, agreement between A-K on November 25, 2009, content certification sent by A-O to K on November 27, 2009, AO's agreement dated December 8, 2009, and proposal for acquisition of management rights ( September 18, 2009)

1. A corrective registration statement dated December 21, 2009, and an investment prospectus dated December 29, 2009;

1. PP? APJ - Third Party Allocation Schedule on November 24, 2009, and PS on December 11, 2009: e-mail of AMF allocation list, 2009, e-mail of third party allotment certificate, 2009, 30, 12.30, 12.30, 14.45 minutes payment status of AT ? A- AU-AM verification delivery on January 11, 201, 200, e-mail of BT ?Y 0903 U UU23 shareholders' list and contact numbers on February 7, 201 (acquisition of shares in the list of shareholders in 2010, e-mail of 2010).

1. (Affiliated Company) Details of borrowings, each monetary loan agreement (Evidence Nos. 207 through 233);

1. Contracts with J and AV concerning M, the current status of acquisition and change of M stocks, 12 copies of a share sales contract, and one copy of a share value assessment statement, written agreement (SA, K, and A), each share sales contract (Evidence Nos. 305 through 308), a register of shareholders (Evidence No. 309), a certificate of shareholders (Evidence No. 309), a certificate of acceptance of stocks (Evidence No. 426), social minutes (Evidence No. 427), a money loan contract (Evidence No. 428);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Residents of A, criminal records, investigation records, and each written judgment (Evidence Nos. 676 through 678);

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 44 subparag. 13 (b), 122 (False Statement or Indication of Correction Statement, Selection of Imprisonment), 44 subparag. 13 (c), 123 (Selection of Imprisonment), 44 subparag. 31, and 173 (1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Violation of Duty to Report Stocks), Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act (Misappropriation of Trust) of the same Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes and legal mitigation;

Punishment shall be mitigated in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment is rendered simultaneously with the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, etc., for which a judgment of each crime has become final and conclusive, Article 37 (latter part), Articles 39 (1) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust)]

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and Defense Counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

As at December 30, 2009, Defendant A was not a major shareholder who is the subject of the obligation to report the stock ownership, and was not a major shareholder.

2. Relevant statutes;

○ Article 9 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Other Definitionss)

(1) The term "large stockholder" in this Act means a stockholder who falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

2. Any of the following persons (hereinafter referred to as "major shareholder"):

(b) A shareholder who exercises de facto influence over important matters to a corporation through appointment and dismissal of executives, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

○ Enforcement Decree of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

Article 9 (Scope of Major Shareholders)

"Persons prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 9 (1) 2 (b) of the Act means any of the following persons:

1. A shareholder who has appointed the representative director or a majority of directors solely or pursuant to an agreement, contract, etc. with other shareholders;

2. Stockholders' financial investment business regulations prescribed and publicly notified by the Financial Services Commission as exercising dominant influence on major decision-making or execution of business affairs, such as management strategies, organizational changes, etc.

§ 1-6. Scope of major shareholders

"Stockholder prescribed and publicly notified by the Financial Services Commission" in subparagraph 2 of Article 9 of the Decree means a shareholder who is an executive (including a person under any subparagraph of Article 401-2 (1) of the Commercial Act) and holds at least 1/100 of the total number of outstanding voting stocks

○ Commercial Code,

§ 401-2. Liability of a person who instructs to perform business

(1) A person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be deemed a director in the application of Articles 399, 401, and 403 to the duties which he/she instructs or conducts:

1. A person who instructs a director to conduct business by using his influence over the company;

2. A person who directly performs business under the name of director;

3. A person who is not a director but executes business affairs of the company with a name which is deemed to have authority to execute business affairs of the company, such as honorary chairperson, chairperson, president, vice president, senior managing director, executive director,

3. Determination

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence adopted earlier.

1) According to the agreement entered into between Defendant A and K on November 25, 2009, K shall ensure that the candidates for directors and auditors recommended by Defendant A after the said agreement can be appointed at a general meeting of shareholders, and it shall submit a letter of resignation of all the existing executives and auditors to the above Defendant by November 27, 2009, and the above Defendant shall be appointed by the general meeting of shareholders, and the right of decision-making necessary for the management of the company shall be delegated by issuing the corporate seal, transactional seal, etc. to the said Defendant before a new officer is appointed through the general meeting of shareholders.

2) After the above agreement, Defendant A had the director in charge of disclosure B and AM join as a regular director, thereby allowing Defendant A to conduct business such as due diligence and capital increase with consideration.

3) In accordance with the above agreement, K issued a resignation letter of the existing executives, a corporate seal of the bank accounts, etc. to BM, who is an employee of the State in charge of the operation of the bank accounts, and there was no participation in the decision-making related to the operation of the bank accounts, and AM jointly managed the said corporate seal with BM, and used it for the management of the said corporate seal jointly with the Defendant A to conduct the business of the company, such as

4) On December 30, 2009, the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. issued capital increase with capital increase. Defendant A participated in the above capital increase and paid 1940,000 shares (1.8%) and distributed 1940,000 shares (1.8%). Most of the remaining 44 members participating in capital increase with capital increase by the above Defendant’s solicitation, and approximately KRW 15.7 billion was paid with capital increase, and the above Defendant decided to use the capital increase.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition, Defendant A was in a position to make business instructions to the existing executives and employees, such as directors, etc. with considerable influence on the stock and management right transfer of the K on November 25, 2009, immediately after having agreed with the K, Defendant A was in a position to make business instructions with respect to the stock and management right transfer of the K. In relation to the stock and management right offering, which was the major issues of the state at the time, the subscription for new shares was led by the recruitment of participants, and the management right of the K-listed corporation was acquired by acquiring the management right of the K-listed corporation upon the payment of the fund for new shares issued on December 30, 2009. As such, Defendant A, as an executive instruction prescribed in the pertinent laws and regulations as seen earlier, became a major shareholder at the same time with the allocation of shares equivalent to 1.8% of the total number of the I-listed stocks through the above-mentioned fund offering. The above Defendant

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the argument of the defendant A and his defense counsel.

Reasons for sentencing

The crime of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act is a crime that may infringe the reliability of the capital market, and since the amount of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) is considerably high, Defendant A's liability for the crime is not

However, there is no wanting to be punished by Defendant A. After January 21, 2010, the fact that Defendant A has performed the obligation to report the stock holding to the general meeting of the companies in charge of the management of the company in charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, etc., considering the circumstances favorable to the above Defendant. Each of the crimes in this case must consider the equity between the crime of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act and the crime of concurrent crimes in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously in the concurrent crimes in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged against Defendant B

Defendant B is the vice president, director in charge of disclosure from November 25, 2009 to March 201, 201, and I’s representative director from March 201 to August 201.

Defendant B, without using the funds through the new drug development project of the KUB L, which is a subsidiary company, did not use them in the new drug development project of the KUB L, and raised the acquisition fund through the acquisition of stocks of the KUB L through the subsidiary company, and was planned to use it to acquire the stocks of the non-listed company, such as the KUBM and LED electronic sign board manufacturing company's agreement and the KUD electronic sign board manufacturing company's agreement to publicly announce that the third party's allocation of new drug development project will be conducted under the name of the new drug development project, and as described in paragraph (4) of the judgment against Defendant A, as in December 21, 2009, the I's third party allocation of capital to be conducted as of December 30, 2009, prepared a false report on the plan to use the new drug development fund of the subsidiary company including KRW 5.628 billion,000,000,000,000,000,000.

As a result, Defendant B conspired with A to make a false statement or representation on each of the above important matters in the securities registration statement and the investment prospectus.

2. Defendant B and counsel’s assertion

Defendant B merely prepared, submitted, and publicly announced the correction statement and the investment prospectus as described in the above facts charged according to A’s instruction, and did not know that A was a plan to use capital increase with capital increase for a purpose other than that stated in the above correction statement, etc., and there was no intention on the above correction statement, etc.

3. Determination

According to Defendant A, witness V, and K’s statements in each of these courts, AD’s prosecutorial statement, AD’s corrective statement as of December 21, 2009, and the investment prospectus as of December 29, 2009, Defendant B entered a company in charge of the dispute resolution and entered the company in the company in charge of the dispute resolution around November 25, 201, and conducted an inspection by the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in preparation and public announcement of corrective statement and investment prospectus as of September 209, the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge was merely 870 million won as of the end of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., Defendant B did not intervene in the process of acquiring shares from K, and Defendant B did not reside in the office while continuing to work in the existing company AW after becoming a member of the Dispute Resolution Committee, ② Defendant B was in the position of receiving instructions from the Dispute Resolution Committee and did not have any decision-making status, and Defendant B did not attend the board of directors until he was appointed as a registration director on March 2010; ③ Defendant B did not consistently use the revised report for the purpose of acquiring new shares for the purpose of acquiring new shares, and Defendant B did not know that there was no need to use the revised report for the purpose of acquiring new shares for the purpose of using new shares, including the revised report for the purpose of acquiring new shares for the purpose of acquiring new shares, and Defendant B did not consistently use the revised report for the purpose of acquiring new shares for the purpose of acquiring new shares for new shares.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant B is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced under Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act

Records of Judges

Judges Kim Jae-hee