A. As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment below

The sale of Nonindicted Co. 2 was made at a reasonable price based on business management judgment. The Defendant only intended to acquire Nonindicted Co. 2 at a lower price as possible from the buyer’s standpoint, and did not actively participate in the act of breach of trust by the joint criminal defendant. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on breach of trust, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the crime No. 2 of the judgment below

In light of the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 1.36 billion from Nonindicted Co. 2 to pay the purchase price of stocks, the Defendant acquired all of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, but the Defendant did not issue the share certificates, and thus, the said shares play a role as collateral for the above loan, the Defendant agreed to pay interest on the loan, and there was no intention or circumstance to sell the shares of this case to a third party at the time, it is difficult to deem that there was an intention in breach of trust by Nonindicted Co. 3 or the Defendant, and the Defendant merely was merely a person who benefiting from Nonindicted Co. 3’s act, and thus, cannot be deemed a joint principal offender of the crime of breach of trust. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged, by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of breach of trust, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment below

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, around July 2003, which was at the time of the sales contract of the shares of the non-indicted 2 corporation, the proper sale price of the shares of the non-indicted 2 corporation can be sufficiently recognized that the shares were sold at a price much less than that of the non-indicted 32,085,000 won, and the following circumstances recognized by each of the above evidence are the president of the non-indicted 1 corporation who is the parent company of the non-indicted 2 corporation, the co-defendant of the non-indicted 2 corporation, and the accountant in charge of the non-indicted 2 corporation at that time, who was engaged in the management of the above company's accounts and funds, were to evaluate the value of the non-indicted 2 corporation below actual value and sell them to the non-indicted 3 corporation below. Accordingly, the co-defendant of the court below ordered the non-indicted 2 corporation to take measures to reduce the value of the assets of the non-indicted 3 corporation or the defendant's joint act of sale after consultation with the non-indicted 3 corporation's intent.

B. As to the crime No. 2 of the judgment below

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, such as the procedure for calculating the sales price for Nonindicted Co. 2 and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant ordered Nonindicted Co. 2, a person in charge of accounting, and Nonindicted Co. 2, a representative director of Nonindicted Co. 2, to withdraw KRW 1.36 million for the loan of major shareholders without offering collateral as a de facto major shareholder when the purchase fund was insufficient, and Nonindicted Co. 3, a representative director of the Nonindicted Co. 2, a representative director of the Nonindicted Co. 3, a person in charge of accounting, borrowed the above money for the loan of major shareholders without setting the due date for the loan without offering any collateral. The defendant raised the purchase price for the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 with the funds held by Nonindicted Co. 2, a special method at the time of the purchase, and thereafter, the defendant did not have any special method to prepare the above funds for the shares. In light of the fact that the defendant did not fully repay the above funds for the loan of major shareholders and disposed of other Nonindicted Co. 2 after six months, Ltd.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)