B. Violation of the Labor Standards Act

(c) Property in breach of trust;

2.(c) B

3.(a)(b) C.

4.(b)(D)

5.c) E;

6.c)F

Attorney J (Defendant B, C, and D)

Attorney K (Defendant E, F)

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive. The amount of KRW 210,00,000 from Defendant A, and KRW 15,00,000 from Defendant B shall be collected respectively. As to Defendant A and B, the amount equivalent to the above additional collection charges, and as to Defendant C, D, E, and F, the amount equivalent to the above additional payment shall be ordered.

Defendant A was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for taking property in breach of trust at the Busan District Court on September 10, 2010, and the parole period on December 23, 2011 during the execution of the sentence in the racing prison was expired on March 16, 2012. Defendant C was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for taking property in breach of trust at the Busan District Court on January 30, 2015 and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 26, 2015. Defendant D was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution for taking property in breach of trust at the Busan District Court on January 30, 2015 and on July 15, 2015.

2015Gohap181 Defendant A

The Defendant is the head of the above M branch from around December 1994 to June 2005, the head of the above M branch from around June 2005 to August 2009, the head of the N branch (the above M branch is divided into N,00 as of August 20, 2009), the head of the N branch from around August 2009 to May 20, 201 (the above N branch is divided into N,00), the head of the above N branch from around May 201 to around July 201, the above N branch is the head of the above N branch from around July 201 to around July 201, the general member of the N branch from around July 201 to around February 2013, the above N branch is the member of the N branch from around July 20, 201 to the above N branch’s new member of the N branch from around March 23, 201, and the above N branch’s new member of the N.

1. P-related matters;

On April 10, 2012, the Defendant received 20,000,000 won under the pretext of the case cost and participated in the employment of others for profit by receiving 20,000 won from P, who was a member of the L Union N branch of Busan East-gu Q apartment, and made a solicitation from P, who was a member of the L Union N branch, to be employed by the said union.

2. S-related matters;

On June 10, 2013, the Defendant received 20,000,000 won from the Defendant’s house located in Busan East-gu T apartment 201, 201-201, in response to the Defendant’s solicitation that he would be employed by the above N branch’s employees as the members of the association, and received 20,000,000 won under the pretext of the case cost, and received money and valuables in exchange for illegal solicitation in connection with its affairs, and participated in the employment of others for profit

3. V-related

On January 1, 2014, the Defendant received 30,000,000,000 won in exchange for an illegal solicitation in connection with its affairs from members V belonging to the above NN branch office in Busan, Dong-gu, Busan, and received 30,000,000 won in the name of the case, and received money and valuables from the Defendant in exchange for an illegal solicitation in connection with its affairs. X-related affairs

Around September 13, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 3,00,000,00 from X, a member of the said NN branch, in response to a request for promotion to the chief, from the above NN branch’s office, and received KRW 5,000,000 in total for the same purpose at the same place on January 24, 2014, and received KRW 5,000,000 in cash for the same purpose at the same place, and received money and valuables in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with the duties thereof. “Defendant A, B, and Defendant C are those who worked as a member of the LF branch’s NF branch. From around September 13, 2017 to September 18, 2014, Defendant C works as the head of the NN branch, assisting the head of the NN branch in the affairs of recommendation for the members of the branch office, etc.

Defendant A works as the head of the N branch office from May 23, 2013 to March 31, 2015, and is a person in charge of affairs such as recommendation of new members, who were employed as the head of the N branch office from March 31, 2015 to the prosecution.

1. Defendant B

On December 2, 2012, the Defendant received a request from Y, a member of the NN branch, to have the same Z as a member of the LF and received a request from Y, and on January 7, 2013, the two mothers of the above 2 were transferred from AA to the bank account in the name of the Defendant’s wife AB.

On May 19, 2014, the Defendant received 11 million won in cash at the Mono-dong branch of the Korean bank located in Mono-dong, Busan, and 21 million won in cash from the home of the AA located in the Busan, and received 21 million won in cash from the above AA to the Busan bank account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

The Defendant immediately withdrawn 4 million won in cash and prepared a total of 25 million won in cash, and moved to the vicinity of a teahouse located in the Seocho-gu Busan Metropolitan City, which is a place agreed in advance with the above C, and then paid 25 million won in return for soliciting employment of the said Z.

Ultimately, the Defendant received KRW 40 million in total from the above AA under the pretext of employment solicitation in the Z, and delivered KRW 25 million among them to the above C, thereby making illegal solicitation regarding the above C’s duties and providing money and valuables, and at the same time participating in the employment of others for profit.

2. Defendant C and A

On May 19, 2014, the Defendants conspired to receive money in return for hiring the above Z as a member of the LEU. On May 19, 2014, Defendant C received 25 million won in return for employment of the above Z from B as a member of the LEU as stated in the above paragraph (1) through the Defendant’s type AD. On the same day, Defendant A received the above 25 million won from the Defendant’s house located in the Busan East-gu AE apartment 201 Dong-dong 201, and received money from C in return for unjust solicitation and participated in the employment of others for profit. Defendant A, D, E, E, F, from around July 201 to February 2013, 2012 to the head of the above NAN’s new branch or Ban’s recommendation from around 31, 2015 to the head of the NAN, and Defendant A, from around 35, 2012 to the head of the NAN’s new branch or Ban’s recommendation.

Defendant D is a person who, from September 2004 to February 2, 2015, served as the head of the Ban affiliated with L labor union N branch and assisted the head of the branch by assisting the members, work management, recommendation of new members, etc.

Defendant E is a member of the above sub-branch from June 2008, and a person who works as the head of the above sub-branch from April 2012.

Defendant F is a member of the L Union branch from November 2010.

1. Property in breach of trust with respect to Defendant F, Defendant E, AF, AG, and H;

From around February 2012 to February 2013, the Defendants received the request from the above association members, who are Defendant F’s will, from AF, AG, and AH, to provide money and valuables with AF’s employment solicitation.

(a) Property in breach of trust related to AF;

On November 2012, the Defendants received KRW 30 million from AF in the AI office in Busan East-gu in exchange for a solicitation to be employed as a LF trade union member from AF as a case fee. On January 2013, the Defendants issued the above KRW 30 million to A in addition to the solicitation to the same effect at the above AI parking lot.

As a result, in collusion with AF, the Defendants made an illegal solicitation about the duties and provided KRW 30 million to A.

(b) Property in breach of trust related to AG;

around February 2013, Defendant E received KRW 30 million from AG to request for employment of L also as a partner at AG's coffee shop located in the Gu of Busan in Busan, and delivered it to Defendant F. Defendant F around that time, along with the solicitation to the same effect at the above AI parking lot.

Accordingly, in collusion with AG, the Defendants made an illegal solicitation about their duties and provided KRW 30 million to A.

(c) Property in breach of trust related to AH;

On February 2, 2013, the Defendants received KRW 30 million from AH to a trade union member at a main station near the Busan metropolitan area located in the Seocho-gu Busan metropolitan area, along with a solicitation to request AH to be employed as a LCO member. Defendant F issued the above KRW 30 million to A in addition to the solicitation to the same effect at the AI parking lot, such as paragraph 1.(b).

Accordingly, in collusion with AH, the Defendants made an illegal solicitation about their duties and provided KRW 30 million to A.

2. Defendant AF, AG, AH-related property in breach of trust, and violation of the Labor Standards Act

A. Breach of trust related to AF and violation of the Labor Standards Act

From January 2012 to January 2013, the Defendant received F and E’s employment solicitation as described in the foregoing Paragraph 1, and around January 2013, the Defendant received KRW 30 million from F in the above AI parking lot to receive money and valuables in exchange for an illegal solicitation in relation to his/her duties, and participated in the employment of others for profit.

B. Violation of the Labor Standards Act, AG, AH-related property in breach of trust

On February 2, 2013, the Defendant received the employment solicitation from F and E with respect to AG and AH as above, and around February 2, 2013, the Defendant received 60 million won in total from F in the above AI parking lot from F in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to its duties, and participated in the employment of others for profit.

3. Defendant D, Defendant A’s property in breach of trust related to AL, Defendant D’s violation of the Labor Standards Act, upon receipt of a solicitation from AM to “aL from AM to be employed as a member of the L Trade Union,” around March 2013, and around that time, Defendant A sent the above contents to Defendant A, and Defendant A received money and valuables related to the employment of AL with consent thereto.

After that, around March 2013, Defendant D, who was parked in the AO hotel near Busan Jung-gu, Busan, received KRW 20 million in return for the AL employment deposit from AMF from the Defendant D’s car on the No. D’s No. D’s street, and around that time, delivered the above KRW 20 million to Defendant A at the parking lot of the above N branch office located in the Busan Southern-gu AP. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to receive money and valuables in return for an illegal solicitation from AM in relation to their duties and engaged in the employment of others for profit.

Summary of Evidence

“2015 Highest 181

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness V, P, X, Q, AR, and AS;

1. Each prosecutor's statement of S;

1. Each fact-finding certificate (the sequence 29,30,31,54 of the evidence list);

1. Each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 26, 34, 38, 44, 48) 2015, 461;

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution against Y and AD;

1. Investigation report (Nos. 2 and 9 of the evidence list) 2015,465;

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the AL, AM, AF, AG, and AH;

1. Each fact-finding certificate (the sequence 2, 11, 27, 29 of the evidence list);

Criminal Records of Judgment

1. Defendant A: Criminal records, personal identification and confinement status, and investigation reports (suspect A's previous criminal records and search reports) in the case 2015 Gohap181;

1. Defendant C: Criminal records and investigation reports of the case (written confirmation of the details of the case being tried byC);

1. Defendant D: Criminal records and investigation reports in the case of 2015 Gohap465 (Confirmation, etc. of whether the judgment of Defendant D has become final and conclusive);

[Defendant A and his defense counsel asserted that there is no money for employment or promotion solicitation from P, V, and X. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above P, V, and X stated that Defendant A paid each amount of KRW 20 million,30 million, and five million in terms of employment or promotion solicitation from the investigative agency to this court. Not only does there are reasonable circumstances to suspect consistent, concrete, and credibility, but also correspond to A Q, AR, and AS statements. In light of this, Defendant A and their defense counsel have received sufficient payment of KRW 20 million,30 million, and five million in terms of employment or promotion solicitation from P, V, and X as stated in facts of crime. Thus, Defendant A and their defense counsel have not been accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant A: Article 357(1) of each Criminal Act (a) (a) of the Criminal Act; Article 357(1) of each Criminal Act; Articles 357(1), 30 (a), 357(2), and 30 (a) of each Criminal Act; (b) Articles 107, 9(a) (a) of each Labor Standards Act; (c) intervention in employment for profit-making purposes related to P, S, AF, AG, and AH); Articles 107 and 9 of each Labor Standards Act; (d) Article 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; (e) intervention in employment for profit-making purposes related to AL.

○ Defendant B: Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of giving rise to breach of trust) and Articles 107 and 9 of the Labor Standards Act (the occupation of intervention in employment for profit-making purposes)

○ Defendant C: Articles 357(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 107 and 9 of the Labor Standards Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of intervention in employment for profit-making purposes)

○ Defendant D: Articles 357(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 107 and 9 of the Labor Standards Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of intervention in employment for profit-making purposes)

○ Defendant E: Articles 357(2) and (1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of giving rise to breach of trust)

○ Defendant F: Articles 357(2), 357(1), and 30 of each Criminal Code (the point of giving rise to breach of trust)

1. Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act (the crimes of taking property in breach of trust by each person who is entrusted with employment by each person who is entrusted with employment, the crimes of violation of each Labor Standards Act, and the punishment on each of the crimes of violation of the Labor Standards Act, which are more severe);

○ Defendant C and D: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act (the crimes of misappropriation and the violation of the Labor Standards Act, and the punishment provided for the violation of the Labor Standards Act with heavier punishment)

○ Defendant B: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crimes of Misappropriation and the violation of the Labor Standards Act, and punishment on the violation of the Labor Standards Act with heavier punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

○ Defendant A and B: Selection of Imprisonment

○ Defendant C, D, E, and F: Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

○ Defendant A: Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant C: the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (trade between the crime of violation of trust and the crime of violation of trust against which judgment has become final)

○ Defendant D: latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (mutually between the above crime and the crime of taking property in breach of trust for which judgment has become final)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant A: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in a violation of the Labor Standards Act related to AH with the largest penalty and penalty)

○ Defendant E and F: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment specified in the crime of giving rise to breach of trust related to AH, the most severe penalty)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

○ Defendant C: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant D, E, and F: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Additional collection:

○ Defendant A: Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant B: Article 48(1)2 and (2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Defendants: Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The scope of punishment by law;

○ Defendant A: Imprisonment with labor for one month to 15 years

○ Defendant B: Imprisonment of one month to two years;

○ Defendant C, D: fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 30,000; fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 7,500,000 to KRW 500

2. Determination of sentence;

○ Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years

○ Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution.

○ Defendant C and D: Each fine of KRW 10 million

Defendant E and F: (1) Defendant A received a total of KRW 210 million from nine members in terms of employment or promotion solicitation in relation to the recruitment, transfer, promotion, etc. of union members in relation to the L Union M branch; (2) Defendant C received a total of KRW 25 million in relation to employment or promotion solicitation; (3) Defendant D received a total of KRW 25 million in relation to employment of the Z; and (4) Defendant D participated in employment of others for profit at the same time as Defendant A received a total of KRW 40 million in relation to employment of the Z; and (3) Defendant B received a total of KRW 25 million in relation to employment of the Z; (4) Defendant B paid the Z to Defendant A and C; and (4) Defendant F, AG, and H received employment of each of the Z; and (4) Defendant C paid the 30 million in relation to employment of each of the Z.

Although the crime of such Defendants appears to have been subject to criminal punishment because there have been many cases where the labor union members and others were subject to criminal punishment due to the employment corruption of the labor union, it is highly likely to be subject to criticism in that they went to the crime of this case. In particular, in the case of Defendant A, even though there was a history of punishment for the employment corruption of the same L union as the crime of this case, the crime of this case was committed again despite the fact that each of the crime of this case was committed, the social side effects of employment corruption and personnel expenses, which are established as the practice of the labor union, are serious, and the structural corruption of such L union is highly necessary. In light of the fact that there is a great need to severe punishment against the Defendants.

However, Defendant B, C, D, E, and F are all led to the confession of each of the crimes in this case and they are against themselves, the confessions and reflects that Defendant A has committed multiple crimes, the Z returns all of the money paid by Defendant A for employment solicitation and wanting to leave the preference of Defendant A, Defendant E, and F, there appears to be clear social attention, Defendant E, and F have no profits acquired, Defendant B, E, E, and F have no profits punished more severe than fines, and there is no same criminal conviction, and the equity between Defendant C and D should be considered at the same time as the crime of breach of trust for which judgment has become final and conclusive, together with the fact that Defendant C and D should be considered in consideration of the age, character, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of each of the crimes in this case, means and consequence of each of the crimes in this case, and the circumstances after the crime in this case.

Judges Geung-dilution

Judgment of the Supreme Court

Since Defendant C, D, E, and F have been selected as a fine, the sentencing guidelines shall not apply to all the Defendants.