가.주식회사의외부감사에관한법률위반·나,공인회계사법위반
2014Do146 A. Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies
B. Violation of Certified Public Accountant Act
1. A;
2. B
Defendants and Prosecutor (Objection to Defendants)
Law Firm (LLC) C (For the Defendants)
Attorney BU, BT, D
Seoul High Court Decision 2013No1579 Decided December 12, 2013
March 13, 2014
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles as to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements filed after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal), the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found the Defendants guilty of the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies due to false entry in the audit report on “an perception of unjust profit from financial advisory fees” among the facts charged in the instant case, and violation of the Certified Public Accountant Act, and violation of the Act on External Audit due to the alteration and destruction of audit records. In so doing, it is acceptable to have determined that the lower court convicted the Defendants of all of the charges. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to erroneous facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by inconsistency with the reasons of the judgment.
2. Examining the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal in light of the relevant legal principles, we affirm the lower court’s determination that the Defendants were not guilty of violating the External Audit Act due to false statements in each audit report concerning “the classification of asset soundness in the loans” among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to false statements in
On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed to the remaining guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but there is no indication in the petition of appeal on the grounds of appeal nor any statement in the appellate brief on the grounds of appeal.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Ko Young-han
Jeju High Court Justice Yang Chang-soo
Justices Kim Chang-suk