1. Around July 18, 1996, at the office of representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation located in Jungcheon-gu (hereinafter omitted), the defendant and relatives purchased all 140,000 shares of the non-indicted 2 corporation in the account of the non-indicted 1 corporation. At the time of the defendant, the non-indicted 2 corporation occurred in 1995, and the 2,022,780,810 won occurred in 196, and it is evident that the irrecoverable non-performing loans occur more than 110,000 won, and there is a clear reason that the non-indicted 2 corporation purchased shares of the non-indicted 1 corporation, the time of purchase, problems in purchasing the shares, specific operational plans and reasonable prices of shares, and so forth, the defendant violated 100,000,000 won in the board of directors' reasonable market price or 200,000 won in order to give 10,000,000 won in the company's market price.

2. On April 11, 2002, the Defendant’s house located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted) (hereinafter omitted) did not intend to take over Nonindicted Co. 1 by entrusting the victim Nonindicted Co. 1, the manager of Nonindicted Co. 1 with the judge of the court. Nonindicted Co. 1 committed an act of excessively appropriating the liabilities of Nonindicted Co. 1, leakage of core technology of Nonindicted Co. 1, leakage of core technology of Nonindicted Co. 1, or fabrication of open competition bidding to take over Nonindicted Co. 1 upon the main axis of Nonindicted Co. 1, 200, although the manager of Nonindicted Co. 1, for the purpose of obtaining the approval of the reorganization program on August 21, 200, there was no crime of reducing the rights of shareholders, etc. with false documents stating that Nonindicted Co. 4, etc. had no ability to repay obligations, and Nonindicted Co. 1, etc. 4, etc., deducted the technology, and Nonindicted Co. 1, etc., demanded the victim to take over part of the above Defendants 1 and 5 to commit an open competition.

1. Entry of the accused in each part of the trial records second and fourteen times;

1. The witness’s legal statement (as at the 16th trial date)

1. Each statement of the witness Nonindicted 4 and 6 in the sixth trial record;

1. The statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness in the seventh trial record (except the part on Nonindicted 2’s statement) and Nonindicted 2’s statement in the seventh trial record

1. Results of the appraisal of the market price of the shares of this Court on the agenda accounting corporation (including the additional appraisal on January 11, 2005 and the additional appraisal on February 28, 2005);

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of each prosecutor's suspect against the defendant (including Nonindicted 6's statement)

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 2

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 4

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted Party 1 (public trial records)

1. Report on the current status of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co., Ltd. (trial record)

1. Audit report prepared by the same accounting firm (273 pages of investigation records);

○ Facts No. 2

1. Entry of the accused in each part of the trial records second and fourteen times;

1. The statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness in the seventh trial record (except the part on Nonindicted 2’s statement) and Nonindicted 2’s statement in the seventh trial record

1. The first written statement of the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecution against the defendant;

1. The police statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted Party 1 (public trial records)

1. Evidence Nos. 24-7 (Decision on Commencement of Company Reorganization for Non-Indicted Company 2), evidence Nos. 24-12 (Evidence No. 24-12 (Evidence No. 4), evidence No. 24-14 (Lease lease between Non-Indicted. 3 and Non-Indicted. 5), evidence No. 24-15 (Evidence No. 24-24), evidence No. 24-16 (Evidence No. 7 as to Non-Indicted. 7), evidence No. 24-17 (Agreement between Non-Indicted. 7 and Non-Indicted. 6), evidence No. 24-19 (Evidence No. 8 as to Non-Indicted. 3), evidence No. 24-24 (Ruling on Disposition of Factory Facilities between Non-Indicted. 3 and Non-Indicted. 4), evidence No. 25 (Ruling No. 25), and evidence No. 40-13 (Evidence No. 40)

○ Facts before the judgment

1. Criminal records;

1. First prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

A. As to the crime of occupational breach of trust: Nonindicted Co. 1's purchase of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 by a resolution of the board of directors lawfully at the time of the purchase of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 due to business necessity, and Nonindicted Co. 2's purchase of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2's company with face value of KRW 5,000 is consistent with the market price at the time of the purchase of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1's non-indicted Co. 2's company, not a hostile company

B. As to the crime of defamation: (a) the defendant directly prepared the printed matter as stated in Paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below and sent it to the related employees; (b) however, in the situation where the defendant files a criminal complaint against Nonindicted 1’s criminal charge who was appointed as the administrator of Nonindicted 1 Co. 1, the defendant sent the same printed matter to the employees concerned in order to inform the defendant’s position and the present situation of the criminal case, and there is considerable reason to believe that there is no intention to impair the honor of the victim Nonindicted 1, and there

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of occupational breach of trust

(1) In the case of breach of trust, an act in violation of one’s duty includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act that is naturally expected or expected not to perform as a matter of course under the provisions of law, the terms and conditions of a contract, or the good faith principle in light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business dealing. In particular, in a case where the representative director, etc. of a company makes the company buy shares of another company at a high price beyond the permissible limit as a normal transaction for business necessity, the act in breach of trust with the company is established, and the amount of damages incurred to the company at this time is equivalent to the difference between the market price and the sales price of the relevant shares. In the case of trading unlisted shares, the market price shall be deemed the market price, and if there is a normal transaction example that properly reflects the objective exchange value of the shares, the price of shares shall be considered as the market price, but if there is no such transaction example, the relevant laws and regulations provided for in such a trading method shall be reasonably determined based on the different purpose of its establishment.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence regarding the instant case: ① Nonindicted Co. 2 imported raw materials of Nonindicted Co. 1 and sold them to Nonindicted Co. 1 or sold them to Nonindicted Co. 2 at the time since its establishment on June 15, 199; ② Nonindicted Co. 2 was listed in Nonindicted Co. 1’s 70,000 shares and the Defendant was listed as the shareholder of the Defendant’s 140,000 shares; ② Nonindicted Co. 2 was listed on Nonindicted Co. 1’s 60,000 shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 2; ② Nonindicted Co. 1’s 60,000 shares were listed on Nonindicted Co. 1’s 70,000 shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 2; ② Nonindicted Co. 1’s 60,000 shares were listed on Nonindicted Co. 1’s 60,000 shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 2; and ② Nonindicted Co. 10,000 shares were listed on Nonindicted Co. 20.

In light of the above facts, although the defendant, as the de facto subsidiary of the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2 corporation, who holds the control shares through friendship or friendship, did not have any operational necessity to create the non-indicted 2 corporation as its subsidiary by acquiring the shares of the non-indicted 1 corporation, the non-indicted 2 corporation whose face value is much more than 5,000 won at the time, let the non-indicted 1 corporation purchase the shares of the non-indicted 2 corporation at its face value, thereby promoting the personal interests of the defendant who owns the shares of the non-indicted 2 corporation or his related persons, and causing property damage equivalent to the difference between face value and the reasonable transaction value (the non-indicted 1 corporation acquired the non-indicted 70 million won in cash because it was difficult for the non-indicted 1 corporation to en bloc its face value, thereby causing property loss reduced). In light of the above legal principles, the defendant's assertion is without merit, and thus, the crime of occupational breach of trust against the defendant is established.

The defendant asserts that the statute of limitations for the crime of occupational breach of trust has expired since the prosecutor modified the indictment against the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) on June 21, 2005, which was the 21th trial date. However, the statute of limitations for the crime of occupational breach of trust has expired since it is recognized as identical to the basic facts between the existing facts charged and the modified facts charged (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8153, Jul. 22, 2004, etc.). Thus, as long as the statute of limitations for the crime of occupational breach of trust has not expired as of August 3

B. Determination as to the assertion on defamation

(2) According to the above evidence, the victim of the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2 corporation filed an appeal against the non-indicted 3 corporation on March 199. The above court decided on September 7, 199 and appointed the victim non-indicted 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "victim") to the administrator of the non-indicted 3 corporation. The defendant did not excessively state his liability due to the legitimate business conduct in preparing the reorganization program. The non-indicted 1 corporation's non-indicted 1 corporation's non-indicted 3 corporation's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1 corporation's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 3 corporation's non-indicted 4 corporation's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 1 corporation's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 1 corporation's non-indicted 6 corporation's non-indicted 2 corporation's non-indicted 3 corporation's non-indicted 4 corporation's non-indicted 1 corporation'

According to the above facts of recognition, all the facts of the defendant's assertion that the victim committed a crime are false, and it is difficult to view that there is a reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is true because there is no particular evidence to support the above argument that the defendant made according to his or her vague trend. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

Articles 356, 355(2) of the Criminal Act (the point of occupational breach of trust, the choice of imprisonment), and Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act (the point of defamation, the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of repeated crimes;

Article 35 (Crime of Defamation on Market)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1)1 of the Criminal Act (the crime of occupational breach of trust in the market, the crime of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, and the violation of the Securities

2. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant defamation crime against Nonindicted Co. 1, who was deprived of management rights due to the entry into the company reorganization procedure and failed to individually sound, and thus, was likely to have committed the instant defamation crime against Nonindicted Co. 1. However, in light of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1’s lawful handling of duties is extremely obstructed, the Defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment for two months.

Judges Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge) Promotion Account