(b) Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

C. Violation of the Act on Punishment for Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust)

The name of the crime partially recognized for Goin A: Occupational times;

(A) the Corporation;

(d) Fraud;

E. Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

(f) Violation of the Capital Market and the Act on the Financial Investment Business;

G. Violation of the Financial Prop Company Act

(h) Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Calculation of False Taxes)

Delivery, etc. of letters)

(i) Dried timber;

(j) Occupational embezzlement;

(k) Teachers that destroy evidence;

(l) Destruction of evidence;

(m) Violation of law by an attorney

2.(d)(e)CC;

3.(a)(c)(d)(f)(i)i (D);

4.b. c.ma. f.i.k. car.A.

5.(a)(d)E

6.(c)(f);

7. (a) d. G

8. C. H

9.(c) I

10.c. e. the J

1. (e) K;

12. (f) L;

13. (f) M

14.f. p.m. N

15.l.m.;

16. (f) P Co., Ltd.

f. Q Q Co., Ltd. (formerly: R Co., Ltd.)

B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J.K, L, M, N, P, P and Q Shares

g) For gye:

Attorney Z, AA, AB, and AC (for Defendant B) who is a legal entity Y

Attorney AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ (Defendant C);

Attorney AK (Defendant D)

Law Firm (with Limited liability) Any Attorney AmM,N, AO (Defendant A)

Law Firm AP Attorney Q, AAR, AS, ICT, AU (Defendant E);

(n)

Attorney AV in charge of AW, AX, AY, and AZ (for defendant F)

Attorney BB in charge of BA, a legal entity (for defendant G)

Attorney BD, BE, and BF (Defendant H) who is a legal entity

Attorney BG in charge of BG, a legal entity (Defendant I)

Attorney BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, and BO (Defendant) in charge of BI

J For purposes of Section B:

Attorney BP (Korean national ships for Defendant K)

Attorney B Q (Korean War for Defendant L)

Attorney BR, BS, and B in charge of AL (Defendant M and Q Shares)

g) For purposes of this section:

Attorney BV, BW, and X (Defendant N) who is a legal entity

Attorney BY, and BZ (for defendantO),

Attorneys CA (Law No. 1000,000)

Law Firm Corporation (Limited) AttorneysCC, CD, and CE (Defendant P corporation)

For purposes of

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant B, C, and Prosecutor related to the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Specific Economic Crimes Act”) among the facts charged in the instant case (the grounds of appeal by the Defendant B, C, and Prosecutor

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance related to the grounds for appeal by the above defendant in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted by the court below, it is justifiable to determine that the facts charged (except for the part of innocence) of the violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the defendant B and C on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below are recognized as guilty. It does not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of free evaluation of evidence or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the argument of the grounds for appeal, and by violating the legal principles on logic and experience, it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, it does not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of infinite, alteration of indictment, elements for the formation of fraud, duty of explanation, statement of the victim, and functional control.

B. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment related to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is reasonable to determine that the Defendant B was acquitted on the ground that all the facts charged by the violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (excluding the part of conviction) in relation to the Defendant D and the violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes in relation to the Defendant D and G constituted a crime in the absence of proof of the crime. On the ground of the appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the relationship between the public offering, the intent of the fraud, and the ability to repay, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, A, H, J, and Prosecutor related to the violation of the Act on Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) among the facts charged in the instant case

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below related to the grounds for appeal by the above defendant in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted by the court below, it is justifiable to determine that all of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty) by violating the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against the above defendant on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below are guilty. There is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the elements of the crime of breach of trust, management judgment, calculation of the amount of breach of trust, and issuance of the tea, or contrary to the legal principles as to the grounds for appeal, such as the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the composition of the crime of breach of trust, management judgment, calculation of the amount of breach of trust, omission of judgment, and inconsistency with the reasoning.

B. Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment related to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is reasonable to determine that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that the part of the charge of violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) of this case, among the following grounds: ① the part of the charge of breach of trust by Defendant B and I’s PCP purchase by Defendant B; ② the part of breach of trust by Defendant I’s CG, CHC purchase by Defendant I’s CG, CP purchase by the CP; ③ the part of breach of trust by Defendant B and F’s CI’s high-priced real estate purchase by Defendant B and F; ④ the part of breach of trust by offering the CF’s stocks as security by Defendant D’s offering as security for transfer, constitutes a case without proof of the crime; and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the abuse of rights by violating the legal principles and experience as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. Examining the grounds for appeal by Defendant B related to the violation of the Act on Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) among the facts charged in the instant case in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant B was guilty of the facts charged against Defendant B for violating the Act on Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in the instant case on the grounds as indicated in its holding. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the due diligence due to violation of the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds for appeal, and thereby failing to err by misapprehending the legal principles on the elements for the establishment of embezzlement, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the elements for the establishment of embezzlement.

4. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant A and the Prosecutor on the part of the facts charged in the instant case

A. Examining the reasoning of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly adopted by the lower court, it is justifiable to determine that Defendant A’s indictment of the instant case against the said Defendant for the same reason as indicated in the judgment of the lower court was recognized as guilty, and that Defendant A violated the legal doctrine of logic and experience, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal, and thus, did not err by going beyond the bounds of free evaluation of evidence or by failing to specify the facts of prosecution.

B. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment related to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is reasonable to determine that the Defendant D was not guilty on the ground that the reasoning of the judgment of the court below as to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor was based on the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, and that the Defendant D was not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of a crime (except for the part of conviction). There was no error by misapprehending the legal principles as to the “other person’s person in charge of receiving property in breach of trust,” as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

5. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of relevant legal principles and records as to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor related to the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices, etc.), among the facts charged in the instant case, the judgment of the court below that the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices, etc.) were not proven for criminal reasons as stated in the judgment of the court below is justifiable, and the judgment of the court below that the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices) constitutes a case where it is not proven for criminal reasons, and there is no error of violating the logical and empirical rules as alleged in the

6. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below as to Defendant A’s grounds for appeal related to occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case, the judgment of the court below that found Defendant A guilty of the part arising from the high-priced purchase of CJ stocks among the facts charged in the instant occupational breach of trust against Defendant A for the same reason as the judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the management judgment principle by violating the logic and experience legal principles, such as the allegation of the grounds for appeal.

7. As to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor related to the teacher who destroyed evidence and destroyed evidence among the facts of the instant public prosecution

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is reasonable to determine that the Defendant 0’s charge of destroying evidence of this case against Defendant 1 and the Defendant A’s charge against Defendant A for the destruction of evidence of this case on the same ground as indicated in the judgment of the lower court was acquitted on the ground that all of the facts charged by Defendant A were not proven as a crime. On the other hand, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the due diligence due to the violation of the logical and empirical rules as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the legal principles on public offering.

8. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, A, M, Q Q Co., Ltd, and Prosecutor related to the violation of the Capital Market and the Act on the Investment Business (hereinafter “Capital Market Act”) among the facts charged in the instant case

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance related to the grounds for appeal by the above defendant in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted by the court below, it is reasonable to determine that all facts charged against the above defendant Eul by violating the Capital Market Act (excluding the part not guilty) of this case against the above defendant on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below are recognized as guilty, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the market price and public offering, etc. by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment related to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that held Defendant B, L, M, P, P, and Q Q Co., Ltd. not guilty or not guilty on the ground that all of the facts charged against Defendant B, M, P, and Q Co., Ltd in violation of the Capital Market Act (excluding the part of conviction) were not proven for crime is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the relation with public offering and bad debt allowances by violating the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds for appeal.

9. As to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor related to the violation of the Act on External Audit and Inspection of Stock Companies among the facts charged in the instant case

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is reasonable to determine that all the facts of the instant corporation’s indictment of violation of the Act on External Audit and Inspection fall under the case where there is no proof of crime for the same reason as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and that the instant corporation was acquitted on the ground that it violated the legal principles of logic and experience, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal, and did not err by exceeding the limit of free evaluation of evidence or by omitting judgment.

10. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records as to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor related to the violation of the law of the financial prop company among the facts charged in the instant case, it is justifiable to determine that the Defendant was innocent on the ground that the facts charged against the law of the financial prop company of this case fall under the case where the Defendant did not prove a crime, and that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that the Defendant violated the legal rules of logic and experience, such as the assertion of the grounds for appeal, and did not err by exceeding the limit of the due diligence due to free evaluation.

11. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Shin-chul