(Fraud) A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation).

Recognized crime of occupational breach of trust, Specific Economic Crimes Aggravated Punishment, etc.

Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Embezzlement), and Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

Forgery of private documents, display of falsified investigation documents, violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and violation of the Commercial Act

2017 early 641 (Withdrawal), 671, 672, 673, 674, 2018 early 44

The highest number of persons shall be the chief official, the chief official (public prosecution), the Park Dong-Jin (public trial)

C. Attorney C.

2. FK;

3. FL;

4. FM;

5. FN;

Gohap713 (Joint), 2015 Highis721 (Joint), 2016 Highis291 (Joint), 2016 Highis

Gohap 292 (Joint), 2016, 502 (Joint), 2016, 1032 (Joint, Separate);

2016Gohap1144 (Joint, Separated) Judgment

2. Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016Gohap6414, 2017 Decided April 27, 2017

1098(Joint Judgment) Judgment

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the violation of the Commercial Act, and the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the use of deceptive scheme for the purpose of raising the fluctuation in market price, and by eight years with prison labor for the remainder of the crimes except for the above crimes. Defendant shall pay to the FL which is the applicant for compensation the amount of KRW 200,000,000, the amount of KRW 133,30,000 per annum to the FJ, the applicant for compensation, and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from October 26, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Each compensation order above may be provisionally executed.

An application for remedy by the FN, an applicant for compensation, shall be dismissed.

A. Defendant

1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles [the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against the victim G corporation in the judgment of the court below 1]

This part of the facts charged is premised on the fact that the victim GJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "G") acquired shares from "AJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AI") 30,000 shares (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of this case") is 6,605,00 won on the account books based on the audit report for 201 accounting corporation's external auditor of J. 300,000. However, it is reasonable to view that there were damages due to ① accounting corporation's cumulative deficits, capital erosion rate of 300,000 won, and that there were 2,393,395,000 won and 200,000 won and 300,000 won and 30,000 won and 40,000 won and 30,000 won and 30,000 won and 30,000 won and 30,000 won and 30,000 won.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Each court below's punishment (the first instance court's punishment: 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of fraud of the 2012 Gohap1781 case, the second instance court's punishment; 8 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of the 2016 Godan6414 case, the second instance court's punishment: 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of the 2016 Godan6414 case, the second instance court's punishment, and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of

(b) Prosecutors;

1) Fact-finding (not guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance)

Around November 2012, the Defendant committed embezzlement and breach of trust by using the Dormant Company AF, etc. immediately after acquiring G, and the accounting audit data requested by the FY accounting firm G were related to the Defendant’s criminal act, so it is apparent that the Defendant submitted the audit opinion on the refusal of opinion due to large-scale embezzlement and breach of trust by the management company when the Defendant provided the above data, and it is apparent that the Defendant would have submitted the audit opinion on the refusal of opinion due to the restriction on the audit scope of the case where the Defendant did not provide the above data. In addition, when considering the relevant statements of the instant parties such as BC, AZ, BA, and J, it was clearly anticipated that the refusal of opinion due to the refusal of submission was sufficiently anticipated and that the Defendant would have been aware of it, and that the Defendant could have received at least limited opinions during the investigation process. In full view of the fact that the Defendant could not receive proper opinions, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant could have received the audit opinion from the auditor during the 21st fiscal year.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem that information was created when the defendant provided BI with G stocks as security.

2) Unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment)

The first instance court's sentence against the defendant is too unhurd and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor.

A. According to the judgment of the court below in the first instance, the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance with respect to each of the above appeal cases, and according to the records, according to the punishment records of the defendant, the court of first instance decided to hold a joint trial against the defendant, and each of the remaining crimes except for the crimes of 2017Da1781 and 1781 of the judgment of the court of first instance among the crimes of the judgment of the court of first instance and the crimes of 2016Da1781 of the judgment of the court of second instance among the crimes of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the crimes of 2016Da6414 of the judgment of the court of second instance among the crimes of 2012DaGa1781 of the judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, each of the two crimes shall be sentenced to

B. In addition, the prosecutor of the first instance judgment changed the part of the facts charged (Article 2015Da713-1 of the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "victim W") to the existing victim W (hereinafter referred to as "victim W") from the judgment of the court below, "This defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 2.1 billion, a membership fee of the above defendant, in collusion with T and U, and suffered losses equivalent to the same amount of the victim W," which read, "This part of the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "the facts charged in the judgment of the court of first instance)" was examined as follows: "The defendant, in collusion with T and U, acquired property benefits equivalent to the above amount of KRW 600 million, and sustained the same amount as the above borrowed money in collusion with T and W, and therefore, the prosecutor's objection to the amendment of the indictment was still reversed by the court of first instance."

3. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment of the first instance court

A. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles [the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) against Victims G in the judgment of the court below]

1) Determination on the act of breach of duty and intent of breach of duty

A) In light of specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the duties performed in the crime of breach of trust, an act of breach of trust refers to any act that does not perform an act expected as a matter of course in light of the provisions of statutes, the content of a contract, or the principle of trust and good faith, or an act that is anticipated not to perform as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do902, Sept. 9, 1994; 2004Do810, Jul. 9, 2004). Whether an act constitutes an act of breach of duty should be determined according to the nature and content of the relevant duties, specific roles and status of the executive officer, and specific circumstances at the time of the act in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, so long as the act must be determined pursuant to whether the act deviates from an ordinary scope of business performance in light of the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, it should be determined that an act of breach of trust and good faith has not been acquired or has not been performed or has not been performed within 2070.

B) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s acquisition of the instant shares from AJ in KRW 4.3 billion constitutes an abnormal transaction conducted for the purpose of preventing the delisting of AJ, and constitutes an act in violation of its duties in relation to AJ, and the Defendant was fully aware of such circumstances.

(1) The main purpose of the Defendant’s acquisition of the instant shares from AJ is to ensure that Q Q, a representative director of AJ, has raised funds necessary to prevent AJ from delisting.

(A) The Defendant acquired management rights of Y Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Y) at the investigative agency, and had BY take over KRW 2.5 billion with a view to raising funds for acquisition of management rights (hereinafter referred to as Y). However, the Defendant did not change the above BW into Y’s stocks on the wind de-listing, and there was a lot of damages to B Q since it had not been changed into Y’s stocks. However, even on other business issues, the Defendant did not refuse to accept the instant stocks by requesting support from AJ without help but accepted the instant stocks at a wh level.” [In Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da721 (hereinafter referred to as 3-A. 3-A. hereinafter referred to as “Evidence”)]. The Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant did not think that the instant stocks may be damaged by mistake.” (The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da721 (hereinafter referred to as 3-A. 3-A.) records of evidence

(B) The JJ in charge of G’s financial director after the Defendant’s G takeover, when the Defendant acquired Y management rights in 2009, and the Defendant was unable to repay 2.5 billion won after taking over management rights from AJ representative B Q. On December 2012, 2012, Q demanded the Defendant to promptly repay the amount of money that he borrowed from the Defendant as he was at risk of de-listing due to the lack of particular profit-making, which is the KOSDAQ listed company. As such, the Defendant’s acquisition of the shares of this case held by AJ was the “acquisition of the shares of this case.” At that time, G announced that it is impossible to realize the sales through BD used to prevent de-listing, and executed the said money, the Defendant would be subject to acquisition of items by newly developing the 17th of the company’s personal debt to B Q, with the intention of paying back 17th of the company’s purchase price. However, it was not intended to develop products, but intended to sell 16th of the company’s brand and 17th of the company.

(C) Meanwhile, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant did not receive a promise from the prosecutor’s office that “G would give an opportunity to participate in product development unless it was engaged in the development of biotechnology by transferring biotechnology from the side of AH doctoral degree” (Evidence No. 3258 pages).

(2) The Defendant determined the acceptance price of the instant shares with B Q on the basis of the amount of funds required by AJ.

(A) At an investigative agency, J stated in 201 that “AJ was under the control of KOSDAQ-listed issues as a result of the end audit in 2011, and was under the control of KOSDAQ-listed issues. In order to prevent AJ from delistinging the KOSDAQ, a total of KRW 4.3 billion was required at the end of the end of 2012. B Q demanded the Defendant to acquire AI shares in KRW 4.3 billion, and the Defendant previously stated that “AJ will be acquired in KRW 4.3 billion since B Q was under the control of having to pay back any borrowed money (Evidence No. 1,275).”

(B) Also, J needs to prevent the abolition of the listing on the KOSDAQ by AJ between AJ and B and the Defendant. As such, in the event that there has been mutual agreement between the acquisition value of the shares of AI to meet the funds, Maddong Accounting Corporation AX Accounting Corporation was appointed as the accounts of G. At first, although it is not known that the funds required in AJ were equivalent to KRW 3.5 billion, the value of the shares in the AJ was discussed as KRW 3.5 billion. However, as the AJ audit was conducted, the amount of the shares in which the funds needed for the AJ accounting audit were raised was changed from KRW 3.5 billion to KRW 4 billion, and accordingly, the amount of the shares in the 3.5 billion to KRW 4.3 billion to KRW 4.4.6 billion to KRW 4.6 billion to the account (Evidence record 1,279-1,280-1, 280 pages).

(3) In order to have the appearance of the instant stock transaction as a legitimate transaction, the Defendant requested an external assessment institution to evaluate the instant stocks. The Doduk Accounting Corporation assessed the stock value based only on the data provided by G, and seems to be mainly subject to the assessment of the value of the instant stocks.

(A) On December 27, 2012, the Defendant had received “an external evaluation statement of an external evaluation institution” from the Maddong Accounting Corporation. On November 26, 2012, 2012, the Defendant had already concluded a contract for the sale and purchase of the instant shares with KRW 2.1 billion on December 4, 2012, KRW 200 million on December 7, 2012, KRW 100,000 on December 12, 2012, KRW 50 million on December 14, 2012, KRW 180,000 on December 14, 2012, KRW 2.3 billion on December 17, 2012, KRW 2.18 billion on December 27, 2012, KRW 2.2 billion on the date the board of directors held the remainder of the appraisal agreement with the board of directors (the remaining 2.1 billion on December 27, 2012).

(B) At an investigation agency, AX, an accountant of the Maduk Accounting Corporation, presented reference materials for internal decision-making in connection with the instant stock transaction, and received a request for evaluation (Evidence No. 3,374 pages), from November 20, 2012 to December 25, 2012, conducted an evaluation report at the office of the Maduk Accounting Corporation, which had been submitted to the Financial Supervisory Commission (Evidence No. 3,374 pages), and made an appraisal report at the office of the Maduk Accounting Corporation, from November 20, 2012 to December 20, 2012, the contact with the FO Research Institute and the AI did not have a verification of contact point, and only conducted an interview with the head of the administrative office of the AI who notified Q Q, and at the time, the 300 million won of the 300 million won of the 5th anniversary of the 300 million won of the 5th appraisal data (Evidence No. 38138, evidence).383838.

(C) AX’s evaluation statement also states that “G is a plan to take over 70,000 common shares of AI (or 2.4%) in the amount of KRW 43 million by way of asset acquisition (Evidence Records 1,373 pages 1).”

(4) At the time, the Defendant promoted the acquisition of the instant shares at the risk of the victim G executives and employees, and was aware that in the process, the acceptance price of the said shares was too high, thereby causing damage to the victim G.

(A) At the time, AY, a representative director of the victim G, stated in the investigative agency that “AI was almost an unsatisfy-free company, and the book value was 6 million won, and opposed to the acceptance of shares without an external agency’s evaluation, but H was retired from office due to the retirement of H, and therefore, it did not have been sealed in the minutes of the board of directors on December 27, 2012 (Evidence No. 1,236-1,237).”

(B) At the investigative agency, BA, which was a manager of the management support team of G, stated as follows: “AY and opposed to the acquisition of the shares of this case, but at the end, AY resigneds.” As to the grounds for objection at the time, “the book value does not exceed KRW 6 million, but did not reach an equity share and did not constitute an evaluation by an external agency; and AH-related share holder did not undergo the test, it would not receive an amount of KRW 4.3 billion. In addition, it was evaluated as a result of the evaluation and requested an evaluation in a state where the amount was traffic, rather than the acquisition amount, (Evidence No. 1,357-1,358).”

(C) In the investigation agency, the Defendant was aware that there was a lack of financial standing of the AI and that the book value of the instant shares was KRW 6.6 million and that there was controversy over high-evaluation (Evidence Records 2,356-2,357-2, 4,238-4,239). At the time, the Defendant thought that the instant shares were closed down at the time, and attempted to run a bio-project with G’s BR (medical device), which is a subsidiary of G, that if there was no infrastructure in G, the company could not acquire shares with large amount of money if it was erroneous (Evidence Records 3,258).

(5) On December 31, 2012, G paid the balance of the acquisition price of the instant shares on the same day, G received KRW 1.1 billion out of the acquisition price of the said shares via BD, and the Defendant also recognized such fact (Evidence 2,359 pages).

2) Determination as to whether to recognize property losses

A) In cases where property damage is incurred in breach of trust means a case where the representative director, etc. of a company inflicts property damage on the company in violation of his/her duty, it is reasonable to view that the amount of damages incurred by the company is equivalent to the difference between the market price and the purchase price of the shares. In cases where unlisted stocks are traded at a higher price, the market price shall be deemed the market price and the value of the shares should be assessed on the basis of the market price if there is a normal example of transactions that properly reflects the objective exchange value of the unlisted stocks. However, if there is no such case of transaction, the relevant laws and regulations governing such appraisal method shall consider various appraisal methods generally recognized as the market price and shall be applied at all times (see Article 54 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, for example, Article 50). In light of the purpose of each enactment, it is reasonable to determine that the method of appraisal should be applied at least once, taking into account the situation of the relevant unlisted corporation and the trading party, and the characteristics of the relevant business type, etc. at the time of the transaction. 2000 square shares to be determined.

On the other hand, the crime of violation of Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "amount of profit") is a part of the constituent element of the crime that is that the value of gains on property acquired is more than 500 million won or more than 5 billion won, and the punishment is also aggravated depending on the amount of profit. Therefore, in applying Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the principle of balanced punishment that the acquired amount of profit should be strictly and carefully calculated, and the principle of accountability that the crime should be properly balanced between the crime and the punishment should be based on the responsibility and the liability should not be undermined (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do7288, Apr. 19, 207). Therefore, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is to be punished on the basis of the amount of gains on property where the value of gains on property cannot be calculated in detail even if there is a value.

B) On the premise that the objective exchange value of the instant shares is KRW 6,605,00,000, which is the net asset value or fairness value of the instant shares stated in the audit report for the fiscal year 201 by the AJ, and the book value of KRW 6,605,00, the prosecutor calculated the amount of profit of the AJ and the amount of damages of the victim G. Therefore, whether the objective exchange value of the instant shares can be recognized as KRW 6,605,00 in the book value.

(1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, the following facts or circumstances are recognized.

(A) The book-keeping of the AJ accounting corporation, an external auditor of the AJ, stated in the audit report of the fiscal year 201 that the AJ acquired KRW 2.40 billion from the FP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FP”) in KRW 6,605,00, the net asset value or fair value of the instant shares, and the book value, which was acquired by the AJ from the FP in 2009 (hereinafter “FP”), and that the AJ recognized the damage from KRW 2,393,395,00 (Evidence 643 pages of the evidence record).

(B) As to the fact-finding inquiry by the court of first instance, the accounting firm's bookbook presented that the cumulative loss of AI as of the end of 2011 reaches KRW 5.6 billion, and that the capital erosion rate reaches KRW 5.3 billion and the total net asset of the company was merely KRW 700 million, and that there was no signs of objective damage to the shares of this case. "The accounting firm's bookbook should recognize the loss caused by the difference between the current value of the estimated cash flow at the current market profit rate of the relevant financial assets and the book amount, but there was no reliable data to measure the estimated future cash flow, so it was presented to the company that recognizes the difference between the appraised value and the book value as the loss caused by the loss by applying the valuation method of unlisted stocks under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as a supplementary assessment method (the trial record 1,047-1,048 pages, 1,244, 4, 384-4, 396-6)."

(C) In the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Q, etc. (Seoul Central District Court 2017Dahap18), the F Q Q, who participated as an audit assistant, was present as a witness in the case of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Q, etc. at the time of ‘AJ', but there was no way to evaluate the value of the AI's shares since it was not submitted any data other than the financial statements of the two heads. Accordingly, AJ recommended AJ to calculate the value of the shares even by the method of assessing the unlisted shares under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and concluded the audit by recognizing the AJ to be 6,605,00

(2) According to the above facts, 6,605,00 won on the books of account stated in the audit report for the fiscal year 201 year of AJ concerning AJ, is included in the amount calculated by AJ according to the method of appraisal of non-listed stocks under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, as the AJ merely failed to submit all financial data other than the IJ's financial statements from AJ, and as such, it is difficult to conclude that the book value calculated by the above method is the objective exchange of the instant shares, as it is, in the instant case where strict proof to erase the defendant's criminal liability is required.

(3) 검사는 상속세 및 증여세법상 비상장주식의 평가방법에 따라 이 사건 주식의 가치를 6,605,000원으로 산정하고, 2,393,395,000원의 손상차손을 인식한 것은 정당하다고 주장하므로 보건대, 이 사건 주식거래 당시 시행되던 구 상속세 및 증여세법 시행령(2013. 2. 15. 대통령령 제24358호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제54조에 의하여 평가하는 비상장주식의 가액은, 1주당 순손익가치 [1주당 최근 3년간의 순손익액의 가중평균액 : 금융기관이 보증한 3년만기 회사채의 유통수익률을 감안하여 기획재정부장관이 정하여 고시하는 이자율(순손익가치환원율)]와 1주당 순자산가치(당해 법인의 순자산가액 : 발행주식 총수)를 각각 3과 2의 비율로 가중평균한 가액으로 산정하는 것으로서 주로 AI의 자산과 과거 재무지표에 기하여 그 가치를 산정하는 것인데, ① AI은 2008. 5. 9. AH 박사가 바이오 신소재 연구, 개발, 생산, 판매 및 수출입업, 형질질환 유전자 연구, 개발, 체세포 핵이식 기법을 이용한 바이오리액터 연구, 개발, 난치성 및 유전적 질환 모델 동물세포주 연구, 개발 및 각 관련 제품의 제조, 판매와 수출입업 등을 목적으로 하여 설립한 법인인 점(증거기록 589쪽), ② AI은 2011 회계연도의 자본금이 1,466 백만 원, 자본잉여금이 4,830백만 원인 반면에 부채는 166백만 원이고, 2010 회계연도의 유동자산 2,080 백만 원, 미처리결손금 4,031백만 원, 매출 397 백만 원, 제품제조원가 2,240백만 원, 경상연구개발비 2,163백만 원인 반면에 2011 회계연도의 유동자산 437 백만 원, 미처리결손금 5,605 백만 원, 매출 344백만 원, 제품제조 원가 1,388백만 원, 경상연구개발비 1,191백만 원으로, 매출에 비하여 경상연구개발비가 현저하게 높고 이것이 결손금으로도 연결되는 재무구조를 보이는 점(공판기록 1,235 ~ 1,243쪽, 1,253~1,261쪽), ③ AX는 수사기관에서 바이오산업 등 벤처기업의 경우 실제 자산이라고 갖고 있는 것이 기술밖에 없기 때문에 그나마 적용가능한 평가방법이 현금흐름할인법이고, AI은 당시 국내 특허는 없었으나 캐나다에서 FR라는 물질특 허와 그 방법을 특허받은 상태였다고 진술하고 있는 점(증거기록 3,378 ~ 3,379쪽)2), ④ 이와 같이 AI은 바이오 관련 사업을 영위하면서 연구개발에 주력하고 있고, 장래에 계속 성장할 가능성이 있을 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 주식의 객관적인 교환가치는 기준시점 당시 당해 기업의 순자산가치 또는 과거의 순손익가치를 기준으로 하여 산정하는 방법보다는 당해 기업의 미래의 추정이익을 기준으로 하여 산정하는 방법이 그 주식의 객관적인 가치를 반영할 수 있는 보다 적절한 방법이라고 할 것이고3), 다만 회계법인 서정은 AJ에 대한 2011 회계연도 감사에서 AI의 미래의 수익가치를 평가할 수 있는 객관적인 자료가 충분히 제출되지 아니하자 보충적으로 이 사건 주식의 가치를 상속세 및 증여세법상 비상장주식의 평가방법으로 평가한 것에 불과하다고 할 것이다. 사정이 이와 같다면, 상속세 및 증여세법상 비상장주식의 평가방법에 따른 이 사건 주식의 가치 산정 및 손상차손의 인식은 이 사건 주식거래 당시 AI 및 거래당사자의 상황, 당해 업종의 특성 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 합리적으로 판단한 것이라고 보기 어렵다.

C) Next, it is recognized that the BP acquired shares of KRW 83,333 on April 28, 2014 (one share) at KRW 24,99,90,000 (30,000 per one share) on the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the first instance court, i.e., the above shares trading is conducted after the lapse of 15 months from November 26, 2012 to December 31, 2012, 200, 200 KRW 30,000,000 (30,000 won per one share), and it is difficult to conclude that the above shares trading constituted 10,000 won (the above shares trading was purchased at KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000 won per one year and 15,000,000 won per share).

D) Furthermore, we examine whether the amount of profit of AJ and the amount of damage of AJ as a result of the instant stock transaction is proven.

(1) On the other hand, while AJ acquired the instant shares from the FP in 2009 in KRW 2.4 billion, the instant shares transaction was conducted in approximately KRW 4.3 billion, approximately 3 years thereafter. In light of the record, there is no evidence suggesting that the value of the instant shares may be increased by approximately 3 years only.

(2) Rather, in the written appraisal opinion of an external assessment organization, friendly accounting firm recorded a large scale of deficit every year from the establishment of 'AI to the end of 2011, and recorded a large amount of deficit in 5.6 billion won, and the financial structure is very vulnerable. In 2012, the liquidity shortage is expected to be resolved through external loans, and there is a possibility that it will be placed on liquidity risk due to the increase in the short-term sales and the possibility of creating business cash flow. However, it is assumed that the AI still exists during the estimation period and excluded the consideration of liquidity risk (Evidence Record 1,377 pages, 1,404 pages).

(3) In addition, the accounting company BC of the FY Accounting Corporation, the external auditor of G, acquired the instant shares at the investigative agency, while it is judged that there is no significant correlation between the cosmetics and AI shares, and that acquisition of the shares of 2.39%, not the status of a major shareholder, for public relations purposes, of the shares of this case at KRW 4.3 billion was doubtful. Although AJ acquired the shares of this case at KRW 2.5 billion in around 2009, it is doubtful that the book value is calculated as KRW 6 million in consideration of no value thereafter, B Q, the representative director of AJ, the seller, was the other party to the lawsuit related to the outstanding amount of G and tort at KRW 2010, but it is difficult to obtain a large amount of shares from the other party to the lawsuit, and AI was a company at the research stage where sales related to EM were not occurred, and the net assets of AI at the end of 2012 - as of the end of 2014.

(4) In fact, AI was in a very poor financial situation, such as recording net income at KRW 3.4 million in its annual sales, and recording net income at KRW 1,613 million in its annual sales, and AI was established on May 9, 2008 (Evidence Record 589 pages) and accumulated only losses without paying operating income for one year up to 201 fiscal year after its establishment on May 9, 2008, and its current assets owned by AI continued to decrease at KRW 5.55864 million in 2008 and was 4.3762 million in 200,000 as at the end of 2011. Considering the amount of expenses and research and development expenses incurred in the operation of AI, it is recognized that it was entirely impossible to submit research and development expenses at the end of 2011, while it appears that it did not have been able to be able to evaluate its future revenues at the time of the instant financial audit and development expenses.

(5) In addition to the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that it was difficult to view that the Defendant had proved the value of the instant shares to the extent that he was liable for the crime under Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, but at least it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the instant shares does not reach KRW 4.3 billion, which is the transaction value. In addition, even if the instant shares have a value equivalent to the transaction value, considering the purpose of the instant shares transaction and its developments, it is reasonable to view that the AJ, which sold the instant shares, has obtained pecuniary benefits to increase liquidity by converting the instant shares, which are unlisted shares, and instead, has inflicted on the victim G as a corresponding property damage, the value of which cannot be calculated.

3) Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the victim G’s property damage amount reaches the amount indicated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. The Defendant can only be deemed as having obtained the AJ benefits that could not compute the value due to the instant stock transaction and having inflicted an irrecoverable loss on the victim G in calculating the value corresponding thereto.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant has obtained the financial benefits equivalent to KRW 4,293,395,00 from AJ and incurred a loss equivalent to the same amount to the victim G is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is with merit to this extent.

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake

1) This part of the facts charged

No executive or employee of a corporation listed in securities and who becomes aware of material nonpublic information in the course of performing his/her duties shall use any material nonpublic information related to the business of the corporation for the trading of specific securities, etc. or for any other transaction or allow any other person

G around January 4, 2013, at the G head office in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the second floor, G was subject to an external audit for preparing the 37 audit report (from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012) from the FY accounting firm.

From February 14, 2013 to May 15, 2013 of the same month, the Defendant was required to submit data to verify the substance and possibility of recovery of loans equivalent to approximately KRW 20 billion out of KRW 33.7 billion in the total assets of G from the external auditor at the time of the on-site audit and the appropriateness of the appraisal of the investment assets (BR and AI stocks) appropriated by G, but the Defendant failed to submit data required due to the concern that the act of large-scale embezzlement and breach of trust with respect to G would be discovered, while it was difficult to receive the audit opinion from the accounting firm during the process of receiving the report from the vice president J on the external audit process from the above G office on March 4, 2013.

Since the Defendant’s disclosure of the foregoing facts is suspended from G share transactions, prior to the disclosure of the foregoing facts, he did not dispose of the G shares owned by the Defendant to avoid losses.

On March 5, 2013, before the disclosure of the above material nonpublic information on March 18, 2013, the Defendant borrowed KRW 800,000,000 as collateral, and borrowed KRW 40,000 as collateral, KRW 80,00,00 as collateral, KRW 40,00 as collateral, and KRW 250,00,00 as collateral to BI on March 18, 2013, the Defendant provided KRW 990,000 as loan, and KRW 410,000 as loan, KRW 410,000 as the next day on the loan.

Accordingly, from March 7, 2013 to April 14, 2013, BI sold the total amount of KRW 740,180,000 as collateral from the Defendant at the office of the above lending company, and appropriated the principal and interest of the loan to the Defendant, and paid KRW 250,000,000 to the Defendant on March 14, 2013.

Accordingly, after acquiring knowledge of material nonpublic information that it is difficult for the Defendant to receive the audit opinion on G’s external audit report for the fiscal year 2012 from March 5, 2013 to August 8 of the same month, the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount by avoiding losses equivalent to KRW 1,605,62,738 by having the bond company sell all of the above shares through the opposite trade from March 7, 2013 to March 14, 2013.

2) The judgment of the court below of first instance

Article 18-2(1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8635, Aug. 3, 2007); Article 188-2(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 2 of Feb. 4, 2009); “Information which may seriously affect investors’ judgment on investment” means information that could have significant impact on the company’s business management and property. If a reasonable investor’s determination is made by comparing and assessing the importance of information and probability of occurrence of such information, it is difficult to view that it was an important information generated within a corporation and that it was embodied in the process of 30 times without completing the first time, and that such information was objectively and clearly completed. The lower court determined that there was no significant evidence that the Defendant provided 1’s opinion on the embezzlement and 20th of e-mail to the extent that it could not be deemed that there was an important opinion on the 10th of 196th of the judgment below.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) “Information that may have a significant impact on investors’ investment decisions” as prescribed by Article 174(1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) refers to information having an important value in determining whether a reasonable investor will purchase or continue to hold securities or to dispose of them, and a changed statement that, if a general investor is generally known, may have a significant impact on the price of securities. Until certain information is disclosed with the company’s intent by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree, it refers to the information that is still subject to the regulation on internal trading (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 195Do467, May 29, 200).

Meanwhile, where a person falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 174(1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act trades or makes any other transaction on specific securities, etc. while recognizing the material nonpublic information, such transaction may be deemed to have been made by using the material nonpublic information, barring special circumstances, if it is deemed that the transaction was one of the factors that caused the transaction of the material nonpublic information, even though the transaction was not effected entirely due to the material nonpublic information. However, if it is deemed that a transaction was made by any other motive regardless of the material nonpublic information, such as where the transaction had already been made before knowing the material nonpublic information or where it was inevitable for the person who became aware of the material nonpublic information to do so, such transaction cannot be deemed to have been made by using the material nonpublic information (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10313,

B) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, the following facts and circumstances are recognized.

(1) On November 21, 2012, the Defendant acquired shares of KRW 150,00,000 from H, a representative director of G, in the name of AP, a total of KRW 12 billion with the right to manage the shares and preemptive rights. The Defendant did not register as a representative director of G and did not make a public announcement of the change of the largest shareholder, but did not directly take charge of the management or execution of G while actually controlling and managing it.

(2) For an audit for the fiscal year 2012, G accounting firm: (a) sent a list of “end-end audit data” on January 4, 2013 to G; (b) requested prior data and on-site audit date (only 800-802 pages of evidence in Seoul Central District Court 2016Dahap291 (hereinafter referred to as “Evidence”)); and (c) requested further audit data on February 12, 2013 (Evidence 803-807 pages of the e-mail record; (b) the e-mail audit report and the e-mail audit request data submitted from the 200-site accounting firm from February 14, 2013 to February 15, 2013; (c) the 20-site accounting firm did not submit additional e-mail audit data; (d) the 20-site audit report and the 20-site accounting firm requested additional e-mail audit data from the 20-site accounting firm.

(3) As a certified public accountant affiliated with the FY accounting corporation, BC, which comprehensively controlled the field audit work at the time, stated that “a loan and advance payment related to BD and AF-related bank remittance data, such as financial statements of the other company, and data, etc. to verify the substance and possibility of recovery of advance payment, and data, etc. to verify real value related to securities investment” as “where loans amounting to at least KRW 20 billion out of KRW 3.7 billion of the G’s total assets, i.e., loans, advance payment, and securities, etc., 314-1, 315, 1, 324 of the record,” and the specific content of e-mail sent by the FY accounting corporation at the request of G, i.e., e., e., e., e.s., e., e., e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e.s.s.

(4) On March 4, 2013, the FY accounting corporation, the certified public accountants of FY accounting corporation, FV, and G’s representative director H, vice presidentJ, and upper BA, discussed data-related issues that the FY accounting corporation received from G and data-related issues that were not received from GO, and subsequently, the FY accounting corporation, on March 6, 2013, could not complete the audit procedure due to lack of audit data, although the FY accounting corporation conducted an accounting audit from February 14, 2013, and finally requested to submit audit data by content-proof mail (Evidence evidence records 813-823), BC continued to respond to the request of the FY accounting corporation for submission of data within the scope of 13G evidence, based on its determination that the submission of data could be delayed from March 6, 2013 (Evidence evidence record 813-823).

(5) Although the FY Accounting Corporation requested G to submit audit data on several occasions as above, G did not submit it properly, on March 18, 2013, the FY Accounting Corporation expressed its rejection of opinion due to the restriction on audit scope. FY Accounting Corporation's audit report on the company's financial statements on March 18, 2013, and this auditor could not carry out the procedures to verify the substance and adequacy of important financial transactions, etc. due to the restriction on audit scope by the company. Accordingly, it was impossible to collect sufficient and adequate evidence to verify the feasibility and appropriateness of appraisal of advance payment, short-term loans, and securities appropriation funds appropriated by the company, and it was impossible to obtain satisfactory results through alternative audit procedures. In addition, this auditor did not receive opinions from the company's management manager on the cash flow and financial statements, and this auditor's opinion was not presented to the auditor's opinion that it did not require the audit report's opinion from 16th day to 3th day of the audit report itself.

(6) With respect to the reasons why the FY accounting firm did not submit audit data to the FY accounting firm, the KJ, at the time, which was the president and vice president of the H and the financial director of the G, submitted to the prosecution all the data requested by the KFY accounting firm, but the accounting firm could not submit the data that was difficult to secure G, such as specific lending sources of the company that borrowed money from G (Evidence No. 1,112-12-113, 1,407). However, the BC, at the prosecutor’s office, submitted data of the amount of 4 gbox, but this was not required by the FY accounting firm, and it was only the documents such as the board of directors’ minutes and contracts, which were not significantly superior to the outcome of the transaction (Evidence No. 1, 322-10), and as seen earlier, it was difficult for the KFY accounting firm to submit the pertinent data as it did not have any unnecessary data, and even if it was difficult for the KFY accounting firm to submit the data.

(7) Comprehensively taking account of the following statements of the employees involved in the G’s accounting audit, G appears to have been sufficiently aware that the FY accounting firm’s audit data requested to submit to G was not the data at issue only before and after the on-site audit on February 15, 2013, but the data requested to be prepared by the FY accounting firm from before and after the on-site audit. Accordingly, G could not submit the data if an external auditor requested the submission of the pertinent data before the on-site audit, and thus, G could not receive the audit opinion of “refluence”.

(A) AZ, as the head of G’s business management team, was in charge of overall business management affairs, such as finance and accounting, stated to the effect that “AZ was fluorily fluorily fluoring out of the FY accounting corporation that it would have been difficult to receive appropriate opinions in the annual audit unless the advance payment or cash flow is clearly explained from the time of the half-yearly audit, and that there was a situation in which the FY accounting corporation should not cooperate in the annual audit process, and that J vice president among auditors was also unable to receive proper opinions (Evidence Nos. 1,335-1,36 pages).”

(B) Around December 2012, the KJ received directions from the FY accounting firm to address advance payment or loan issues, such as BD, when visiting G for prior audit and inspection. (Evidence No. 1,406 pages) On March 2013, 2013, when visiting the FY accounting firm by first police officers and BA, the FY’s representative accountant presented a complaint for embezzlement, etc. of the G representative director H from BD, and presented a statement to the effect that the FY accounting firm is not bound to suspect the credibility of the data submitted by G in such document, and that at that time, the FY accounting firm intended to refuse to respond to the submission of the statement from the FY accounting firm. (Evidence No. 11) The statement was made to the effect that “No. 14,144,” the record was stated to the effect that the Defendant is “No. 14.”

(C) ABA, as a G managing director, presented to the prosecution an adequate opinion on the fiscal year 2011 by the FY Association’s accounting corporation. However, after March 2012, BA pointed out that advance payment of BD, AL’s advance payment, new business (BR-related inspection key business), internal control, etc. were improved by March 4, 2012, and that it had not been improved by March 2012, 201, and such content was known to the FY accounting corporation as well as H and AY, Defendant J also, around November 2012 (Evidence 1, 431-1, 432) and submitted a written statement (Evidence record) stating that “When the Defendant acquired a company, it was 14 billion won or more, it was deemed that it was 14 billion won or more at the time of the audit of the previous accounting corporation, and that it was 14 billion won or more at the time of its refusal to pay the company benefits.”

(8) After taking over G at the prosecutor’s office, the Defendant stated that he was reported by the vice president J, the managing director BA, etc. who he directly employed (Evidence Record 1,535 pages 1,535) and that he was reported to the Defendant as to the content of the data requested by the FY accounting corporation (Evidence Record 1,407-1,408 pages) and the BC’s statement (Evidence Record 1,407-1,408 pages) and there was a fact that the Defendant was only one time at the time of the on-site audit (Evidence Record 1,312 pages), and the Defendant was well aware of the fact that the FY accounting corporation demands the Defendant to submit the data related to each of the instant crimes in connection with the audit (Evidence Record 1,31

(9) In the prosecutor's office, the defendant also knew that G's audit results will be notified of G's refusal to state his opinion, while the defendant expressed his intention to resign as of January 2, 2013 on the grounds thereof, and the defendant made a statement to the effect that "as soon as the audit opinion is considerably unstable," and that "it was asked to request the remaining until the audit is completed" (Evidence No. 1,434-1,444 pages). In fact, the defendant made a statement to the prosecutor that "I think that I think that "I think that I would know that I would be able to receive 'limited' in the case of most bad' (Evidence No. 1,524 pages), and that the defendant as the defendant could not receive at least 'audit results' due to the failure to submit audit data."

(10) Meanwhile, on March 5, 2013, the Defendant extended KRW 80 million as security; KRW 40,180,000 from BI; KRW 40,000 as security; and KRW 80,000 as KRW 40,00,00 from March 6, 2013; KRW 50,000,000 to KRW 2.50,000 of the G shares; and on March 7, 2013, the Defendant issued one promissory note of KRW 50,000 at the face value of the common issuance; KRW 30,000,000 from KRW 41,30,000; KRW 1,300,000 to KRW 70,000; KRW 1,300,000 to KRW 70,000; and each of the Defendant sold shares as security; on March 24, 2013, issued shares as security; and thereafter, sold shares as evidence.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(11) BJ, which had been in charge of practice at the BI’s office, stated in the prosecutorial office that “in relation to the process in which BI sold the remaining shares from March 11, 2013 to March 14, 2014, BJ agreed to sell shares as collateral with the Defendant to sell the opposite shares when the share price fell below 120 to 130% of the principal amount. At the time of continuous decline in the value of G shares, it sold some shares to meet the ratio between principal and collateral (Evidence Record 1,356, 1,358 to 1,359, 1,457).” (Evidence Record 1,356, 1,359, 1,457) and BI sold shares to the Defendant as collateral and sold shares to the Defendant from March 8, 2013 to March 14, 2013, the Defendant did not offer additional collateral and sold shares to the Defendant in advance as collateral.

(12) On March 14, 2013, BI deposited KRW 25 million from the dynamics account of BI selling the above shares into a check and delivered it to the Defendant (Evidence No. 1,360-1,361 pages).

(13) Furthermore, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that this part of the facts charged was recognized on the 16th trial date of the lower court’s first instance trial (1,072 pages of the trial record), and in light of the attitude that the Defendant had taken on this part of the facts charged, the above confession statement can sufficiently be acknowledged, and there is no other evidence to suspect the voluntariness or credibility of the confession statement.

C) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, G accounting corporation, a external auditor, continuously instructed G to prepare materials to verify the existence and adequacy of loans, advance payments, etc. from March 2012 to December 12 of the same year. Although G requested the submission of specific materials after on-site inspections on February 15, 2013, G continued to submit the requested materials. At the same time, G was not able to submit materials related to criminal acts, such as embezzlement and breach of trust against the Defendant and J, H, and H’s respective embezzlement and breach of trust. Furthermore, G was deemed to have sufficiently clarified that if the pertinent materials were not submitted in light of the scope of the materials requested and related amount, it would have been possible that the external auditor would refuse to submit the materials for reasons of restrictions on the audit scope. Thus, at the latest, it is highly probable that BI’s refusal to provide the above materials to BG as security.

D) On March 18, 2013, BI, who was unaware of the contents related to G’s audit, sold all G shares 740,180 shares that were provided as security before the audit opinion was published on March 18, 2013, appears to have been due to the Defendant’s prior to the borrowing of money from BI and agreed to trade with BI in advance and did not provide any additional security, and the Defendant has led to the confession of this part of the facts charged at the first instance court, and the Defendant could be sufficiently recognized that “the Defendant is difficult to receive the audit opinion on the external audit for the fiscal year 2012.” The Defendant acquired the material nonpublic information that “G is difficult to receive the audit opinion on the external audit for the fiscal year 2012,” and received the loan by furnishing BI as security, received the entire shares, thereby avoiding losses equivalent to the sales value of the shares, and acquired the unjust enrichment equivalent to that amount.

E) Nevertheless, the first instance court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds as seen earlier, and thus, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s allegation of mistake is with merit

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the court below's judgment of the first and second court is reversed in its entirety under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's grounds for reversal by its own authority, and the defendant's appeal against the first and the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded. Thus, the court below's judgment is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

Criminal facts and summary of evidence.

The summary of the evidence concerning the facts constituting an offense and its evidence recognized by the court shall be as follows; paragraph 1 of "BY 2015 high 713" out of "BY 15 high 713"; Paragraph 2 of "2 of "2015 high 721" shall be as follows; and " March 12, 2012" out of No. 1 of "2013.3.12" shall be as "2.3.3.13.3.3.3.0 per annum "2012.13.3.13.0" as "the list of 16.3.0 high 2.0 high 2.5 high 2.0 high 2.0 high 2.0 high 2.0

"2015 Gohap713"

1. Attempted occupational breach of trust;

The Defendant, in collusion with T and U on November 201, entered into a contract with X, the largest shareholder, to acquire 6,500 shares of the said company at KRW 3,00,00,000, as well as the management right of WW from X, the largest shareholder of the said company, and on November 24, 2011, X opened a general meeting of shareholders and had U take office as the representative director and the Defendant take office as the inside director.

When the Defendant and T&U acquired management rights for W golf courses as above, they issued the membership rights of the above golf course without permission and had the intention to lend funds using it.

In order to issue a golf club membership and sell it in lots, the Defendant, in collusion with T and U, issued a golf club membership and sold it in violation of the above occupational duty, provided on November 28, 201, the Defendant violated the above occupational duty, and provided the Defendant with a representative director at the office located in W golf course located in Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, with six copies of a membership card (Z or AAA) in the name of the representative director of WW club, whose membership fee is KRW 350 million. On December 1, 201, the Defendant provided AB department 9th and the above three membership cards as collateral and borrowed KRW 300 million, and continuously borrowed KRW 300,000,000,000 from AD office under the name of the law firm of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with the remainder of the amount borrowed KRW 30,300,000,000,000,000 won.

As a result, the Defendant, in collusion with T and U, intended to obtain the above loans worth KRW 600 million and inflict the same damage on the victim W, but did an act in violation of his duties, such as abuse of the right of representation by U, the representative director of the victim W, and Y, the other party, was aware or could have known of the abuse of the right of representation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no real damage or the risk of actual damage to the victim W, and thus, the purport was not achieved.

“2015Gohap721

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

The Defendant is the real owner who acquired the management right of G. H’s representative director, and J is the vice president and financial director, and the Defendant, etc., etc., etc., were engaged in business affairs with due care as a good manager, and when acquiring shares, etc. of another company by using the company’s funds, the company’s management situation, financial status, such as capital and liabilities, etc., the possibility of success in the business run by the company, possibility of development of the company, recent trading trends of the relevant shares and immediately preceding transaction price, etc., and had duties to prevent the company’

around November 2012, the Defendant intended to acquire the shares of AI with AH as its representative director; however, at the time, the AI was a company at a research stage where the net assets as an emergency funeral have almost occurred as a 900 million won (endend of 2012), and thus, it was unclear whether the acquisition of the shares of the said company would lead to an investment in the said company. ② AJ acquired 2.39% of the shares of the said company in an amount of KRW 2.5 billion around 2009, but the value of the said shares in the account book was assessed to 6,605,000 won based on the determination that there was no value thereafter. ③ At that time, G was in a bad financial situation due to frequent cash outflow, and was in a state where funds were insufficient.

Nevertheless, around November 2012, the Defendant acquired 70,000 shares of AI 2.39% (61,428 won per share) 4.39 billion won (1.61,428 won) of shares of the company held by AJ in violation of his/her duties at G offices located in Gangnam-gu Seoul AE building, and paid a sum of KRW 4.3 billion from November 26, 2012 to December 31, 2012, thereby obtaining property benefits in the amount to AJ and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim G.

In addition, from December 31, 2012 to May 31, 2013, the Defendant conspiredd with J, etc., to pay the purchase price of the right to purchase electronic voting machines seven times from May 31, 2013, as shown in the attached Table 2 of Crimes List 2, thereby causing damage equivalent to KRW 2,763,00,000 in total to the victim G by issuing bills in the name of G and transferring the rights to the Defendant’s bond holders.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

구 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(2012. 2. 10. 법률 제11304호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제347조 제1항, 제30조[피해자 M에 대한 사기의 점. 다만, 형의 상한은 구 형법(2010. 4. 15. 법률 제10259호로 일부 개정되기 전의 것) 제42조 본문에서 정한 징역 15년으로 한다], 형법 제359조, 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제30조(피해자 W에 대한 업무상배임미수의 점), 구 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제347조 제1항, 제30조(피해자 AC에 대한 사기의 점, 포괄하여), 구 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(2016. 1. 6. 법률 제13719호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제3조 제1항 제1호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제1항, 제30조(피해자 G에 대한 횡령의 점, 포괄하여), 구 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제356조, 제355조 제2항, 제30조(피해자 G에 대한 배임의 점, 포괄하여), 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2013. 5. 28. 법률 제11845호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제443조 제2항 제2호, 제1항 제1호, 제174조 제1항 제1 호(미공개중요정보 이용행위의 점), 각 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2013. 4. 5. 법률 제11758호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제445조 제20호, 제147조 제1항, 제3항, 제4항(G에 대한 대량보유상황 보고의무위반의 점), 각 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제446조 제31호, 제173조 제1항(소유상황 보고의무위반의 점), 형법 제231조(사문서위조의 점), 형법 제234조, 제231조(위조사문서행사의 점), 구 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제347조 제1항(피해자 AK에 대한 사기의 점, 포괄하여), 각 조세범 처벌법 제10조 제3항 제1호(조세범처벌법 위반의 점), 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제444조 제18호, 제147조 제1항(대량보유 상황 허위보고의 점), 각 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제445조 제20호, 제147조 제1항, 제3항, 제4항(주식회사 EL에 대한 대량보유상황 및 변동내용 보고의무 위반의 점), 상법 제628조 제1항, 제622조 제1항(주금납입 가장의 점), 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2013. 5. 28. 법률 제11845호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제443조 제1항 제8호, 제178조 제1항 제1호(금융투자상품의 거래와 관련한 부정한 수단, 계획 또는 기교 사용의 점), 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제443조 제1항 제9호, 제178조 제2항(시세변동도모 목적 위계 사용의 점)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the use of an unfair means, plan or bridge related to the transaction of financial investment instruments, and between the crime of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the use of a deceptive scheme for the purpose of the degree of the fluctuation in market price, and punishment as stipulated by the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

1. Selection of punishment;

With respect to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) due to embezzlement against victims G, the limited term of imprisonment, the crime of attempted occupational breach of trust, the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the crime of forging private documents, the crime of uttering of each investigation document, the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act [mutual crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), violation of the Commercial Act, violation of the Commercial Act, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets and Capital Markets

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [In the case of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the violation of the Commercial Act, and the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the use of a deceptive scheme for the purpose of creating a fluctuation in market price against the victim M, the punishment shall be imposed among the concurrent crimes with the punishment provided for the crime of violating the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Code [In regard to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the violation of the Commercial Code, and the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the use of a deceptive scheme for the purpose of creating a fluctuation in the market price of the victim M, the consideration

1. Pronouncement of compensation order and provisional execution order (with respect to FL, FJ, FK, and FM, an applicant for compensation);

Articles 25(1), 31(1), 31(2), and 31(3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings

[Recognizing that the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim AC was guilty, and the victim AC died on April 17, 2015, FL (C's wife, inheritance shares 3/9), the applicant for compensation, FJ, FK, FM (children and children, and 2/9 shares in inheritance), which is coinheritors, calculated by inheritance shares (FL 200,000,000, which is the applicant for compensation, and FJ, FJ, FK, FM, FM, and FM 133,30,000, which is the applicant for compensation, and each of the above amounts respectively, shall not be accepted by the date following the delivery date of each order for compensation, and the portion of the application for delay damages calculated by 15% per annum of each of the above amounts pursuant to Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 26, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Dismissal of an application for compensation order (with respect to the FN who is the applicant for compensation);

Articles 32(1)2 and (2), and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (limited to cases where an order for compensation is deemed groundless).

Reasons for sentencing

1. In relation to the part stated in No. 1 year 29 through 32 of the list of crimes committed in the judgment of the court below among the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against the victim G, the defendant argued that the amount of KRW 1 billion, which the defendant transferred to BF corporation (hereinafter "BF"), from March 8, 2013 to March 13 of the same month, was not originally the victim G funds, but the defendant deposited the money borrowed from GD, the representative director of BF, to BF again, and then again remitted it to BF, and therefore, the defendant's above act should be considered as favorable to the defendant.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below of first instance and the court below, i.e., ① in the investigative agency on February 2, 2013, the first instance court: (a) in the first instance court and the court of the first instance: (b) in the first instance: (c) in the first instance court, the Defendant promised to acquire GF from GD through GE to make an investment in paid-in business; (d) in the name of GF acquisition, the Defendant borrowed KRW 1 billion from GF; and (e) thereafter, paid KRW 1 billion in the name of BF to pay the Defendant’s debt with G corporation funds (Seoul Central District Court 2015Da721 (hereinafter referred to as “Evidence”), 2,375 pages of evidence records (hereinafter referred to as “Evidence records”); and (b) in the light of the fact that the Defendant paid-in money from the prosecutor’s office to GD to the account of the victim; and (b) in the first instance court, the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the Defendant paid-in money to the account of GF 28 billion.

2. Reasons for sentencing on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the violation of the Commercial Act, and the use of a deceptive scheme for the degree of fluctuation in market price against the victim M.

The defendant seems to have used only KRW 100 million out of the amount acquired by the defendant in relation to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim M, and the defendant fully recognizes the violation of the Commercial Act and the crime of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act. On June 23, 2011, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years in imprisonment with prison labor at the Incheon District Court on June 23, 201 and became final and conclusive on August 30, 2011.

However, it shall be considered that the above victim did not appear to have been repaid by the defendant, K, or L in cash deposit (the 6.10 pages of the trial record) in addition to the fact that the defendant actively entices the victim M, and the amount of the damage is relatively larger than one billion won, and that the victim did not appear to have been repaid by the defendant, K, or L (the 6.10 pages of the trial record). The above securities do not appear to have been distributed as non-listed stocks (the 588 pages of the trial record). The defendant did not have been used for the victim M. The above victim was punished by the defendant, the defendant distributed false report materials related to Y, and the defendant committed unfair trading, such as manipulating the victim's share price, and it appears that K had not predicted many general investors in the process, etc.

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, means of crime and result, etc., the sentence shall be determined as ordered.

3. Reasons for sentencing for the remaining crimes; and

The defendant acknowledges the remainder of the crime except for some of the crimes in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), the victim G has recovered significant damages in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), and the victim G has expressed its intention not to want the punishment of the defendant).

However, the defendant takes the leading role in each of the crimes in this part, and even though he had been subject to the criminal punishment several times prior to the crimes in this part, the defendant went to commit each of the crimes in this part, and committed this part without being aware of it, even though he was under the suspension of execution, the damage incurred by each of the crimes was very large, damage inflicted by the defendant due to each of the crimes in this part, the damage amount caused by the crime in this part was not recovered most, and the damage amount caused by the crime in embezzlement and breach of trust was not recovered, the defendant was not used from the victims other than the victim G, and U and T did not completely recover the damage of the victim AC, and the victim died without being used from the victim AC. Furthermore, the victim's bereaved family was dead, and the victim's death was caused by the defendant's crime in this part, and during this process, many minor shareholders went to the defendant's strict punishment from the investigation stage to the trial at the trial at the trial at the Seoul Central District Court, 2012.

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, means of crime and result, etc., the sentence shall be determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) to the victim W, which is the primary charge;

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant, in collusion with T and U on November 201, entered into a contract with X, the largest shareholder, to acquire 6,500 shares of the said company at KRW 3,00,00,000, which is the ownership of the said company, with the management right of W from Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, the largest shareholder, and on November 24, 201, X opened a general meeting of shareholders and had U take office as the representative director and the Defendant take office as the inside director.

Defendant and T. When acquiring the management right for W golf course as above, U issued the above golf course membership without permission and had the right to lend funds using it.

In order to issue a golf club membership and sell it in lots, the Defendant, in collusion with T and U, issued a golf club membership and sold it in violation of the above occupational duty, provided on November 28, 201, the Defendant violated the above occupational duty, and provided the Defendant with a representative director at the office located in W golf course located in Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, with six copies of a membership card in the name of the representative director of WW club (member number 2 to AA) in the name of the representative director of the WW club (member number 2 to AA), and then, on December 1, 201, the Defendant provided AC only or three above membership cards as collateral and borrowed the above three billion won on December 2, 2011 to AD office under the name of the law firm in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with a loan of the remaining KRW 300,000,000,000,000 won.

Accordingly, in collusion with T and U, the Defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 600 million of the above borrowed money, and caused the same damages to the victim W.

(b) judgment;

1) Even if the representative director of a corporation commits an act in violation of his/her duties, such as abuse of representative authority, and thus, is effective as an act of the company. However, if the other party knew or could have known the intention of the representative director, it shall be null and void against the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da18059, Aug. 29, 1997; 2003Da34045, Mar. 26, 2004). Therefore, if the other party was aware or could have known of the abuse of representative authority, the act of bearing the obligation is not, in principle, effective as against the company, and it is difficult to evaluate that the actual damage was inflicted on the company or the risk of actual damage was caused, and thus, it is not deemed that the other party was not aware of the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the duty to perform the duty, such as breach of trust, even before the execution of the duty to perform the obligation under the Civil Act.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts and circumstances are recognized.

A) On November 24, 2011, U entered into a contract with X, the largest shareholder of W, to acquire W’s management rights and WW shares 6,500 shares. Before fully accepting W, U does not engage in any act related to W’s property (such as member rights security and W property security, etc.). Before accepting W in its entirety, U taken office as the representative director of W as of November 1, 201 and 24.

B) U and T decided to issue golf membership fees in advance and borrow money as collateral because it is difficult to raise funds for acquiring W golf clubs. On November 28, 2011, U and T issued six copies of membership cards in the name of the representative director of W golf clubs (hereinafter referred to as “the instant membership”) and six copies of membership cards in the name of the representative director of W golf clubs (hereinafter referred to as “the instant membership”), and W golf clubs issuance certificates, respectively. However, Y was already a corporation that has been closed ex officio due to the abolition of the listing on June 7, 2010, and the Defendant, the representative director, did not pay the said membership fees.

C) Nevertheless, the Defendant, along with U, issued a valid meeting of U, U, the representative director of W W, with U.S., and explained as if the Defendant borrowed it as collateral, the Defendant offered three of the instant membership rights as collateral and borrowed three hundred million won from AC on December 1, 201, and borrowed three of the three of the instant membership rights as collateral, and again, on December 2, 201, the Defendant offered three of the remaining membership rights to AC as collateral and borrowed three hundred million won.

D) U, the representative director of W, in violation of its contents, issued membership rights in this case with Y as its members for personal financing in violation of its letter constitutes abuse of power of representation, and the Defendant, the representative director of Y, who is the party to the act of issuing the above membership rights, was well aware that the above membership rights were issued even though Y himself was a corporation that was voluntarily closed after its listing was abolished and did not pay its membership fees (the Defendant was also registered as W’s internal director on November 24, 201). Thus, insofar as he knew or could have known that the above issuance of membership rights in U constitutes abuse of power of representation, the above membership rights are not effective against W.

E) Meanwhile, AC did not transfer the instant membership to a third party, or did not file a lawsuit claiming liability for civil damages against W.

3) Ultimately, U’s issuance of membership in this case constitutes a case where Y, the other party, knew or could have known the fact of abuse of power of representation, and there was no effect on the victim W, and even from an economic point of view, there was a risk of actual damage or actual damage to the victim W. It is difficult to evaluate that the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) is not a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

C. Conclusion

Therefore, there is no proof that this part of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) has reached the point of acceptance, so it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but if it is recognized that the crime of attempted occupational breach of trust is guilty, it shall not

2. Part 1 of the Table 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) in the judgment of the victim G

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant is the real owner who acquired the management right of G. H’s representative director, and J is the vice president and financial director, and the Defendant, etc., etc., etc., were engaged in business affairs with due care as a good manager, and when acquiring shares, etc. of another company by using the company’s funds, the company’s management situation, financial status, such as capital and liabilities, etc., the possibility of success in the business run by the company, possibility of development of the company, recent trading trends of the relevant shares and immediately preceding transaction price, etc., and had duties to prevent the company’

around November 2012, the Defendant intended to acquire the shares of AI with AH as its representative director. However, at the time, the AI was a company at a research stage where the net assets as an emergency funeral have almost occurred due to 90 million won (the end of 2012), and thus, even if it acquired the shares of the said company, it was not clear whether it would make profits from the investment in the said company or not, and ② around 2009, AJ acquired 2.39% of the shares of the said company as 2.5 billion won. However, the value of the said shares in the account book is assessed as 6,605,000 won, and the value of the said shares is assessed as 6,605,000 won in fact, while G was in a financial situation due to frequent cash outflow.

Nevertheless, around November 2012, at G’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul AE Building, the Defendant acquired KRW 4.39 billion (6,605,000 on the account books) of AI shares of KRW 2.39% (6,605,00 on the account books) without value to acquire, and paid KRW 4.3 billion from November 26, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the Defendant acquired financial benefits of KRW 4,293,395,000, which is the difference between the book value and the book value, from November 26, 2012 to KRW 4.3 billion on the account books, thereby causing damage to the victim G.

B. Determination

As examined in the above 3-A. 2, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant obtained the AJ a pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 4,293,395,000 and caused the damage to the victim G. There is no other evidence to find otherwise. Ultimately, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where it is impossible to calculate the amount of profit of the AJ and the amount of damage of the victim G due to the Defendant’s breach of trust.

C. Conclusion

Thus, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as it is found to be guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

Judge Laos' rules

Judges Sung-ju

2) However, AX states that there was no sales from AI to a foreign patent right.

3) The stock value calculated by the method of appraisal of unlisted stocks under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act was not entirely reflected in the major industries of AI, competitors status, market and customer status, management’s career and reputation, prospects for industries and companies, previous transaction details, and the actual preference of the market. As such, the results of the said stock value assessment stated to the purport that “the price traded in the stock market may be different from the market price” (Evidence 9), and so-called “the market price may be different” (Evidence 9).

4) As to the fact-finding by the court of the first instance, BP refused to submit data in the manner that it is “it is not possible to submit the corporate value assessment report on AI because it is an important material for the management of BP” (the trial record 1,080 pages).

5) According to reference materials submitted by the prosecutor to the court of the trial on the last day of February 2014, the certified public accountant FT has received a request from the FU for appraisal of the value of the shares of AI, and prepared a report on appraisal of the value of the shares of AI with the effect that the value of the shares of AI is assessed between approximately KRW 68.8 billion and KRW 88.8 billion per share, and the value of the shares of the AI is assessed between KRW 23,468 and KRW 30,286 per share. On April 2014, the report on appraisal of the value of shares prepared with falsity as above is issued to BP as an investment company and the AI company as an investment company. On April 22, 2014, the certified public accountant has received KRW 33,000,000 from BP in return for services, has intentionally filed a false report in performing his/her duties, and has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for violating the Certified Public Accountant Act (Seoul High Court Decision 2020815Da1667.).

6) At the court of first instance, AX stated to the effect that “BP acquired the shares issued by AI, but actually said stocks were reversely merged or white.” (Public trial record 1,000 pages).

7) Although the facts charged are written as " March 7, 2013," it seems to be written in writing."

8) Although the facts charged are written as " March 8, 2013," it seems to be written in writing."

9) In fact, H, J, AY: (a) around October 2010, H. 1: (b) by requiring GO to acquire 5.5% of the shares in BD secured by I, N and DM at a high price of KRW 7 billion; (c) I et al. obtain economic benefits equivalent to KRW 5.85 billion, the market price of which was 5.5 billion; and (d) cause property damage equivalent to G; (b) by collusion with H and Y to obtain processing benefits of false employees, such as FW from May 1, 2010 to September 27, 2012; (d) by providing 30 billion won in prison with loans to G 1, 204; (e) by means of payment of corporate cards to use; (e) payment of corporate bonds to BD; and (e) payment of loans to G 1,000,000 won in total; and (e) providing the Defendant and the Defendant’s 2,014.5 billion won in breach of trust.

10) The first instance court determined to the effect that the J submitted part of the materials requested by the FY Accounting Corporation on March 9, 2013, but it is difficult to view it as such in light of this part of the BC’s statement, etc.

11) According to the evidence records of the Seoul Central District Court case 2015 Gohap721, BD representative director filed a charge of embezzlement, etc. with the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office around February 2013, which sent the receipt that he filed a charge of embezzlement, etc. to G and FY accounting corporation. At the time, the Defendant was aware of the receipt of the above accusation (the above evidence record 4,218 to 4,219 pages).

12) In this regard, H stated that “I would not have anticipated that I will notify an accounting corporation of the refusal of an audit opinion.” However, even according to H’s statement (Evidence Nos. 1,117). However, even according to H’s statement, the auditor is J and the auditor is not well aware of matters related to audit (Evidence Nos. 1,114) because there is no participation of himself/herself (Evidence Nos. 1,114). Therefore, G-related persons involved in the audit at least at the time were aware of the possibility of the result of the audit of “proption.”

13) According to the evidence records of the Seoul Central District Court case 2015 Gohap721, G (formerly changed: GA corporation) was incorporated into the management issues for two consecutive years, including 2008 and 2009, with a view to less than five billion won. Since the annual sales amount of 2010 was at least five billion won, BD’s business rights around September 2010 were at the risk of delisting if it was not achieved, BD’s shares were acquired on or around 2010, and paid a large-scale advance payment to BD’s sales. After receiving BD’s shares, G paid a large-scale advance payment to 3.5 billion won to BD, and the Defendant appears to have received the above 3.5 billion won from 205 billion won to 3.5 billion won from 205 billion won from 2012 when undergoing an audit on or around a half-year period of time, and the Defendant immediately released BD’s shares from 16.5 billion won to 6.5 billion won from 7.

14) According to the evidence record of Seoul Southern District Court case 2016Kadan6414, the Defendant assumed office as the representative director of Y, a KOSDAQ-listed corporation around December 18, 2009, and received an expression of refusal due to uncertainty of the continued corporate capacity in relation to the fiscal year 2009 fiscal year from the new accounting corporation of Y, an external auditor of Y on March 26, 2010, and thereafter, on April 13, 2010, the Defendant was de-listing experience (the evidence record of 230 pages, 232 pages, 1,851 pages).

15) It is clear that the record of the lower judgment’s “2012, March 12, 2012, and March 12, 2012,” among the attached list 1 of the crime sight table 1, “2013, March 12, 2013,” and “32, March 13, 2012,” read “3.3.13, 2013.” (see, e.g., Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da3721, Mar. 13, 201) is a clerical error (see, e.g., 2183 pages of the evidence record of the case of 2,226-2, 268 pages, 2,371-2, 375 pages, 3,274-277, of the attached list 1 of the crime sight table 1).

16) On 8th 14th 14th 14th 201, the judgment of the court below is that "round November 21, 2012," "round March 15, 2013," "round March 15, 2013," "round March 15, 2013," "round March 18, 2013," respectively, is a clerical error in the list of crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below, one time per annum among the list of crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and eight times per annum among the list of crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

17) The facts charged in the preliminary charge added by the prosecutor stated as “The victim W knew or could have known the abuse of the right of representation by the Defendant, etc., so it cannot be deemed that the actual damage was not occurred or the risk of actual damage was not occurred, and thus, it was not realized.” However, the prosecutor corrected part of the charges to the extent that does not disadvantage the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense based on the legal principles as stated in Article 1(b) and the facts

18) The number of shares acquired and the value per share were added as above.

19) On October 18, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced K to two years of imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for L in the same court case 2012 Gohap1781 (Separation), and the above judgment was finalized on March 17, 2014. The sentence against K and L with the remaining amount of damage except the amount of KRW 100 million distributed by the Defendant should be considered as the sentencing data for the Defendant.

20) At the investigation stage, Q has been submitted a written confirmation (the above evidence record 479-482 pages) to the victim M. However, M stated in the first instance court that there was no reason to receive the said written confirmation (the trial record 165-166 pages). In this regard, AR stated in the first instance court that Q would pay KRW 1 billion to Q if Q would pay KRW 1 billion to Q, and that Q would not pay KRW 1 billion to Q (the trial record 21-224 pages).

21) Regarding the Defendant’s breach of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlements), the sum of KRW 1 to 7 billion stated on the B/L No. 1 to B/L No. 1 stated on the judgment of the court below was repaid in preparation for the victim G 2012. The Defendant’s total amount of KRW 2.7 billion stated on the B/L No. 8 to 266 billion out of the amount of embezzlement stated on the B/L No. 1 to 3.7 billion and the amount of KRW 1.5 billion out of the total amount of KRW 1.7 billion stated on the B/L No. 3 billion in the judgment of the court below is repaid and disposed of. 3 billion in advance. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant paid more than KRW 2.7 billion in outstanding amount of KRW 3 billion in the B/L No. 1 to 3.7 billion in the amount of debt borrowed from GU 2.5 billion in relation to the foregoing breach of trust contract (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da727274 billion.3 billion.3 billion.

22) However, G (Representative G) also states that if the Defendant agreed to receive 425,986 shares issued by G (Representative GH) owned by the Defendant as compensation for damage, he/she does not want to punish the Defendant (the trial record 1,453 pages). However, G has already been delisting due to the Defendant’s criminal act, and is not actually operated, and appears to have been closed ex officio.