1. The record reveals the following facts.

( Group Name omitted) The Defendant, who was the Chairperson of the Group, was indicted on several charges including the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) with a view to managing the said Group for the management of the said Group. Before remanding the case, the lower court convicted the Defendant of several charges, including the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) that loans to the said Group were not possible to be recovered, and it was difficult for the Defendant to file a complaint with regard to the part of the charges which was found guilty on the grounds that the said Group had ability to repay at the time of the appeal, and that the Defendant did not have any intent to commit a breach of trust. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court prior to remanding the entire conviction on the grounds that the Defendant received only a part related to the violation of the Labor Standards Act, and sentenced the entire guilty portion,

After remanding the case, the Defendant, in the lower judgment and the judgment before remanding the case, included 7 loans recognized as breach of trust in the lower court’s judgment and the judgment before remanding the case, including the so-called substitution conducted to simply extend the maturity period of the existing loans normally implemented before the above group loses its ability to repay, and it was difficult to follow up the arguments and supporting evidence that included them in the act of breach of trust constitutes a violation of the rules of evidence. However, the lower court did not separately determine the above assertion by treating

2. The part rejected by the court of final appeal on the ground that the argument in the grounds of final appeal is groundless at the same time as the ruling is rendered, and the defendant can no longer contest against this part, and the court remanded can no longer make a decision contrary thereto. Thus, the defendant cannot make a claim in this part as the grounds of final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3062 Decided February 28, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8651 Decided March 24, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1247 Decided October 28, 2005, etc.). Accordingly, it cannot be accepted as a legitimate ground of final appeal that the ground of final appeal that was rejected by the previous court of final appeal on the ground that it did not have been asserted in the previous part of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) which was rejected on the ground that there was no ground of final appeal.

On the other hand, even if the defendant's seven loans were not to constitute a crime of breach of trust because they constitute a substitute exchange, the court below found that the defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust) after remanding the following circumstances, which was recognized by the court below, to have been 60 times in total from November 19, 197 to June 10, 1998, and obtained property benefits from the company belonging to the (group omitted) group and did not violate the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the above 31,50,000,000,000,000 won were remanded to the court below for more than 30 billion won, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the above 300,000 won, excluding the remaining amount of 770,000,000 won, which should be remanded to the court below for more than 100,00,00,00,00.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and 117 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)