However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order Defendant 1 to provide community service for 120 hours.

Of the facts charged in this case against Defendant 1, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) and the violation of trust shall be acquitted, respectively.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant 2 shall be published.

On July 5, 2007, Defendant 1 entered into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 2 on the acquisition of the construction of the ○ Terminal Complex in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1’s representative director. Since the above contract has become difficult to maintain any longer due to the reasons attributable to Nonindicted Co. 2’s fault on the part of the Nonindicted Co. 2 Co., Ltd., at the time of the above contract, Defendant 1 claimed damages of KRW 500 million, which is KRW 2.5 million paid to Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 1 for the performance of the above contract, KRW 10,15,000,000, KRW 15,000,000, KRW 2.500,000,000,000 from the office located in Sung-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, in the face amount column of the bill, “the amount of KRW 50,00,000, July 7, 2008,” the date of payment was recorded as “the name 1015,15.”

Accordingly, Defendant 1 forged a promissory note in the name of Nonindicted 11, 10, and 15, which is a securities, for the purpose of exercising the right.

2. Forgery of private documents;

Defendant 1 stated the date, time, and place stated in the above Paragraph 1 as stated in the letter of delegation that all the powers regarding the request for the preparation of a notarial deed of the said Promissory Notes shall be delegated in the letter of delegation in color, “Non-Indicted 11, 10, 15” in the letter of delegation, and affixed Nonindicted 11, 10, and 15 seals affixed on the letter of delegation.

As a result, Defendant 1 forged a letter of delegation in the name of Nonindicted 11, 10, and 15, which is a private document on rights and obligations, for the purpose of uttering.

3. Counterfeiting of forged securities, and holding of falsified investigation documents.

On August 8, 2008, Defendant 1 issued a forged promissory note and power of attorney-at-law in charge of authentication, who is aware of the forgery at the law firm office △△△△, to Nonindicted 17 and exercised it as if they were genuinely prepared.

4. Making false entries in the authentic deed and uttering of the authentic deed;

Defendant 1 submitted forged promissory notes and power of attorney-at-law in charge of authentication to the effect that he would immediately enforce the said promissory notes, at the same time and place as mentioned in paragraph (3) above, and made him prepare the original copy of the notarial deed to the effect that he would recognize the fact of forgery, and had him record the fact of mistake in the original copy of the notarial deed. At that time, Defendant 1 had the said office keep the original copy of the notarial deed stating the fact of mistake, and exercised it.

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 11, 10, and 18

1. A copy of a contract for the quantity of business rights/water supply;

1. A copy of a notarial deed or a copy of counterfeited promissory note (a promissory note with a face value of KRW 500 million);

- The point of securities commission: Article 214(1) of the Criminal Code

- The point of reference to private documents: each Criminal Code 231

- The point of exercising forged securities: Article 217 of the Criminal Code

- The occupation of uttering of a falsified document: Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Code

- The point of false entry in the authentic copy of a notarial deed: Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act

- The exercise of the original authentic document: Articles 229 and 228(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 ( ① Crimes of Forgery of Securities) (2) Crimes of forging of private documents, ③ Crimes of uttering of forged securities and uttering of each private document, and punishment imposed on the crimes of uttering of forged securities with more severe punishment

1. Selection of punishment;

Election of each imprisonment term for the crime of forging private documents, the crime of not writing the original of a notarial deed, and the crime of uttering of the original of a notarial deed

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment and Misappropriation)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Considering the fact that counterfeited securities are not distributed, that there is no economic benefit gained by the defendant from each of the crimes of this case, that there is no economic benefit from the defendant, and that there is no power of the defendant

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against the Defendants

Defendant 1 is the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1 and was the auditor of Nonindicted Co. 2 from July 5, 2007 to April 7, 2008. Defendant 2 is the auditor of Nonindicted Co. 3 from July 19, 2007 to September 5, 200.

On July 5, 2007, Defendant 1 entered into a contract with the victim company to take over the construction of the complex building under the name of the victim company of the non-indicted 1. Defendant 1: (a) paid a down payment of KRW 100 million on the day of the acquisition price of the above business right; (b) paid the intermediate payment and the balance amount of KRW 2.9 billion on the day of the above business right; and (c) the victim company is obligated not to participate in the above business, such as giving up acceptance to the non-indicted 3 corporation holding a passenger vehicle terminal business license under the Passenger Transport Service Act necessary for the above business; (d) the victim company agreed to invalidate the above contract if the payment of intermediate payment or balance is not possible; (e) Defendant 1 was the auditor of the victim company on the same day; and (e) Defendant 1 was the representative director designated by the non-indicted 1; (e) Defendant 1 was exempt from the above loan obligation on July 19, 2007 on the ground that the above business was carried out on the above business.

On the other hand, around September 10, 2005, the victim company entered into a contract to purchase the purchase price of KRW 1,850,000,00,000,000 for the purchase price of KRW 500,000,00,000,00 for the above business site for the non-indicted 6,7,8, and9 shares (number 1 omitted) as the buyer, and paid the down payment amount of KRW 400,00,000 until October 14, 2005. The defendant 1 applied for provisional disposition that prohibits the victim company from selling and selling the above land as the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the seller, such as the non-indicted 6, as the right to preserve the purchase and sale of the above land. On or around the 31st of the same month, the victim company did not take any disposal of the above land in preparation for the above provisional disposition order and did not maintain the status of the victim company's business as the one who was actually managing the above land.

On the other hand, Nonindicted Co. 5 promoted the above business in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3. However, Defendant 2, as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 3, needed to purchase the land in question, requested Defendant 1 to withdraw the provisional disposition prohibiting the above disposal of the land in question, and delivered KRW 4.4 million in compensation therefor.

Defendant 1, around November 30, 2007, in violation of the above occupational duties in the court of the Daejeon District Court’s Incheon District Court’s Branch, and upon receiving the above request from Defendant 2, withdrawn the application for provisional disposition prohibiting the above disposal between the victim company and Nonindicted 6, etc. on this land, and the above provisional disposition registration was cancelled. On the same day, the above provisional disposition registration was made to Nonindicted Co. 3 on the same day.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion with the victim company to inflict damages on the victim company for the loss of the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the land which is in the market value, and let the non-indicted 3 corporation acquire the profit of owning the land in the market value of KRW 2.4 billion.

B. The point of taking property in breach of trust against Defendant 1

On November 30, 2007, Defendant 1 received an illegal solicitation from Defendant 2 who wants to purchase the land in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 in order to request the withdrawal of the above provisional disposal order between the victim company and Nonindicted Co. 6, etc. regarding the land, and on the same day, Defendant 1 received KRW 200 million from the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, around December 5 of the same year, around KRW 200 million, and around December 10 of the same year, and acquired KRW 440,000,000,000,000,000 won.

C. The point of giving property in breach of trust to Defendant 2

Defendant 2 provided Defendant 1 with a total of KRW 440 million in return for an illegal solicitation at the same date, time, and place as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (b).

2. Determination

According to the records of this case, around October 207, Defendant 1 filed an application for provisional disposition against Nonindicted 7, 9, 6, and 8, the seller of this case in the name of the victim company against the non-indicted 7, 6, and 8 ( Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2007Kadan488), and the provisional disposition on October 2, 2007 was completed upon the completion of the registration of provisional disposition on November 31, 2007; ② the above non-indicted 7, the debtor of the above provisional disposition, etc., failed to raise an objection to the provisional disposition on November 9, 2007 (Seoul District Court Decision 207Kadan5110, the Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Kadan510, Nov. 30, 2007), and Defendant 1 withdrawn an application for provisional disposition on November 4, 2007, which had not been paid to the seller of this case’s intermediate payment and the remainder of the above non-indicted 3, etc.

According to the above facts, since the right of purchaser as to the principal land of the victim company is entirely extinguished, and the above provisional disposition is not inevitable to be cancelled because it is not recognized as preserved right, it is difficult to deem that Defendant 1 had a duty to maintain the registration of provisional disposition prohibiting the above disposal of the land as it is. It is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s withdrawal of the application for provisional disposition as above, thereby causing a real damage to the victim company or causing a risk of property damage.

In addition, as above, even if Defendant 2 made a solicitation to request Defendant 1 to cancel the execution of provisional disposition and paid KRW 440 million to Defendant 1, it is difficult to view it as an illegal solicitation regarding Defendant 1’s duties.

Thus, since each of the above facts charged on the premise that Defendant 1 had occupational duties to maintain the registration of provisional disposition prohibition as it is, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against Defendant 2 under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act is publicly announced.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges old-gu (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-ho