However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

From March 24, 2004 to December 2, 2006, the Defendant, who served as the representative director of the victim non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. (former trade name △△△△ Co., Ltd., hereinafter “victim”), issued a promissory note in the name of the victimized Co., Ltd., ○○○ Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “○○○ Mutual Savings Bank”) with the total principal amount of KRW 2.3 billion for Nonindicted Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-indicted 1”) in which the Defendant was separately responsible for the representative director at the time of the victimized Co., Ltd.’s office around March 10, 2006, in order to secure the obligation of loans of KRW 2.3 billion, the Defendant issued a promissory note in the name of the victimized Co., Ltd., ○○ Mutual Savings Bank with the face value of KRW 2.99 billion.

As a result, the Defendant violated his duties as representative director, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 290 million from 00 million from ○○ Mutual Savings Bank, and causing damages equivalent to the same amount to the damaged company.

1. Copies of promissory notes;

1. A report on investigation (Attachment of loan-related documents) and accompanying documents;

1. Copy of each corporate register of Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 1

1. Previous records: Criminal records, investigation reports, and copies of written judgments attached thereto;

Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012); Article 356 and Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da1448, Apr. 2, 2

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Discretionary Reasons for Discretionary Mitigation)

However, on the other hand, the risk of damage caused by the instant crime is not realized, and there is no damage that the victimized company actually suffered, and the Defendant appears to have been prevented from committing the instant crime in the course of promoting the business through multiple companies rather than withdrawing personal benefits due to the instant crime. In addition, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime have been tried at a time, and equity, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as equity, etc.

Although the defendant issued a promissory note in the name of the victimized company, there was no possibility that the victimized company will suffer damage, and there was no intention to commit a breach of trust that would inflict property damage on the victimized company.

2. Determination

In light of all the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, namely, the property status of Nonindicted Company 1 at the time of issuing the Promissory Notes, the market value of the real estate offered as collateral for loans to ○○ Mutual Savings Bank, the face value of the Promissory Notes, the current status of the Defendant’s business promoted at the time, and the process of repayment of the above loans and the process of the damaged company going out of the status of the joint guarantor for the above loans, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant issued the Promissory Notes in the name of the victimized company, thereby causing the risk of causing property damage to the victimized company in breach of trust. It is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, as well, was aware of and admitted the risk of damage to the victimized company

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

Judges Kim Dong-dae (Presiding Judge)