특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant B, D, E, F, and A, the judgment of the second instance, and Defendant B of the judgment of the third instance.
1. Determination ex officio on Defendant B, D, E, A, and BF
A. The prosecutor of Defendant B, D, E, and A (ex officio destruction due to the change in indictment) applied for changes in indictment with respect to the facts charged against Defendant B, D, E, and A [Provided, That in the case of Defendant E, the part on loans worth KRW 4.5 billion in the name of W Co., Ltd. (in the case of Defendant E, hereinafter “stock Co., Ltd.”) on June 15, 2009, which was subject to the judgment of the court of first instance (in the case of Defendant E, the part on loans of KRW 4.5 billion in the name of the corporation shall not be separately stated)]. The amount of profit from the crime of occupational breach of trust was reduced by deducting the value of the real estate offered as security from the amount of loans extended by the Victim A Bank (hereinafter “victim Bank”), and this Court was changed to this part of the judgment
On the other hand, the prosecutor added the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) to the ancillary charge against the Defendant B, which was the object of the judgment of the court below, to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation). It is interpreted as changing the charge of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.
Ultimately, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant B, D, E, and A should be reversed.
Defendant E’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) which the court below found Defendant E guilty has a relation to a single comprehensive crime, and as such, some of the facts charged were modified, thereby making it a condition for sentencing.
Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant E should be reversed, including the part on which the facts charged are not modified.
B. Defendant E (ex officio destruction due to merger) Nos. 1 and 2 of the lower court shall be the Defendant.