Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

The 196-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above-mentioned sentence against Defendant 1, and the above-mentioned sentence against Defendant 2.

However, with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Part 85 (Evidence Nos. 1 and 2) of the share certificates confiscated from Defendant 1 and part 129 (Evidence No. 3 and 4) of the share certificates shall be confiscated from Defendant 2, respectively.

A. As to the acquittal portion of the Prosecutor

In light of the fact that Nonindicted 2, who was the representative of Nonindicted Co. 1 at the time of interrogation of Nonindicted Co. 1, stated that there was no fact of issuing the instant share certificates at the time of the company partnership agreement with the Defendants from the date of the second interrogation to the court below in 196, and that there was no other fact of issuing the said share certificates at the time of the company partnership agreement with the Defendants on 1996, and that there was no full use of the seal imprint of the company seal impression affixed on the front of the said share certificates, the place of printing the share certificates, the time of production of the company company as indicated on the share certificates, and the date of production of

B. As to the Defendants (as to the part of the charge)

(1) At the time of the issuance of the instant shares, Defendant 1 had a claim of KRW 155,00,000 against Nonindicted Co. 1 and Defendant 2 had a claim of KRW 625,00,000 against Defendant 625,00,00, and the Defendants knew that they invested the said claim in lieu of the payment of the capital increase and contributed to the claim equivalent to the amount of the capital increase, and thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have a criminal intent to commit the crime of disguised payment. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

(2) The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the instant crime, etc.

2. Facts related to forgery of stock certificates;

According to the defendants and the court below's witness's statements in the court of the court below, each of the prosecutor's protocol against the defendants and the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 7, and the non-indicted 3's prosecutor's protocol of examination of each prosecutor's protocol against the non-indicted 8, the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 6's statement, the statement of the police's statement against the non-indicted 8, the defendant 1 (including the attached transcript of register, the cancellation statement, the business contract, the sales contract, the decision, the minutes, etc.), the statement of the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 8, and the non-indicted 5's written statement (Article 3879 of the record of the case No. 2004-type No. 5208), each copy of the share certificate, the articles of incorporation, the list No. 13 (Evidence1).

(1) Nonindicted Co. 1 was established on or around March 27, 1989, and Nonindicted Co. 2, a de facto shareholder at the time of its establishment, became the representative director, and has been operating the company with a bad and bad management rights.

At the time of establishment, 100,000 capital, 20,000 shares issued, and 5,000 shares per share, but the new shares issued on February 26, 1994 were issued on February 40, 199, and 300,000 capital, and 60,000 shares issued.

After the capital increase, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 18,00 shares, Nonindicted 10 shares, Nonindicted 115,00 shares, and Nonindicted 119,00 shares on the register of shareholders. However, the shares in the name of Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 11 shares are in title trust by Nonindicted 2.

(2) On April 13, 1996 for the apartment redevelopment project, Nonindicted Co. 1 purchased approximately 14,000 of the land owned by Nonindicted Co. 12 in order to carry out the apartment redevelopment project from the Nonindicted Co. 12 Foundation in Dongjak-gu, Seoul. However, on July 12, 1996, Nonindicted Co. 12 notified the cancellation of the contract on the ground that Nonindicted Co. 1 did not perform the initial agreement to repay the delinquent taxes owed by Nonindicted Co. 1 to Nonindicted Co. 12 Foundation and to withdraw the public auction.

On October 6, 1996, Non-Indicted 2 entered into a partnership agreement by inducing Non-Indicted 3, who is a volunteer in the military, from Defendant 1 to his partner, to prevent the termination of the contract and continuously promote the redevelopment project. After entering into the partnership agreement by inducing Defendant 2, who is capable of mobilization of funds on October 23, 1996, to his partner, and made Defendant 2 participate in the operation of the company by appointing Defendant 2 as the chairman and the auditor, and let Defendant 1 participate in the company. On the other hand, Defendant 2 issued new shares of 180,000 on November 2, 1996, and increased the capital in KRW 1.240,000,000.

At the time of the conclusion of the second resort business contract, Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 agreed to own 30% of the company’s shares, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 distributed shares, as a result of Nonindicted 230,000 shares, Nonindicted 372,00 shares, Defendant 148,00 shares, Defendant 248,00 shares, Nonindicted 918,00 shares, Nonindicted 105,00 shares, and Nonindicted 119,00 shares, respectively (at the time of capital increase, it was conducted by means of the best payment).

(3) After the termination of the contract by Nonindicted Incorporated 12 through Nonindicted Incorporated 3, Nonindicted Incorporated 1 was closed, Nonindicted Incorporated 1 purchased approximately KRW 46,822 from Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 12 on March 14, 1997, about the land owned by Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 2, 3, and 44 Dong Dong-dong, Seoul, and Nonindicted Incorporated 12 on March 14, 1997, and promoted an apartment redevelopment project by dividing the said land into three complexes, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonindicted Incorporated 1,572 on August 28, 197.

In this process, Nonindicted Co. 3 received a considerable amount of money from Nonindicted Co. 1, and around March 1998, transferred shares to Nonindicted Co. 2, and withdrawn from the partnership relationship, and on October 21, 1998, Nonindicted Co. 1 transferred shares to Nonindicted Co. 2 on or around December 21, 1998, and was detached from the company’s operation.

As a result, on December 31, 1998, Nonindicted 278,000 shares (previous 30,00 shares + 48,00 shares in the previous shares + Defendant 2), Nonindicted 1372,00 shares (Nonindicted 72,00 shares in the name of Nonindicted 3), Defendant 148,00 shares, Nonindicted 918,00 shares, Nonindicted 10 shares, and Nonindicted 119,00 shares on the register of shareholders.

(4) On October 11, 1999, when Nonindicted 2 was detained due to the suspicion of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (the Seoul High Court sentenced five years to imprisonment at the Seoul High Court on August 3, 200), Nonindicted 2 led Nonindicted 5, a creditor of the company, to take office on May 2, 200, and had Nonindicted 5, a joint representative director of Nonindicted 1 corporation operate the company.

around September 200 through October 10, 200, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 3 filed an objection to the Company on the grounds that their taxes were imposed on Nonindicted Co. 2 for the transfer of shares, even though they did not transfer or waive Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares to Nonindicted Co. 2, and that they did not transfer the shares to Nonindicted Co. 2, thereby accepting their objection, and correcting the list of shareholders as if they did not transfer the shares to Nonindicted Co. 2. On October 25 of the same year, Nonindicted Co. 5 filed an application for correction of the detailed statement of the transfer of shares in the distribution tax book (the assertion that Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted 5 corrected the list of shareholders as above without any grounds with the intent to exclude them from the management of the Company).

Accordingly, the shares of Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 2 were returned to the original state on October 25, 2000, and were registered as owned respectively by Nonindicted 230,000 shares, Nonindicted 372,00 shares, Defendant 148,00 shares, Defendant 248,00 shares, Nonindicted 98,00 shares, Nonindicted 10 shares, Nonindicted 100 shares, and Nonindicted 119,00 shares on the register of shareholders on October 25, 200.

(5) On November 7, 200, Nonindicted 5 dismissed Nonindicted 2 from the representative director on the register of shareholders on the ground that the Defendants and Nonindicted 3’ shares were more than that of Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 2 embezzled the funds of the company borrowed from the financial right, using that Nonindicted 5 used that the Defendants and Nonindicted 3’ shares were more than that of Nonindicted 2’s shares, and subsequently, dismissed Nonindicted 2 from the representative director. On November 29, 200, Nonindicted 5 issued new shares of 120,000 shares (the above new shares were all acquired by Nonindicted 5) and increased to 360,000 shares issued.

As a result, at the time of December 31, 200, Nonindicted 514,00 shares on the register of shareholders (120,00 shares he accepted + 24,00 shares that he acquired from Defendant 1), Nonindicted 230,00 shares, Nonindicted 372,00 shares, Defendant 124,00 shares, Defendant 248,00 shares, Nonindicted 918,00 shares, Nonindicted 100 shares, and Nonindicted 119,00 shares on the register of shareholders.

(6) Nonindicted 2 thought that Nonindicted 5, as described in paragraph (4), operated the register of shareholders in mind with the Defendants, and dismissed himself from the representative director. Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 13, together with Nonindicted 13, filed a complaint with the Dong District Prosecutors’ Office in Seoul on November 27, 200 for the charge of occupational breach of trust, etc. in relation to the manipulation of the register of shareholders. Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 1 filed a complaint against Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 13 for the charge of forging and forging private documents on January 201.

On November 201, 2001, both Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 2 recognized the shares listed in the name of Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 3 as owned by Nonindicted 2, as indicated in paragraph (4) by both the Defendants and Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 2. As seen in paragraph (7), Nonindicted 2 paid KRW 2 billion to Nonindicted 2 in addition to repaying the obligations to the creditors, including Nonindicted 14, etc., on the other hand, Nonindicted 2 was agreed to recognize KRW 120,00 of the shares issued by Nonindicted 5, and thus, was subject to a non-guilty disposition.

Accordingly, as of December 31, 200, Nonindicted 5142,000 shares (2,00 shares transferred to Nonindicted 8 in the name of 144,00 shares), Nonindicted 82,00 shares, Nonindicted 2129,00 shares (72,00 shares in the name of Nonindicted 3 + 24,000 shares in the name of Defendant 1 + 3,000 shares in the name of Nonindicted 918,00 shares and 105,00 shares in the name of Nonindicted 10 shares), Nonindicted 148,00 shares (3,00 shares in the name of Defendant 2 + 48,00 shares in the name of Nonindicted 98,00 + Nonindicted 105,000 shares in the name of Nonindicted 10,000 shares in the name of Nonindicted 30,100 shares in the name of Nonindicted 301 shares and shares in the name of Nonindicted 40 shares in the name of Defendant 201 shares.

(7) Meanwhile, on June 1, 2001, after Non-Indicted 5 assumed office as the representative director of Non-Indicted 1 Co. 1, 2001, Non-Indicted 5 transferred the redevelopment right to the 2 and 3 complexes in Yongsando-dong Seoul Metropolitan Government to Non-Indicted 15 Co., Ltd. and Non-Indicted 16 Co., Ltd., and received 3.2 billion won or more from Non-Indicted 17 construction on December 31, 2001, and received 6 billion won or more from Non-Indicted 1 as the repayment of the provisional deposit claim against Non-Indicted 1 Co.

On October 201, the Defendants asserted that they purchased the land from Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 12, and applied for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the land of the complex 1 to the Seoul District Court on or around October 31, 2001. As a result, Nonindicted 5 retired from the auditor on or around October 31, 2001. On November 11 of the same year, the Defendants filed a complaint against the Defendants under suspicion of forging private documents, etc. on the grounds that the Defendants forged the receipts issued by Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1 and submitted the receipts as provisional disposition materials. The Defendants also embezzled Nonindicted 5’s funds for the transfer of the above business right to the Seoul District Prosecutors’ Office on or around May 2002.

(8) From May 15, 2002, Nonindicted 5 entered Nonindicted 8 as the representative director and actually operated Nonindicted Company 1. At the time of December 31, 2002, Nonindicted 5 entered Nonindicted 52,00 shares, Nonindicted 86,00 shares, Nonindicted 876,00 shares, Nonindicted 189,00 shares, and Nonindicted 2105,00 shares, Nonindicted 92,00 shares, Nonindicted 1976,00 shares, and Nonindicted 2070,00 shares on the list of shareholders, respectively.

(9) However, as Nonindicted 5 did not pay KRW 2 billion according to the above agreement to Nonindicted 2, around August 2002 through September 9, 2002, the Defendants and Nonindicted 2, who were excluded from the management of the company by Nonindicted 5, together with the purport that they would find the management rights of the company. Accordingly, on November 15, 2002, the Defendants filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of shareholder status against Nonindicted 1 Co. 3 as the shareholder of Nonindicted Company 1 (Defendant 124,00, Defendant 248,000, Defendant 200, Nonindicted 200, and Nonindicted 340, Defendant 200, Defendant 206, and Nonindicted 3, 204, 208, 300, 206, 300, 200, 300, 204, 306, 206, 300, 204, 200, 304, 2010, 304, etc.

On July 2, 2003, when Defendant 1 et al. accepted the application for the temporary general meeting of shareholders on July 2, 2003 and the special general meeting of shareholders was permitted, the Defendants convened a temporary general meeting of shareholders on August 8, 2003 and appointed Nonindicted 4 as a representative director. The Defendants dismissed Nonindicted 8 et al.’ previous directors and auditors during the attendance of Nonindicted 4, and appointed Nonindicted 4 et al. as a new representative director, and Defendant 1 as an auditor. On the other hand, the board of directors composed of new directors on the same day, appointed Nonindicted 4 as a representative director.

(10) Meanwhile, on August 2, 200, Nonindicted Incorporated 12 made a sales contract from Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 12, Seoul District Court 200Dahap55978, with respect to the non-indicted Incorporated Company 1, which transferred its ownership to the non-indicted Incorporated Company 1, and received a favorable judgment on October 15, 2003 (which became final and conclusive on July 28, 2005), and the Defendants sold the down payment to Non-indicted Incorporated 21 Company 21 Company operated by the Defendants with the intention of putting the right to operate the non-indicted Incorporated 12 on November 29, 1998, as if they purchased the Do 465-49 and non-indicted 16 lots outside 167,09 square meters, and sold the down payment to the non-indicted Incorporated Company 257,200,000 won to the non-indicted Incorporated Company 16,000,000 won under the name of the non-indicted Incorporated Company 16.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor

(a) Judgment ex officio (Changes in subject matters of adjudication due to changes in indictment)

Before determining as to the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the prosecutor examined the facts charged against the Defendants ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the effect that “the date in question from the beginning of 2000 to the end of October 2002” under Paragraph (1) 2 of the indictment concerning the forgery of securities and the exercise of forged securities” under Paragraph (2) of the same Article and Paragraph (2) 1 of the same Article “within the period from the beginning of 2000 to the end of March 8, 2003,” and the court applied for changes in the indictment to “ around August 2003, 203,” and thus, the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants is subject to the said judgment, thereby making it difficult to escape from the reversal of the part of the judgment below.

However, since the revised facts charged only changed the date and time of the crime, and the defendants are premised on the forgery and exercise of the sovereignty of this case, the issue of forgery of the sovereignty is still subject to the judgment of party members. Therefore, this issue is to be determined.

B. Summary of the revised facts charged

The Defendants conspired to:

(1) For the purpose of exercise:

From the beginning of 200 to March 2000, at an inorganic place, the share certificates, stating the “Gindo,” in the face value column of the share certificates, “Gindo,” “Egy Leisure Construction of Co., Ltd.,” “001” in the company’s trade name column, “001” in the share certificate number column, “Sengdo, 27 March 1989,” “the total number of shares to be issued by the company” in the total number column of the shares to be issued by the company, “Gindo, 1999” in the share amount column, “registered ordinary shares” in the share type column, “Findo, 26 February 199,” in the issuer column, “Findo,” and “Findo, the issuer column,” signed the share certificates under the above name of Nonindicted Co. 1, a prior official seal affixed on the name of the representative director 2, and forged the share certificates under the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, a 3, Ltd.

(2) Around March 2002, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 21 of the operation of Defendant 1 in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Nonindicted Co. 4, who is unaware of the fact, delivered 36 forged share certificates to Nonindicted Co. 4, and 114 forged share certificates to Nonindicted Co. 7, respectively, and exercised them.

C. The defendants' statements

Although the Defendants acknowledged the fact that they delivered share certificates to Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 7 as indicated in the revised facts charged, the Defendants denied the crime that the said share certificates were produced in consultation with Nonindicted 2 rather than forged.

First, as to the process of issuing the instant share certificates and their custody status, etc.:

(1) On November 2, 1996, Defendant 2: (a) increased the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in 180,000 capital and gave orders to borrow the business funds of Nonindicted Co. 1 as collateral; (b) around that time, Nonindicted Co. 2 instructed Defendant 1 to issue the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in sequence; and (c) around November 12, 1996, Defendant 1 received the share certificates printed by Defendant 1 (in case of preparing the second interrogation protocol of the prosecution, around December 12 of the same year), and delivered them to Defendant 1; and (d) delivered the remaining share certificates to Defendant 1, and kept them in custody at the prosecution’s depository (in case of preparing the first interrogation protocol of the suspect examination of the prosecution, Defendant 1 was kept in custody on the left side of the book at the time of preparing the first interrogation protocol of the suspect examination; and (d) found Defendant 1’s own share certificates to be seized and stored in the suspect’s office in Seoul at the second half of 1998.

(2) 피고인 1은, ㈎ 1996. 10. 20.경(원심 법정에서는 1996. 11. 20.부터 11. 중순 사이라고 진술하였다) 2차 동업계약을 체결하면서 피고인 2가 공소외 2에게, 공소외 2는 자신에게 순차 주권 발행을 지시하여 그 무렵 서산 시청 앞에 있는 공소외 24 인쇄공사 사장 공소외 25에게 200만 원을 주고 인쇄를 부탁하여 1996. 10. 하순경(검찰 제1회 피의자신문조서 작성시에는 11. 2.경으로 진술하였다) 인쇄된 주권을 받아(검찰 제1회 피의자신문조서 작성시에는 피고인이 서산으로 내려가 주권을 받은 것으로, 제2회 피의자신문조서 작성시에는 공소외 25가 서산시의회 부의장실로 가져온 것으로, 원심 법정에서는 공소외 25가 피고인에게 시외버스 편으로 송부한 것으로 각 진술하였다) 자신이 주권 이면에 주주 이름을 기재하고 공소외 2로 하여금 대표이사 직인을 날인하게 하여 정상적으로 주권을 발행한 다음, 자신의 주권 96매는 자신의 집에 보관하고(검찰 제1회 피의자신문조서 작성시에는 회사 금고에 자신의 주권도 함께 보관하다가 피고인 2가 그의 집으로 주권을 가져갈 때 자신의 집으로 가져간 것처럼 진술하였다), 나머지 주권은 피고인 2가 회사 금고에 보관하여 오다가, 1998. 검찰 압수·수색 후 피고인 2가 그의 집으로 가져가 보관하던 중 2000. 11. 7. 대표이사 공소외 2 해임안을 처리하기 위한 주주총회를 개최하면서 피고인 2가 주권을 회사로 가져왔고, ㈏ 주권을 발행할 당시 공소외 3의 지분에 상당한 72,000주의 주권 이면에 주주 ‘ 공소외 3’의 이름을 기재하여 두었는데, 공소외 2가 “ 공소외 3에게는 별도로 공로주를 줄 작정이니 공소외 3 명의를 공소외 2 명의로 변경하라”고 지시하여 그 무렵 ‘ 공소외 3’의 이름을 지우고, 같은 해 10.말경 공소외 3을 집으로 찾아가 위와 같이 공소외 3의 이름이 지워진 주권 1장을 보여주면서 이러한 사정을 설명하고 양해를 구하였다고 진술하고 있다.

(d) Statement of the persons concerned;

(1) 반면, 이 사건 주권 발행 당시 공소외 1 주식회사 대표이사였던 공소외 2는, ㈎ 2003. 7. 30. 피고인들이 공소외 1 주식회사를 상대로 제기한 서울지방법원 서부지원 2002가합6722 주주지위확인청구소송에서 증인으로 출석하여, 1996. 11. 2. 위 주권을 발행하여 피고인 2가 사무실 금고에 보관하여 오다가, 1998. 10. 11.경 국회의원 공소외 23에 대한 수사와 관련하여 검찰의 압수·수색을 받은 다음 피고인 1은 48,000주, 피고인 2는 나머지 192,000주의 주권을 가져가 별도로 보관하였다고 진술하고, ㈏ 2003. 9. 24. 경찰피의자신문조서 작성시와 2004. 3. 16. 제1회 검찰 피의자신문조서 작성시에도, 1996. 11.경 피고인 2의 지시로 당시 감사이던 피고인 1에게 주권을 발행할 것을 지시하였는데, 피고인 1이 서산에서 주권을 인쇄하여 와 피고인 2가 이를 보관하여 왔고, 1997. 4.경 서울 강남구 논현동에 있던 공소외 1 주식회사 피고인 2의 사무실 책상 서랍에 들어 있는 주권을 본 적도 있다고 진술하다가, ㈐ 2004. 3. 23. 제2회 검찰피의자신문조서 작성시부터는 종전의 진술을 번복하여, 1996. 11.경 주권을 발행한 사실이 없음에도 불구하고, 2003. 3.경 피고인들이 면회 와 만난 자리에서 피고인 1이 “2000. 10. 25. 반포세무서에 주주명부정정을 신청하면서 1996. 11. 발행한 주권을 사용하였고 변호사에게도 주권을 주었다”고 말하여 1996. 11. 주권을 발행한 것으로 주장할 작정이니 알고 있으라는 뜻으로 이해하고, 피고인들과 힘을 합쳐 공소외 5로부터 회사 경영권을 되찾을 욕심에 1996. 11.경 주권을 발행한 것처럼 허위로 주장하였다고 진술하고, ㈑ 원심 법정에서는, 피고인 1에게 1996. 10. 동업계약 당시 주권을 발행하라고 말한 사실은 있으나(변호인이 다시 확인하는 신문에 대하여는 “주권을 발행하라고 말하였을 수도 있으나, 답변은 못하겠다”고 진술하였다), 주권을 본 사실은 없고, 주권 발행은 피고인들이 60억 원을 회사에 투자하는 것을 전제로 한 것이므로 가사 피고인들이 주권을 발행하였다고 하더라도 위 주권은 무효라고 진술하고, ㈒ 당심 제5회 공판기일에서는, 1996. 11. 동업계약 당시 피고인들은 60억 원을 조달하고 공소외 3은 공소외 12 재단법인 소유의 4만6000평을 가져오기로 하여 주권 발행을 결의하였고 또 주권을 발행할 것으로 알고는 있었으나, 실제 주권을 발행하였는지의 여부는 알지 못하고, 2003. 3. 검찰에서 조사를 받을 때까지는 주권을 본 사실도 없다고 진술하다가, 제9회 공판기일에서는, 경찰과 검찰 제1회 피의자신문조서 작성시에는 피고인들의 진술에 맞추어 자신이 피고인 1에게 주권을 발행할 것을 지시한 것처럼 허위로 진술하였으나, 실제로는 1996. 피고인 1에게 주권 발행을 지시한 사실이 없고, 종전 진술시 주식과 주권을 혼동하여 주식 발행을 결의한 것을 주권 발행을 결의한 것으로 잘못 진술하였다는 취지로 진술하고, 제13회 공판기일에서는 동업계약 당시 피고인들에게 주권을 발행할 것을 지시한 사실이 없고, 주권에 공소외 1 주식회사 대표이사의 날인을 하기는커녕 주권을 본 사실도 없다고 진술하면서, 원심 법정에서 피고인 1에게 주권을 발행할 것을 지시하였다고 진술한 것은 공소외 5와의 합의가 이루어지지 않아 공소외 5를 원망하는 마음에서 허위로 진술한 것이라고 진술하고 있다.

Non-Indicted 2’s statement on the fact that Non-Indicted 2 ordered Defendant 1 to issue the share certificates and issued the share certificates to Defendant 1 is not consistent and somewhat ambiguous, and there is a different appearance at each time of statement. In line with the interests of the Defendants or Non-Indicted 5 (the non-Indicted 2 was intended to seek management rights from the Defendants and the non-Indicted 5, as seen earlier, in order to obtain the right of management of the company from the non-Indicted 5. However, it is doubtful that Non-Indicted 5’s statement that Non-Indicted 2, who was sentenced to the punishment of 8 years in total due to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, etc., and that Non-Indicted 2, who was sentenced to the punishment for perjury or the crime of forging securities, etc., was unable to make a statement in part of the fact that there was no concern that Non-Indicted 2’s statement after Defendant 1’s statement and there was no direct involvement in the prosecution’s appearance of share certificates in the interrogation of the company.

(C) In the case of Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 1, 200, Non-Indicted 1, 200, 200, 2002Gahap6722, Non-Indicted 1, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200,000, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00).

(2) 공소외 2와 동업계약을 체결한 공소외 3은, ㈎ 검찰에서는, 1996. 피고인들이나 공소외 2와 동업계약을 체결할 무렵에는 주권에 관한 말을 듣거나 주권을 본 사실이 없으나, 1997. 4.경부터 1998. 11.경 사이에 논현동 공소외 1 주식회사 사무실에서 피고인들 중 누군가로부터 주권을 발행하겠다는 말을 들은 적이 있고, 그 후 2003. 2.-3.경 강남에 있는 상호불상의 다방에서 피고인 1이 주주란에 ‘ 공소외 3’의 이름이 지워지고 ‘ 공소외 7’의 이름이 기재된 주권을 보여주어 처음 보았다고 비교적 명료하게 진술하다가, ㈏ 원심 법정에서는, 피고인 1로부터 “주권을 발행하겠다”는 말을 들은 사실이 있고, 2000. 이전에 공소외 3의 집에서 인쇄는 되었으나 주주 이름이 기재되지 아니한 주권을 본 사실이 있으며, 그 후 상호불상의 다방에서 ‘ 공소외 3’의 이름이 지워지고 ‘ 공소외 7’의 이름이 기재된 주권을 본 사실이 있다는 취지로 진술하고 있다.

In particular, Nonindicted 3 made a false statement at any time and place in the lower court court’s trial as to what share certificates had been presented in several times. Defendant 1 stated that Nonindicted 3 had shown the name of “Nonindicted 3” and the share certificates indicating Nonindicted 2’s name after the issuance of share certificates on October 1996. However, as seen later, at the time of the same business contract, Nonindicted 3 had no view to demanding Nonindicted 2, etc. to waive the shares of Nonindicted 3; ② Nonindicted 1, etc. had issued the share certificates at the time of the business contract and presented them to Nonindicted 3, etc., it was difficult to view that Nonindicted 3 had made a relatively consistent statement in that it was not known that there was no reason to believe that the share certificates were issued at least as at the time of the business contract, and ③ Nonindicted 3 had no reason to view that Nonindicted 3 had already known Nonindicted 3’s share certificates as at the time of the issuance of the share certificates to Nonindicted 3, 207.

(3) 공소외 1 주식회사 대표이사였던 공소외 4는, ㈎ 검찰에서는, 2002. 8.-9.경 공소외 2가 피고인들과 함께 서울구치소로 면회 올 것을 요청하여 2002. 10.경 공소외 2를 면회한 후 공소외 21 주식회사 사무실에서 위 주권을 처음 보았고, 2003. 3. 29. 개최된 결산 주주총회에 참석하기 2-3일 전에 피고인 1로부터 주권을 교부받고 주주총회에 참석하였다고 진술하고, ㈏ 원심 법정에서는, 공소외 2가 공소외 5와 사이가 벌어진 2002. 2.-3.경 자신이 공소외 2를 면회한 자리에서 “피고인들과 힘을 합쳐 1996. 동업 당시 발행한 주권으로 회사를 찾아야겠다”고 말하고, 2002. 8.-9.경 피고인들과 함께 면회한 자리에서 피고인들에게 같은 취지로 제의하여 동업계약 당시 주권이 발행된 것으로 알고 있었는데, 공소외 2가 2004. 4.경 검찰청에서 조사받으면서 주권이 위조된 것이라고 진술을 번복하였다는 취지로 진술하였다.

(4) At the prosecutor's office and the trial court, Nonindicted 6 recommended that the Defendants issue share certificates to Defendant 1 around 1996, when working as a certified judicial scrivener, in which Nonindicted 6 had been in charge of various commercial registration affairs of Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation. Defendant 1 stated that he was aware that he did not issue share certificates until he was at the time, and that he was aware that he was “not issuing share certificates” even around 2001, when he was out of flight due to Nonindicted Co. 2, etc.’s accusation. After that, the above Defendant was aware that he was aware of the fact that he was issued share certificates by stating that he was “to hold a general meeting of shareholders” as a shareholder holding a share certificate on March 203.

Non-Indicted 6, who has no direct interest in the instant case, has no reason to make a false statement at the risk of punishment for perjury on behalf of the Defendants, Non-Indicted 5, etc., and at the time of Defendant 1, who was subject to the suspension of prosecution by the prosecution due to his unknown whereabouts, etc., is in accord with the objective situation, and thus, his statement is deemed to have credibility.

E. As to the details of issuance of share certificates

(1) Purpose of issuing share certificates

With respect to the reasons why Nonindicted Co. 1, which did not issue the previous share certificates, issued the share certificates, the Defendants stated that the Defendants issued the share certificates in order to clarify the ownership relationship between the partners as they operated Nonindicted Co. 1 with Nonindicted Co. 2 in the same business, or that they issued the share certificates with the intent to offer them as security in borrowing money from Nonindicted Co. 26.

However, there is a question as to whether it is necessary to issue share certificates to the parties who are able to clarify the ownership relationship by agreement or entry in the register of shareholders, and if they issued share certificates with such intent, they should have issued the share certificates issued to the shareholders immediately after the issuance of the share certificates as alleged by the Defendants. However, it is difficult to understand that Defendant 2 had kept the share certificates as they were, and there is no trace that Defendant 2 attempted to borrow the money as security by borrowing the share certificates issued by Nonindicted Company 1 after the issuance of the share certificates (the Defendant 2 stated that he requested the director in charge of funds to borrow the money only after three years after the issuance of the share certificates from the issuance of the share certificates).

It is difficult to understand that there was any objective when the Defendants issue share certificates, and that some share certificates were kept in the company’s depository without stating the name of the shareholders as they were subsequent to the issuance of share certificates.

(2) Evidentiary evidence of issuance of share certificates

If Nonindicted Co. 1 issued share certificates around October 1996, it appears that the resolution of the board of directors was made in relation thereto. The minutes of the board of directors or extraordinary general meeting of shareholders prepared at the time does not seem to be a shaking of the resolution on the issuance of share certificates. The Defendants and executives and employees of Nonindicted Co. 1, other than Nonindicted Co. 2, were not aware of the fact of issuing share certificates. The cash receipts prepared around that time also contain all relevant expenses, such as the registration and registration expenses following the increase of capital after the increase of capital on or after October 1996, but does not include all the relevant expenses

If share certificates are issued, the register of shareholders shall state the serial number of such share certificates (Article 352(1) of the Commercial Act), and in the face of seized share certificates, the register of shareholders is not prepared (Article 352(1) of the Commercial Act), and in the face of seized share certificates, “this share certificate is registered on the register of us. It is invalid.” However, at the time of issuance of share certificates, the Nonindicted Co. 1 did not have the register of issuance of share certificates (in the case of share certificates issued, it did not affix a letter of approval under Article 3(1)12 of the

(3) Transfer of stocks by stock certificates

Article 352 of the Commercial Act provides, “If share certificates have been issued, the register of shareholders shall state the number of such share certificates in the register of shareholders.” Article 336 of the same Act provides, “If share certificates have been issued on the date of issuance of share certificates, the share certificates shall be issued in the transfer of shares.” If the share certificates of this case were issued on the date of issuance of share certificates, the transfer of shares after the issuance of share certificates shall be naturally made by the delivery of share certificates

However, according to the above evidence, although the shareholders of the non-indicted 1 corporation have been changed over several times since 1996, they did not transfer their shares by the method of issuance of share certificates, even if they have retired from the non-indicted 1 corporation on 1998 and even if they were to transfer their shares to the non-indicted 2, they did not deliver share certificates to the non-indicted 2 in transferring their shares to the non-indicted 2, as seen above. The non-indicted 14, who acquired the shares 78,000 shares from non-indicted 2, applied for the transfer of shares to the non-indicted 1 corporation on November 22, 200, but the non-indicted 1 corporation did not comply with the transfer application on the ground that the share certificates were not issued, and it can be recognized that the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 2, who issued the share certificates for the purpose of clarifying the ownership relationship, did not know the fact that the share certificates were transferred to the non-indicted 2 corporation or between them (the non-indicted 2).

F. As to the instant share certificates

(1) Stockholders’ name;

㈎ 1996. 동업계약 당시 공소외 1 주식회사의 주주명부상 주주는 피고인들과 공소외 2, 공소외 3, 공소외 9, 공소외 10, 공소외 11였음은 앞서 본 바와 같은데, 압수된 주권의 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 주권에는 당시 주주명부에 기재된 주주와는 달리 공소외 9, 공소외 10, 공소외 11은 주주로 기재되어 있지 아니하고 실질적인 주주인 피고인들과 공소외 2, 공소외 3만이 주주로 기재되어 있었던 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 피고인들이 1996. 주권을 발행함에 있어 주주명부에 기재된 대로 주권을 발행하지 아니한 것은 납득하기 어렵다.

㈏ 압수된 주권의 기재에 의하면, 위 주권 중 제2회 주권번호 제1호 내지 제144호 주권(72,000주) 이면에는 주주란에 ‘ 공소외 3’의 이름이 지워지고 ‘ 공소외 2’ 명의로 정정되어 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 피고인들은 주권 발행 당시 공소외 3이 공소외 1 주식회사에 투자한 바 없으므로 공소외 2의 지시에 따라 주주를 ‘ 공소외 2’로 정정하였다고 주장한다.

However, the allocation of Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares was not due to the fact that Nonindicted Co. 3 paid the acquisition price of new shares at the time of its capital increase (the acquisition price at the time of acquisition of shares cannot be deemed to have been paid the purchase price of new shares as if it were Nonindicted Co. 3). In 196, at the time of the business agreement with Nonindicted Co. 12 at the time of the business agreement, the conclusion of the sales contract on the 14,000 square meters of land in dispute with Nonindicted Co. 3 at the time of the business agreement and the mediation for the purchase of the remaining land at the time of the future. As such, at least at that time, Nonindicted Co. 2 was unable to change the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 at the time of the business agreement, and Nonindicted Co. 3 was bound to have transferred the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 to Nonindicted Co. 2 at the time of its acquisition after receiving KRW 100 million for its role after the business agreement, taking into account such circumstances as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ correction of the shares after the correction of the name or 98.

(2) When the share certificates of this case were revealed

㈎ 앞서 든 각 증거에 의하면, 공소외 2는 앞서 본 바와 같이 2000. 11. 27. 서울지방검찰청 동부지청에 피고인들과 공소외 5 등을 업무상배임죄 등으로 고소하였고, 이에 맞서 공소외 5와 피고인 1은 2001. 1.경 자신들을 고소한 공소외 2, 공소외 11, 공소외 13을 사문서위조죄 등으로 고소한 사실, 위 각 형사사건에서의 쟁점은 공소외 3과 피고인 2가 공소외 1 주식회사의 주식 72,000주와 48,000주를 소유하고 있었는가 하는 점과 그들이 2의 (3)항 기재와 같이 공소외 2, 공소외 13에게 그 주식을 양도하였는가 하는 점이었는데, 당시 공소외 2 등은 피고인 2와 공소외 3 명의로 작성된 주식포기서와 주식양도계약서를 근거로 그들이 공소외 2에게 주식을 양도하였다고 주장한 반면, 피고인들과 공소외 3은 주식 양도사실을 부인하면서 자신들이 실질적인 주주임을 주장하고 있었음에도 불구하고, 관계자들 누구도 1996. 주권을 발행한 사실을 언급하지 아니한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 피고인들의 주장과 같이 1996. 주권이 이미 발행되었다면, 피고인들로서는 피고인 2와 공소외 3이 주식을 양도하였는지의 여부를 따질 필요도 없이 주권을 교부하지 아니하였다는 이유만으로 간단히 주식 양도의 효력을 부인함으로써 업무상배임 등의 형사책임을 면할 수 있는 입장이었고, 공소외 2 또한 ‘ 공소외 3’ 이름이 지워지고 ‘ 공소외 2’라 기재된 주권을 제시함으로써 적어도 공소외 3 명의의 주식에 관한 한 그것이 명의신탁된 것임을 쉽게 입증할 수 있었음에도 불구하고, 그 누구도 주권을 발행하였다고 주장하거나 주권을 제시하지 아니하였다.

㈏ 피고인들과 공소외 2가 공소외 1 주식회사나 공소외 8 등을 상대로 주주지위확인청구소송, 임시주주총회소집허가신청, 직무집행정지가처분신청 등을 제기하였음은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 앞서 든 각 증거에 의하면, 피고인들이 제기한 주주지위확인청구소송 당시 피고인들은 그들이 신주인수대금을 납입하고 주식을 인수하였다고 주장한 반면, 공소외 1 주식회사 측은 피고인들 명의의 각 주식은 공소외 2가 피고인들에게 명의신탁한 것이라고 주장하면서 피고인들의 주주로서의 지위를 부인한 사실, 피고인들은 자신들이 주주라는 증거로 주주명부 등을 제출하였을 뿐 위 주권을 증거로 제출하지 아니하였고, 몇 차례에 걸친 서면공방 과정에서도 주권에 관하여는 아무런 언급도 하지 아니하였는데, 뒤늦게 2003. 6. 제출한 준비서면에서 비로소 피고인들이 주권을 소지하고 있다고 주장하면서 그 증거로써 위 주권을 제출하였고, 그 후 피고인들이 제기한 임시주주총회소집허가신청, 직무집행정지가처분신청에서도 위 주권을 소지하고 있는 점에 근거하여 그들이 주주라고 주장하면서 주권을 증거로 제출한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 종래 피고인들과 공소외 2, 공소외 5 사이에 수차례에 걸쳐 주식 소유와 관련한 분쟁이 있었음에도 불구하고 누구도 주권의 존재에 관하여조차 언급하지 아니하다가 공소외 2가 피고인들과 힘을 합하여 공소외 5로부터 회사 경영권을 회복하려는 시점에 비로소 주권이 제출된 점에 비추어 보면(피고인들이 1996. 주권을 발행하였다고 주장하기 위하여는 공소외 2의 협조가 있어야 한다), 피고인들이 1996. 주권을 발행하였는데 그 이후 주권에 의하여 주식이 양도되지 아니하였으므로 소송 당시에도 피고인들이 주주임을 주장할 의도로 뒤늦게 주권을 위조한 것으로 볼 수 있다.

(3) Handwritten records, etc. shown in the share certificates

According to the statement of Non-Indicted 27 and the statement of the copy of the share certificates submitted by the Defendants, the first shareholder column of subparagraphs 1 through 113 among the 120 share certificates of February 26, 1994, the issue date of which was February 26, 1994, all of Non-Indicted 27, and the second shareholder column of 360 share certificates of November 2, 1996, which were the remaining seven share certificates and the issue date of which were November 2, 1996, can be acknowledged that the first shareholder column of 360 share certificates of November 2, 196, is the fact that Defendant 1 stated. Thus, it is difficult to understand that only the part of share certificates issued to clarify the ownership relationship and that only the remaining share certificates were kept without any entry (the defendant 1 stated that he issued the share certificates of February 1, 1996 and kept the name of the first shareholder directly in the shareholder column).

(4) On the part of the non-indicted 1 corporation

㈎ 압수된 주권 전면 상단에는 별지 (1)과 같이, 원형 내부에는 ‘JIC', 그 둘레에는 한 방향으로 ‘JINIL COOPERATION FANIL CIRCLE'이라고 기재된 회사 로고가 인쇄되어 있다(‘FANIL’이란 영문자는 ‘FAMILY’의 오기이다).

㈏ 위 로고가 제작된 시점에 관하여, 피고인 1은, ‘JIC’라는 로고는 자신이 1996. 공소외 28 주식회사를 인수하여 공소외 29 주식회사로 상호를 변경하면서 공소외 30으로 하여금 회사 로고를 제작하게 하였는데, 1996. 10. 20.경 이 사건 주권을 발행하면서 인쇄업자인 공소외 25로부터 회사 로고를 고안하여 달라는 말을 듣고 공소외 30이 제작한 로고를 보내주었다고 진술하고 있다(원심 법정에서는 공소외 30으로 하여금 공소외 1 주식회사 로고를 직접 제작하게 하거나, 공소외 25에게 공소외 30이 제작한 공소외 29 주식회사 로고를 보내주어 공소외 25로 하여금 이를 변형하여 공소외 1 주식회사 로고를 제작하게 하였다고 진술하였다).

On the other hand, Non-Indicted 30, the prosecution operated Non-Indicted 28 Co., Ltd., and moved his office from Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to New-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. On the other hand, on October 1996, Non-Indicted 30 decided to purchase CAD and trade name as Non-Indicted 29 Co., Ltd. on November 7, 1996 and made a change of trade name on December 7, 1996, before Non-Indicted 29 Co., Ltd., Non-Indicted 29, Non-Indicted 29, Non-Indicted 30, Non-Indicted 30, Non-Indicted 29, Non-Indicted 30, Non-Indicted 29, Non-Indicted 30, Non-Indicted 29, Non-Indicted 29, Non-Indicted 30, Non-Indicted 29, Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 11, 191, Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 11.

It is evident that the route printed on the instant share certificates was made by changing Nonindicted 30 to the route produced by Nonindicted 30. However, it is difficult for the Defendants to use the name “Grail” as the name of “Grailil,” and at least, it appears that the Defendants made the route after entering into a partnership agreement with Nonindicted 2 and making it difficult for them to use the route manufactured by Nonindicted 30 in the event of requesting the printing of the share certificates immediately after the signing of the partnership agreement. ② On 1996, in addition to Nonindicted 30 produced in time at the time of printing the share certificates, anyone did not produce the route of Nonindicted 1 corporation. In light of the fact that Nonindicted 25 et al., the printing business operator, were made by converting Nonindicted 29 corporation into the English language so that they were recorded in the original direction, and that it is difficult to deem the above Defendants to have copied the share certificates to have been recorded in the said Nonindicted 1 corporation and made it difficult for them to view them as the above “LI corporation’s misunderstanding or its credibility.”

㈐ 당심증인 공소외 31, 공소외 32의 법정에서의 진술, 공소외 31에 대한 검찰 진술조서의 진술 기재, 공판기록에 편철된 인증서(증 제9호, 첨부된 명함과 우편봉투 포함), 수사기록에 편철된 명함(제3726면)의 각 기재에 의하면, 공소외 1 주식회사는 서울 강남구 논현동에 사무실을 두고 있었던 1998. 이전부터 공소외 30이 제작한 로고를 변형하여 별지 (2) 형태와 같이 원형 내부에 ‘JIC', 그 둘레에 양 방향으로 ‘JINIL COOPERATION’, ‘FAMILY CIRCLE'이라고 기재된 로고를 사용하여 온 사실, 피고인 1이 운영하는 공소외 21 주식회사 자회사인 공소외 33 건축사무소에 근무하던 공소외 32는 2000. 초경 직원인 공소외 31에게 도안을 주어 공소외 1 주식회사의 로고를 변형하여 공소외 21 주식회사의 로고를 제작하게 하였는데, 공소외 32가 준 도안에는 ‘FAMILY CIRCLE'이 아니라 ‘FANIL CIRCLE'로 잘못 기재되어 있었던 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

With respect to the proposal that Non-Indicted 32 made to Non-Indicted 31, Non-Indicted 31 stated that the proposal that extended or copied the sovereignty was equivalent to Chapter 3, while Non-Indicted 32 stated that Non-Indicted 32 extended or copied the merculation, bags, designated source, etc. The issue of this case was left neglected while being kept in the Acelebry Bank, etc., from the date of the creation of a pety, and further, it was kept in the above defendant's office from October 1, 1998 when Non-Indicted 2 returned to the company from October 200 when Non-Indicted 33 was made, it is difficult to obtain that the copy of the share certificate was in the office of Non-Indicted 33 building or the office of Non-Indicted 21; ② At the time of the investigation, the prosecutor sent a copy of the share certificate to Non-Indicted 31 and made it known to the prosecutor as the process of the investigation or conducted it by the prosecutor as the process of the investigation.

According to the statement of Non-Indicted 32, at around 200, Non-Indicted 21 Co., Ltd., Ltd., used logs used in the name of "FNIL CALE" (it is recognized that, according to the image of the name attached to an investigation record, it was used as logs used in the name of "FAMF CALE" as shown in the attached Form 3 in the new company office around that time). Since the English language "FNIAL CALE" printed on the share certificates of this case cannot be deemed to coincide with the word of logs used at the time, it shall be deemed that the logs used in the above office was used in printing, transforming or printing the share certificates at the time, and it is likely that the above company or the defendant's share certificates were left alone before and after the company or the defendant 2's house before and after that time.

(5) A seal affixed to the share certificate;

In general, it is common to print and issue a registered corporate seal at the time of issuance of common share certificates. In the front of the share certificates of this case, a seal imprint, which is not a corporate seal of non-indicted 1 corporation, is affixed to the front of the share certificates of this case, and the seal imprint is not printed, but a daily seal imprint is affixed on the individual

The stamp image affixed on the share certificates appears to be similar to the stamp image of Nonindicted Co. 1, which was affixed on the business partnership agreement at the time of the business partnership agreement with Nonindicted Co. 12 on 196, or on 1997 when the sales contract with Nonindicted Co. 12 was made with Nonindicted Co. 1, which was affixed on the sales contract. Even if these stamp image and the stamp image affixed on the share certificates are identical, it is difficult for the Defendants to intentionally and intentionally carry out the company's seal impression with the same seal in their business management, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above stamp image is identical and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above share certificate is not forged (it can be said that Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 5 put their seal on their hand and affixed their seal in their custody to identify them from the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1).

(5) Place where share certificates are printed;

㈎ 피고인 1은 수사기관에서 1996. 10. 20.경 공소외 25가 운영하는 공소외 24 인쇄공사에 인쇄를 부탁하였는데, 1996. 10. 말경 공소외 25가 시외버스 편으로 송부하여 이를 전달받았다고 진술한다.

However, according to the statements made by Nonindicted 34 and Nonindicted 35 at the prosecutor’s office, Nonindicted 25 operated the printing business in the name of “Nonindicted 24 printing corporation” in 264, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and the name of “Nonindicted 24 printing corporation”. around 1994, Nonindicted 34 and Nonindicted 35 were transferred to Nonindicted 36 and operated the printing office. Nonindicted 34 did not print the instant share certificates around 1996, and did not have experience by printing the share certificates until now, and did not possess the automatic transiting machine necessary for printing the share certificates. Nonindicted 25 can be recognized that Nonindicted 36 et al. al. al. had prevented the operation of the printing office in order to secure a set frame after transferring Nonindicted 24 printing.

Although Defendant 1, at the time of requesting Nonindicted 25 to print his share certificates to Nonindicted 25 on 1996, Non-Indicted 25 did not operate Non-Indicted 24, there is no possibility that Non-Indicted 25 printed the share certificates. However, it is doubtful that Non-Indicted 1 could intentionally request Non-Indicted 25 to print Non-Indicted 25 in a remote space for the purpose of printing a small amount of share certificates, and that Non-Indicted 25 left non-Indicted 24 printing in the prosecution around 200, Non-Indicted 6 stated that Non-Indicted 25 died from the above Defendant’s death. However, if the said Defendant was aware of Non-Indicted 25’s death, Non-Indicted 25’s request to print the share certificates and printing the share certificates was made in preparation for the death of Non-Indicted 25 in case where the printing office was not intentionally requested.

G. Sub-committee

Ultimately, direct evidence as to the forgery of the instant share certificates is the statement from the date of the second interrogation of Nonindicted 2’s prosecutor’s office to the court of the trial at the court. As to the fact that Nonindicted 2 issued share certificates or did not have any fact in the issuance of share certificates with the seal affixed to the share certificates at the time of 1996, the statement is consistent, and in light of other circumstances as seen earlier, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendants conspired to use the said share certificates by forging them as stated in the revised facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts charged, thereby misunderstanding the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants

A. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

According to the evidence of the court below, although the defendants did not have paid the subscription price for new shares as stated in the facts charged, they would make the payment of the subscription price by borrowing money from the bond company and receiving a certificate of custody of the subscription price after depositing the subscription price. By using the certificate of custody of the subscription price, it can be sufficiently recognized that the above commercial register was used by making the defendant keep the above commercial register, and even if the defendants held the bonds equivalent to the subscription price for the new shares to be paid to the non-indicted 1 corporation, it cannot be said that there was no criminal intent as long as the payment of subscription price was made.

The Defendants’ appeal is without merit.

B. Ex officio determination

However, since the part on the violation of the Commercial Act, the false entry of the original of the notarial deed, and the part on the exercise of the original of the notarial deed which the court below found guilty is in a concurrent relation with the defendants' securities forgery, the exercise of the notarial deed and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which are found guilty, a sentence shall be imposed on the whole of the above facts charged in accordance with Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act, and the part on the conviction of the court below against the defendants shall not be reversed (this decision shall not be

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the judgment of the court below against the defendants was not guilty and the grounds for ex officio reversal as seen earlier, the part against the defendants among the judgment below pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be reversed, and the following judgment shall be rendered through pleadings.

The Defendants conspired to:

1. For the purpose of uttering:

From the beginning of February 200 to March 2003, the share certificates were printed in the French space, with the mind that “Gimmando,” “Findo,” “Mindo Construction of Stock Company,” “Findo” in the company’s trade name column, “001” in the share certificate number column, “Findo, March 27, 1989” in the total number of shares to be issued by the company, “Findo,” “Mindo,” “Mindo,” “Findo,” “Findo,” “registered ordinary shares in the share form,” “Findo, 26 February 1994,” “In the issuer column,” “Findo, the issuer column printed the share certificates with the name of the representative director 2, and signed the name of Nonindicted Stock Company 1 with the official seal prior to his issuance date, and forged the share certificates under the above name of Nonindicted Stock Company 1, a 3000,000,000.

2. Around March 2003, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 21 of the operation of Defendant 1 in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the office of Nonindicted Co. 21 of the Gangnam-gu, Seoul, issued 36 forged share certificates to Nonindicted Co. 4, who is unaware of the circumstances, and issued 114 forged share certificates to Nonindicted Co. 7, respectively, and exercise them;

3. On August 29, 2003, at the branch of Mapo-gu in Mapo-gu in Seoul, the fact is that Nonindicted Co. 1 did not intend to pay the capital even if the capital was increased from KRW 1.8 billion to KRW 3.3 billion. However, in order to issue a certificate of custody of shares necessary to register as if the capital was increased, in order to obtain a certificate of custody of shares necessary to register as if the capital was increased, 1.5 billion shall be paid to the nominal bondholder and borrowed KRW 1.5 billion as interest, and as if the Defendants paid the shares, they shall withdraw KRW 1.5 billion deposited in the above bank as if they were deposited in the above bank and received a certificate of custody of shares, thereby pretending the payment of shares.

4. Around August 30, 2003, the certificate of deposit of the above shares was submitted to the staff in charge of the commercial registry office in Seoul Central District Court and had the staff in charge of the commercial registry office in Seoul Central District Court enter false facts in the commercial register, which is the original notarial deed, by having the staff in charge of the commercial registry office in charge of the total number of shares issued and total amount of capital of the non-indicted 1 corporation, on the same day. Around that time, the commercial register

1. Each statement made by the witness at the court of the original instance by Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 6

1. Each statement at the court court of the first instance held by Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 32, and Nonindicted 27

1. Each statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution concerning the Defendants, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 3

1. Each statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution on Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 31, and Nonindicted 37

1. Statement of the police statement with respect to Nonindicted 8

1. Each statement of Defendant 1’s written statement (including attached documents) and each statement of Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 5’s written statement

1. Each complaint filed in the records of investigation (the records of the case, No. 2004 type No. 3879, No. 4 of the records of the case, No. 2004 type No. 52088, No. 772, the records of the case, etc.), copies of each share certificate, articles of incorporation, shares distribution schedule, list of shareholders and investigation report (the records of the case, etc., No. 2004 type No. 3879), each

1. Written certifications bound in the records of trial (certificate 2), written agreements for the addition of a contract for the same business (certificate 3), plans for capital increase and a share distribution schedule (certificate 4), the register of shareholders (certificate 5), each written agreement (certificate 10 and No. 11), and each sales contract (certificate 12 and No. 13) respectively;

1. Existing descriptions of each stock certificate confiscated and a description thereof;

Article 214(1)(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 217 and 214(1)(2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 628(1) and 622(1)(3) of the Commercial Act; Articles 228(1) and 229(4) of the Criminal Act; Articles 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial concurrence (mutual concurrence between the crimes of uttering of forged securities against Nonindicted 4 at the time of sale, and between the crimes of uttering of forged securities against Nonindicted 7)

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Each imprisonment option (as to the violation of the Commercial Act, the crime of false entry in the original notarial deed, and the crime of uttering of the original notarial deed)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 2);

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (At the beginning of a crime, the degree of commission of a crime is relatively minor, etc.)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act

Judges Heungn (Presiding Judge)