Where Defendant 2 (In the case of the Grand Board: Defendant 1), Defendant 3 (In the case of the Grand Board: Defendant 2), and Defendant 4 (In the case of the Grand Board: Defendant 3) fail to pay the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for the period converted into one day each to 50,000 won.

The order of provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines shall be issued against Defendant 2 (Defendant 1), Defendant 3 (Defendant 2), and Defendant 4 (Counterparty 3).

Defendant 1 is not guilty.

Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) is the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”) and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) is the assistant director of Nonindicted Co. 2, and Defendant 4 (Defendant 3: Defendant 3) is the assistant director of Nonindicted Co. 2 and the assistant director of Nonindicted Co. 2, and Defendant 3 is the regular director of Nonindicted Co. 2.

A person who is not a certified public appraiser shall determine the economic value of land, etc. and indicate the result at the price, and shall not receive a certain remuneration.

On October 30, 209, the Defendants conspired to request assets revaluation from Nonindicted Company 2’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), and from Nonindicted Company 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 1”) on the site of Nonindicted Company 1’s former distribution center, such as water source, such as site for the building of Nonindicted Company 1, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, for the property revaluation, and as a result, after conducting the asset revaluation, the Defendants indicated the economic value of the land subject to appraisal (value of KRW 3,398,849,587,432 on the existing books) as KRW 7,215,142,128,981, and received KRW 154 million in return.

As a result, even if the Defendants were not a certified public appraiser in collusion, the Defendants determined the economic value of the land and received remuneration by indicating the result at the price.

1. Each accusation;

1. Each protocol of statement made by the prosecution against Defendant 3 (In the case of the Supreme Court Decision: Defendant 2), Defendant 4 (In the case of the Supreme Court Decision: Defendant 3);

1. Application for a contract and seal (including a service contract document);

1. A review report on the calculation of fair value of the land owned by Nonindicted Company 1

Defendant 2(s)(s)(s)(1), Defendant 3(s)(s)(s)(s)(s) and Defendant 4(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 2(s)(s)(s)(1), Defendant 3(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1), Defendant 3 (Defendant 2), Defendant 4 (Defendant 3): Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. The assertion

The purpose of this case is to assess the fair value of real estate requested by Nonindicted Company 1 according to the introduction of the International International Financial Reporting Standards (K-IFRS) is to administer the accounts, and the Defendants are professional qualified appraisers who can assess the fair value of K-IFR without falling under the elements of Article 43 subparagraph 2 of the Additional Act.

B. Determination

In light of the above, the Defendants’ act of evaluating the fair value of tangible assets, such as land, can be seen as an economic value or exchange value at the time of assessing the value of land, and thus, the fair value of land and buildings is determined by the appraisal conducted based on evidence based on the market. In this case, the fair value of land and buildings is determined by the appraisal conducted based on the appraisal based on the evidence. In this case, the appraisal conducted by a general professional professional professional professional appraiser. It is determined by the principles of the accounting standards generally used in the international community in different reality, so it is necessary to interpret it differently according to each country’s law within the extent that does not go beyond the above principles in applying it to each country. ② The Defendants’ act of evaluating fair value of tangible assets such as land is not substantially different from the appraisal method under the Act on the Reduction of Appraisal and Assessment, even if the fair value is not substantially different from the appraisal method under the Act on the Reduction of Appraisal and Assessment.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake in law

A. The assertion

Even if it falls under Article 43 subparagraph 2 of the House of Audit and Inspection Act, it constitutes a mistake in the law under Article 16 of the Criminal Code and the responsibility is dismissed.

B. Determination

On February 17, 2009, the Korea Accounting Institute interpreted “an appraiser with expertise, experience, and the market related to the assets subject to appraisal” to mean “a person with sufficient knowledge about the asset evaluation business, and whether he/she has such knowledge and experience or not.” The Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants publicly announced its members on February 24, 2009 that “The appraisal of tangible assets, such as land and buildings, can be conducted only by a person with specific qualifications, but can be conducted if he/she has expertise, experience, and sufficient knowledge about the market related to the assets subject to appraisal,” not by a person with specific qualifications.

The purpose of Article 16 of the Criminal Act is not to punish a misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. It does not mean a simple site of law, but it is to punish a person in general who commits a crime but, in his special circumstances, knows that his act does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes, and there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding that his act does not go against the Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, even if his act constitutes a violation of the subordinate law by reliance on the interpretation of the Korea Accounting Institute or the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants, which is not an authoritative authority for interpreting the scope of duties of an appraisal business operator under the Incidental Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed that his act does not constitute a

A person who is not a certified public appraiser shall determine the economic value of land, things firmly affixed thereto, movable property, other property prescribed by Presidential Decree, and rights other than ownership, etc., and indicate the result and not receive any certain remuneration at the price.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1, as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2, is not a certified public appraiser in collusion with Defendant 2 (Defendant 1), Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 3), and Defendant 4 (Defendant 3). However, on October 30, 2009, at the office of Nonindicted Company 2 located in Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), Defendant 1 requested an asset revaluation of the site of Nonindicted Company 1, including the site for the building of Nonindicted Company 1, Seocho 2, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and from Nonindicted Company 1, it was requested by Nonindicted Company 1 to assess the assets of the site of Nonindicted Company 1, such as water cost, interest, and sugar, and as a result, after conducting a asset revaluation, the asset revaluation was conducted, to indicate the economic value of the land subject to appraisal (value of KRW 3,398,849,587,432 on the account of books) as KRW 7,215,142,128,981 in return, and received KRW 154 million.

2. Determination

In this case, Defendant 1 appears not to have been involved in the violation of the law of the court below, and there is no other evidence to prove that the above Defendant was involved.

Thus, the above facts charged against Defendant 1 constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, Defendant 1 is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Esck-spons