A. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts

The Defendant, after withdrawing Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank (the Supreme Court’s judgment), received money in return for the transfer of ownership on the 27 parcel of real estate owned in the name of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, which was owned by Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank in the name of the Defendant’s branch, and was not threatened with Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank to know to the Financial Supervisory Service or the prosecutor, and the money actually received by the Defendant is not KRW 1 billion but KRW 980 million.

Therefore, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged that the defendant got 1 billion won or more.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of various sentencing conditions, the punishment sentenced by the court below (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2 (Defendant of the Supreme Court’s judgment)

1) Legal principles

A) Each prosecutor’s protocol and each written statement of Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 with respect to Nonindicted 4, 3, and 3 are that the contents of Nonindicted 6’s written statement and each written statement of Nonindicted 4, 3 were used by the funds of the company (or customers) in order to keep the persons who threatened management of Nonindicted 6’s bank to disrupt their management corruption. As to the above act, it appears that the above person’s occupational breach of trust or joint principal offense or crime of embezzlement is established. However, since there is no evidence to deem that the investigative agency notified the above person of the right to refuse to make a statement before the written statement or written statement, each of the above written statement and written statement were prepared without the notification of the right to refuse to make a statement and they cannot be used as evidence of guilt

B) Of the prosecutorial statement and written statement with respect to Nonindicted 4, the written statement with respect to Nonindicted 3, and the written statement with respect to Nonindicted 3’s legal statement, the part that Nonindicted 4 transferred from Nonindicted 4 to Nonindicted 4 constitutes a full-time statement, and it is not admissible because it is difficult to see that the statement or written statement was made in a particularly reliable state.

C) Therefore, the court below erred in the violation of the rules of evidence finding the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the above evidence which cannot be used as evidence for conviction against the defendant as it is not admitted as evidence

2) misunderstanding of facts

The Defendant demanded reinstatement to Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank in order to correct the unfair dismissal of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s own and restore its reputation, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal from the court which did not accept such request, but only received KRW 500 million in return for withdrawal of the above lawsuit from Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, and the Defendant did not intimidation Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s management through Nonindicted 4, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

C. Defendant 3

(1) misunderstanding of facts

The lower court acknowledged that the Defendant, on March 16, 2009, threatened Nonindicted 3 to file a formal civil petition with the Financial Supervisory Service. However, the Defendant had already filed a civil petition with the Financial Supervisory Service on March 16, 2009, and there is no room for threatening Nonindicted 3 to file a civil petition with the Haman on March 16, 2009. However, there is no room for threatening Nonindicted 3 to threaten the Defendant to file a civil petition with the Haman on March 16, 2009. However, the Defendant received money with Nonindicted 3 passively in accordance with Nonindicted 3’s proposal that he would receive money on the condition of withdrawal of the civil petition as above.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges that the defendant got money by threatening Non-Indicted 3, is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

D. Defendant 4 (Indecent Act)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant 1

1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

From the prosecutor’s office to the court below’s decision, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “Non-Indicted 6 savings bank’s non-indicted 6 savings bank’s non-indicted 6 savings bank’s non-indicted 6 savings bank’s non-indicted 6 savings bank’s non-indicted 6 savings bank’s non-indicted 6 savings bank’s statement to the Financial Supervisory Service or investigation agency and received KRW 1 billion from the press.” There is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the confession, and Non-Indicted 3 consistently stated that the Defendant gave KRW 1 billion to the Defendant by the aforementioned intimidation from the prosecutor’s office to the trial court. As such, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant conspiredd Non-Indicted 3 to the effect that he would charge Non-Indicted 6 savings bank’s corruption, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to this part of the facts charged is just, and it is not recognized that there is an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant, so the above argument by the

2) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment in addition to the prior conviction of a fine once, and that family members, including the two children of the defendant, want to take the action against the defendant, are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is problematic to use at will the amount of KRW 700 million of the borrowed name loan managed by the defendant himself, and it is not against the non-indicted 6 savings bank's retirement. It does not go against the non-indicted 6 savings bank's retirement. The crime of this case was committed by threatening the management of the non-indicted 6 savings bank to file a complaint with the Financial Supervisory Service, such as the non-indicted 6 savings bank's SPC-related corruption and borrowed name loan, and the nature of the crime is not very good. The defendant's employee of the non-indicted 6 savings bank was aware of the abnormal business behavior of the non-indicted 6 savings bank and made efforts to improve it. The defendant did not obtain his profits, did not recover its damage, and it does not seem to have any trace of efforts to recover the damage, and eventually, it did not seem that the non-indicted 6 savings bank's management caused damage to the ordinary people who are the deposit holders of the non-indicted 6 savings bank.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relations, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. Defendant 2

1) Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A) The admissibility of evidence due to the non-disclosure of the right to refuse to make a statement

(1) Article 244-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a prosecutor or senior judicial police officer shall inform a suspect that he/she may refuse to make a statement prior to interrogation of a suspect who is present. Such suspect's right to refuse to make a statement is based on the right to refuse to make a self-incrimination, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, if the investigative agency fails to notify the suspect of his/her right to refuse to make a statement in advance in interrogation of the suspect, the suspect's statement should be denied even if it is acknowledged as illegally collected evidence and the document or document recording or recording the suspect's statement is made in the investigative agency's investigation process, even if it takes the form of "written statement, written statement or written statement" (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do682, Jun. 23, 1992; 2008Do8213, Aug. 20, 209).

As above, the notification of the right to refuse to make a statement to prevent a suspect from being forced to make a statement by guaranteeing the suspect's right to refuse to make a statement effectively. Considering the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the notification of the right to refuse to make a statement and the practical meaning of the notification of the right to refuse to make a statement, it is reasonable to view that the status of a suspect subject to notification by an investigative agency is recognized when the investigative agency recognizes the criminal charge against a person subject to investigation and commences an investigation (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do2968, Oct. 26, 2001; 2008Do12127, Jun. 24, 2010). Therefore, even if the right to refuse to make a statement was not notified, the admissibility of the statement is not denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8125, Nov. 10, 201).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the public prosecutor examined Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for the purpose of proving this part of the facts charged against the defendant, and did not aim at disclosing any criminal charges against the above persons. The contents of each of the above statements are not about the criminal charges of the above persons, but about the suspicion of public conflict against Nonindicted 3 through Nonindicted 4, and the written statements of Nonindicted 4 and 3 are also written in the same purport. Thus, Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were examined as a witness by the public prosecutor in order to prove this part of the facts charged against the defendant, and it cannot be said that the public prosecutor was in the position of the suspect for whom an investigation was initiated after being recognized as a witness by the investigative agency. Even if the above person who made the statement was not a suspect and did not receive notice of the right to refuse to make a statement from the investigative agency, it cannot be deemed unlawful collection evidence, and thus, it cannot be found that the prosecutor's statement was not admissible in the form of the defendant's statement.

B) Admissibility of admissibility of Nonindicted 4’s prosecutor’s protocol and Nonindicted 4’s written statement

(1) Protocols or documents stipulated in Articles 312 and 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be admitted as evidence pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. For this purpose, a person who needs to make a statement shall be unable to make a statement by attending the court in the official ruling due to death, illness, or any other reason, and the preparation of the statement or documents shall be made under particularly reliable circumstances. Here, the first requirement here shall be met even in cases where the person who needs to make a statement is unable to be examined in the court because he/she is unable to comply with summons of the court even if he/she has a death, illness, or a certain residence, and even if he/she has a certain residence, he/she is unable to comply with summons of the court, and the second requirement shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement. The second requirement shall be a case where there is little room for false entry in the preparation of the statement or documents, and there is a specific and external circumstance that guarantees credibility or voluntariness of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2325, Jun. 13, 1995).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the witness summons issued by the court below to Nonindicted 4 to the Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) on July 6, 201. However, the witness summons sent to Gangnam-gu ( Address 2 omitted) as the address changed to July 6, 201 was closed on July 18, 2011, and it was impossible to serve the defendant as the addressee on August 11, 201, and Nonindicted 4’s wife was not contacted with Nonindicted 4 on June 30, 201, and the defendant’s address was not admissible as hearsay evidence in light of the above legal principles, since the witness summons presented to Nonindicted 4 by the court below to Nonindicted 4 on Nonindicted 4 (the address of Nonindicted 4 omitted) and Nonindicted 4’s telephone conversation, and the defendant’s overall statement made to Nonindicted 4 on June 30, 2011, which was inadmissible as evidence in light of the circumstances that the defendant’s address and address were unknown and thus, it cannot be admitted as hearsay evidence.

C) The allegation that the part of Nonindicted 3’s written statements and written statements from Nonindicted 4 were inadmissible as evidence.

(1) In principle, the protocol and documents containing the full-time statement or the full-time statement are inadmissible in accordance with Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the full-time statement is admissible in accordance with Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act only when the person making the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, residence in a foreign country, or any other reason, and the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances. The protocol and documents containing the full-time statement fall under cases where their admissibility can be acknowledged in accordance with Articles 313 through 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and further, it shall be admissible in accordance with the above requirements provided by Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9561, Apr. 14, 2006).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the previous statements of Nonindicted 3 and the court statements of Nonindicted 4 were examined as to whether they were admissible or not, and Nonindicted 4 was unable to make a statement due to Nonindicted 4’s unknown whereabouts. As seen above, Nonindicted 4 prepared by the prosecutor of the prosecution a statement that “I would not have received the uniforms from the prosecutor’s office and deliver them to Nonindicted 3.” As seen earlier, the contents of Nonindicted 4’s statement are deemed to fall under the time when they were made under particularly reliable circumstances in light of the circumstances of Nonindicted 4’s statement and the circumstances at the time of the statement. Moreover, Nonindicted 3’s statement is admissible as evidence by recognizing the original person’s authenticity and recognizing it as admissible by Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Accordingly, each of the above hearsay evidence is admissible as to this part. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Determination of misunderstanding of facts

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant, as he had dolusence at least, could sufficiently be recognized as having threatened Non-Indicted 3 through Non-Indicted 4 with the intention of committing a crime, as he was aware of the management's corruption at the time of Non-Indicted 6 Savings Bank's employment. Thus, the court below's judgment convicting the defendant as to this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion as to this part is without merit.

A) On November 1, 2004, the Defendant, at the time of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s employment, was dismissed from office by submitting a written resignation around November 1, 2004, and received KRW 170 million under the pretext of retirement benefits and retirement consolation benefits. However, around May 2005, the Defendant began to demand reinstatement to Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank. Nonindicted 2, who was the representative director of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank at the time, was requested to return himself, but was refused to return. On June 2005, the Defendant sent correspondence to Nonindicted 2 and sent correspondence to Nonindicted 2. In addition, it appears that it would be difficult for the Defendant to accept the terms and conditions of reinstatement from the date of his retirement to the date of his retirement. In light of the following circumstances, it appears that it would be difficult for the Defendant to continue to comply with the Defendant’s request to return to the officer by the time of his retirement.

B) On July 8, 2005, the Defendant sent to Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s management a high school that did not have any particular response to Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s request for reinstatement. Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s employee, Nonindicted 4, who was an employee of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, expressed his intention not to restore to the original state. Around July 8, 2005, the Defendant issued to Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank a letter of demand to withdraw the passbook deposited in an amount equivalent to KRW 110 million, out of the amount paid at the time of retirement, and a letter of demand to withdraw the deposit, but Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank did not allow the Defendant to return the said passbook, etc., while the Defendant continued to have returned the said passbook to Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, the Defendant, who was obligated to pay the said conditions and claimed the restoration to the original state.

C) Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 4 stated in the prosecutor’s investigation that Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s auditor Nonindicted 6’s auditor Nonindicted 3 and the head of the business division stated that the Defendant stated in the prosecutor’s investigation that the Defendant had delivered KRW 500 million to the Defendant to resolve this by continuously threateninging that the Defendant would not be reinstated. Nonindicted 2 stated in the lower court that the Defendant would have committed the same kind of act as Defendant 1’s instant crime of conflict. Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s director Nonindicted 5 and the prosecutor’s office stated that the Defendant was paid money to the Defendant in fear that Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s SPC or borrowed name loans would not be faced with difficulties.

D) While the Defendant continued to demand reinstatement through Nonindicted 4, the Defendant did not know the specific contents thereof, the Defendant did not receive a large amount of payment on the condition of withdrawal of the lawsuit from Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank after filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the above dismissal, and the method of payment was abnormal, despite which it was accepted. In light of the fact that the Defendant was receiving KRW 50,000 or KRW 60,000 as annual salary at the time when he was employed in Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, and the Defendant received KRW 50,000 or KRW 60,000 as the annual salary at the time when he was employed in Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank.

E) The above KRW 500 million paid to the Defendant was created by making a loan of KRW 250 million from Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank and Nonindicted 9 Savings Bank in the name of Nonindicted 4’s father, and deposited it into the account of the Republic of Korea under the name of Nonindicted 8, and then delivered to the Defendant with the passbook and seal. It appears that the raising and payment of funds in such abnormal ways would not be treated as ordinary litigation expenses of Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank, and Nonindicted 3 also stated in the lower court court court that “it would not be so treated as a corporation’s normal litigation expenses,” and the Defendant would have tried to conceal the receipt of the above money in light of the fact that the above money was withdrawn for three months or less as demanded by Nonindicted 4.

C. Defendant 3

1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, ① Nonindicted 3 stated that the Defendant had presented a civil petition via the Defendant’s website, and the Defendant could not withdraw the civil petition before receiving money. 100 million won could not be withdrawn by presenting a civil petition. 600 million won, the lower court stated that the Defendant would have withdrawn the civil petition at the Financial Supervisory Service’s 60 million won, and that the Defendant would have received money from the PC bank’s 600 million won to the effect that the Defendant would have received money from the Financial Supervisory Service without giving money to the PC’s SPC’s SPC name and passbook’s 600 million won. In so doing, the lower court consistently stated to the effect that the Defendant had received money from the Defendant and the PC’s PC’s 600 million won to the effect that the Defendant would have received money from the PC bank’s 600 million won, and that the Defendant would have received money from the PC bank’s 600 million won or more.

2) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The fact that the defendant generally reflects his mistake, that the non-indicted 6 savings bank, which is the actual victim of the crime of this case, deposited KRW 420,000 as the deposited person, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment in addition to the fine twice, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, such as: (a) the defendant filed a civil petition asking the Financial Supervisory Service about the illegality of the interest rates related to the SPC of the non-indicted 6 savings bank; and (b) if he did not give money to the non-indicted 3 auditors, he forced him to file a complaint with the Financial Supervisory Service in an ordinary manner; and (c) the crime of this case is not good; and (d) the defendant, although he deposited a considerable amount of money, but did not recover from damage, exceeds KRW 180 million,00,000,000

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing, which rendered the Defendant the lowest sentence of punishment by law, is not deemed unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

D. Determination on Defendant 4’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The fact that the defendant is led to confession and his mistake is in depth divided, and the fact that the defendant deposited the non-indicted 6 savings bank, which is the actual victim of the crime of this case, as a depositer, and can be deemed to have been partially restored by depositing KRW 100 million, and the fact that the defendant is the first offender is favorable.

However, with the knowledge that Defendant 1 and 3 received money from Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank by intimidation, the crime of this case was committed by threatening Nonindicted 3’s audit and intimidation Nonindicted 6 Savings Bank’s SPC-related corruption known to Defendant 1 and 3 as his employee, and the crime of this case was bad in light of the circumstances leading up to the crime. Although the Defendant deposited KRW 100 million for the recovery of damage as above, the unrepared damages amount to KRW 400 million are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court, which determined the sentence within the scope of the punishment to be mitigated by taking into account the favorable circumstances for the Defendant, does not seem to be too unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hwang Han-sik (Presiding Judge) Dong-dong of the Yellow Blueng (Presiding Judge)