[2] The case holding that it is difficult to conclude that the defendants, the representative of a corporation, knew that the above shares were derived property from criminal proceeds, at the time of purchase of shares from the person who acquired shares through loans from a criminal act, since it is difficult to conclude that the above shares were derived property from criminal proceeds as a result of a specific crime, and that they are not guilty

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to conclude that the defendants, the representative of a corporation, knew that the above shares were derived property from criminal proceeds, at the time of purchase of shares from the person who acquired shares through loans from a criminal act, on the grounds that they were acquired with funds obtained as a result of a specific crime, and that they were not guilty of the facts charged in violation of

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1, each of the facts charged in violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 are acquitted.

1. On October 7, 2002, at the above company's office located in Gwangju Northern-gu (detailed address omitted), the above company's public funds deposited in the above company's account was withdrawn from the above company's public funds and deposited them into the defendant's account, and the above company's account books were falsely recorded as if the above company's loan did not exist in the above company's account books were repaid by the above company. Accordingly, the above non-indicted 2 withdrawn 250,000,000 out of the public funds deposited in the above company's Japanese bank account and deposited in the defendant's Japanese bank account (Account Number omitted), and concealed them after withdrawing the above funds, deposited in the name account in the name of the non-indicted 3, a mother's name account, and embezzled them through the account of the defendant 2 with the non-indicted 4 corporation's account.

2. On October 16, 2002, the above non-indicted 2 instructed the above non-indicted 2 by the above method as above, withdrawn KRW 150,00,000 from the public funds deposited in the Japanese bank account of the above non-indicted 2, and deposited it into the above non-indicted 4 bank account, and embezzled it by using the above method as a voluntary purchase price for the shares of the non-indicted 4 corporation.

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 2

1. Copy of the receipt from Nonindicted Co. 1 Co., Ltd.

1. Copies of accounting books;

Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment on October 7, 2002 with a heavier penalty)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the fact that the accused has no record of the same crime except for previous convictions, and that the victim fully repaid the amount of damage)

Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 4, Defendant 2 is the representative director of Defendant 4, Defendant 3 is the corporation established for the purpose of running golf courses, and Defendant 4 is the corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc.

A. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired,

around February 11, 2004, the shares of the above non-indicted 4 corporation owned by the above non-indicted 5 were loans arising from the criminal act that the above non-indicted 5 provided security of the certificate of deposit owned by the non-indicted 4 corporation before and after the expiration of the period of safeguard against the shares newly issued by the non-indicted 4 corporation, and the above non-indicted 5 paid 6,45,782,500 won equivalent to the criminal proceeds as the purchase price of shares to the IM, but it was known that the shares of new shares issued and converted into equity shares of the non-indicted 4 corporation were derived property for criminal proceeds after the expiration of the period of safeguard. The above non-indicted 5,827,445 shares of the above non-indicted 4 corporation as the total amount of KRW 18,617,512,500 per share after the expiration of the period of safeguard, and received them from the above non-indicted 5 as the purchase price of shares of new shares and converted equity shares.

B. Defendant 1:

Around July 26, 2004, Defendant 4 purchased the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 at the above place, and knowingly known that the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 divided Nonindicted Co. 4 were derived property from criminal proceeds, Defendant 2 purchased the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 in total of KRW 1,401,187,50 per share, and received them in total of KRW 22,50 per share, with the knowledge that the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 were divided.

C. Defendant 3 Company:

At the same time and place as above (a) and (b) above, Defendant 1, an employee of the defendant, knowingly acquired the shares of the above non-indicted 4 corporation from the above non-indicted 5 and Defendant 2 with the knowledge of the fact that it is crime-making property derived from crime, and received them, as described in paragraphs (a) and (b)

D. Defendant 4 Company:

In the same time and place as the above paragraph (a) above, Defendant 2, an employee of the defendant, knowingly acquired the shares of the above non-indicted 4 corporation from the above non-indicted 5 with the knowledge of the fact that it is a criminal benefit property derived from the crime, and received them.

2. Defendants’ legal actions

The Defendants asserted that, at the time of acquiring the above Nonindicted Co. 4’s shares from Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5 was unaware of the fact that the above shares were acquired with Nonindicted Co. 4’s certificate of deposit as collateral and borrowed money, and denied the above charges (Defendant 1 stated during the third trial that Nonindicted Co. 5 was aware of the fact that the shares held by Nonindicted Co. 5 were illegal acquisition through the secured loan of the certificate of deposit issued by Nonindicted Co. 4, but the above statement is understood as a statement to the effect that the above Defendant was aware of the degree of contents contained in the newspaper in relation to Nonindicted Co. 5, and not as a statement to the effect that the facts charged in the instant case were led to confession).

3. Determination

A. As provided in Article 1 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, the act of concealing criminal proceeds for the purpose of pretending the acquisition, etc. of criminal proceeds related to the specific crime, promoting a specific crime, or pretending to the property legitimately acquired, is enacted for the purpose of contributing to the maintenance of sound social order by fundamentally removing economic factors that encourage specific crimes by prescribing special cases concerning confiscation and collection of criminal proceeds related to the specific crime, and Article 4 of the above Act provides that "a person who knowingly received criminal proceeds, etc." shall be punished. The key issue of this case is 1) With regard to the nature of crime, the issue of this case is whether the shares acquired by the defendants are criminal proceeds or derived property, 2) Whether the defendants knew that the above shares were criminal proceeds or derived property, c) whether the defendants knew about the illegality of the purchase of the shares of this case, and 4) whether the shares of this case should be found guilty under the premise that the shares of this case were unlawful or not.

B. Article 4 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment recognizes the fact that the given and received property is criminal proceeds, etc., and it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the given and received property is not limited to the conclusive perception, but also with dolusible perception. However, even if it is sufficient solely with dolusent perception, it is required to recognize that the given and received property actually occurred from criminal acts. Thus, it is not sufficient to say that the given and received property is a general, abstract suspicion, uneasiness, or standing, that is, criminal proceeds, etc., and at the time of the receipt, it should be acknowledged that the given and received property under a specific situation where there exists a probability that the given and received property is a criminal proceeds,

C. Therefore, according to the above facts that the above Defendants were aware of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 5 and Nonindicted Co. 4 were able to purchase and sell the above shares on February 11, 2004, and that the above shares were owned by Nonindicted Co. 5 on the date of the above Nonindicted Co. 5’s purchase and sale contract, and that Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 4 were able to find out the facts that the above shares were acquired by Nonindicted Co. 5’s agent on the date of Nonindicted Co. 4’s non-Indicted Co. 5’s non-Indicted Co. 4’s non-Indicted Co. 5’s non-Indicted Co. 4’s non-Indicted Co. 5’s non-Indicted Co. 5’s non-Indicted Co. 4’s non-Indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co. 4’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co. 5’s non-indicted Co.

However, according to the above evidence and the 6th, 7, and 12 of the 8th trial records, if the above Defendants were charged with the acquisition of shares, it is difficult to conclude that the above Defendants were charged with non-indicted 1's acquisition of shares by taking account of the following facts: ① the above Defendants were charged with the acquisition solicitation of the non-indicted 4 corporation by the head of Gwangju Branch of Bank; ② the above Defendants were not pro rata or pro rata 5's representative at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract; ② the above Defendants were charged with the acquisition of shares through the non-indicted 10, and the facts that the above Defendants did not know that the above shares were acquired by the non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's shares and the facts that the above Defendants did not know about the above facts at the time of the above acquisition of shares; ② the above facts that the above Defendants did not know about the criminal facts of the non-indicted 5 corporation's non-indicted 1's shares were found guilty.

D. In addition, insofar as the Defendants did not commit the crime of acquiring the instant shares from the above non-indicted 5, an act of stock transaction thereafter constitutes a justifiable transaction. Thus, Defendant 1’s purchase of the shares of the non-indicted 4 corporation divided by Defendant 2 does not constitute a separate crime, and there is no other evidence to support that the above Defendant’s acquisition of shares constitutes a crime of receiving criminal proceeds, etc.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged of violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, they are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Justices Kang Jae-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)