(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

2.(c) B

Attorney D (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

Of the facts charged in this case, it is not guilty that Defendant A violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Refluence, etc.) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Influence, etc.) against Defendant B.

Of the facts charged in this case, each of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (such as Acceptance of Property) against Defendant A and all of the prosecutions against Defendant B on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Proof of Property) shall be dismissed.

Defendant B, who is a substantial operator of the Victim AE (hereinafter referred to as "victim B") operating the city and regional development project, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in imprisonment with prison labor for one year in the Daegu District Court on February 28, 2012, and the decision was finalized on March 7.

On May 9, 2007, Defendant B entered into an agreement on the transfer and acquisition of collective housing business rights with the effect that the injured company will succeed to the debt amounting to 16 billion won in total to the M&C savings bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Malomon Savings Bank") and the M&C mutual savings bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Malomon Savings Bank") and the M&C savings bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Malomon Savings Bank") in order to take over the right of the injured company's project implementation with respect to the collective housing project in Daegu-gu achieved-gu, which was promoted by the M&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-family housing project in this case").

After that, on May 25, 2007, Defendant B obtained loans from Solomon Savings Bank and Busan Solomon Savings Bank in total of 21.5 billion won in the name of the victim company, and the amount equivalent to 16 billion won in the same day.

Using L&C’s repayment of existing loans from Solomon Savings Bank from around May 29, 2007 to around September 19, 2007, 3.4 billion won out of 5.5 billion won of the remainder of loans from Solomon Savings Bank and paid 274 million won out of the above funds to the persons related to Solomon Savings Bank from May 29, 2007 to June 5, 2007 for the purpose of paying rewards, etc. in accordance with the above loan execution, and embezzled such funds by arbitrarily using 66 times in total from May 29, 2007 to September 19, 2008, as indicated in the list of crimes (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Partial statement of witness G in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning H, I, J, K, and L;

1. A written statement prepared by M;

1. Copy of each certified transcript of corporate register, each audit report, each document, each written contract for transfer or acquisition of business rights of multi-family housing (including business sites), details of each account, each personal use, detailed statement of comprehensive transactions, details of each transaction, details of each transaction, details of funds execution, file of arranged results of tracking the use of funds, details of deposits and withdrawals by each bank, copies of each insurance policy, copies of cashier's checks, and copies of each deposit passbook;

1. Previous convictions: Three copies of outputs of the case, each written judgment, and resident's criminal records (Evidence No. 94);

Application of Statutes

1. Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012); Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act; the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010);

2. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

In this case where the sentencing guidelines are not applied because it constitutes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, the defendant shows a strong attitude of reflection while making a confession of all of the embezzlement crimes of this case, and even now, there was no criminal record exceeding the same kind of crime or suspended execution, and the defendant was sentenced to a suspended execution of one year of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud which acquired 10 million won or more around February 28, 2012, it is confirmed that there is a need to consider equality with the case of this case, and the family members of the defendant including the mother of the aged who received the diagnosis of waste cancer around January 2013 have repeatedly appealed to this court.

However, on the other hand, it is a large amount of money used for illegal purposes, such as providing funds of the victim company that the defendant obtained a loan from the savings bank as a loan honorarium to the persons related to the savings bank, or embezzled funds for the personal purpose extremely extremely extremely, and embezzlement remains in excess of 3 billion won. In the course of the crime of this case, it is very poor that the defendant committed the crime of this case, such as falsely preparing relevant documents or tending those who are not the employees of the victim company, and not taking measures to recover damage to the victim company up to now, as the claim for the loan to the victim company is impossible, there is a great possibility of social criticism, such as causing the insolvency of the savings bank that implemented the loan, causing a large number of people using the savings bank, causing damage to the large number of people who use the savings bank, and the defendant has been trying to escape overseas for a long time after the crime of this case, and there is a considerable need for severe punishment against the defendant.

However, in determining the specific punishment, the following factors were taken into account: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, occupation, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

Acquittal Parts

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (water, etc.) in the attached Table 1 No. 1 against Defendant A;

A. Summary of the facts charged

From June 2006 to June 2008, the Defendant was in office as the NF loan manager at Solomon Savings Bank and was in general in charge of PF loan business. On May 25, 2007, the Defendant took out a loan of 21.5 billion won in total from Solomon Savings Bank and Busan Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant loan”). On the parking lot of Solomon Savings Bank and Busan Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant loan”). On June 2007, the Defendant received 200 million won in cash from B to provide audit indication of the above loan execution and future loan convenience, and received money and valuables in relation to its duties as an officer or employee of a financial institution.

B. Determination

The prosecutor prosecuted this part of the facts charged by applying Article 5 (4) 1 and 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, but the date and time of the crime committed by the defendant was the first policeman on Jun. 1, 2007 when Article 5 (4) 1 and 5 (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 8444 of May 17, 2007). Thus, the above facts charged can only be applied to the above facts charged (the main sentence of Article 1 (1) and Article 8 of the Criminal Act).

However, with respect to the penal provisions of Article 5 (4) 1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the Criminal Procedure Act was amended on April 27, 2006 by Act No. 8444 on May 17, 2007, and the above penal provisions were applied from August 18, 2007, which was the date of the crime, to the effect that the above penal provisions of Article 5 (4) 1 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes was against the Constitution on April 27, 2006, which was before the date of the crime, and the above penal provisions were applied to the above penal provisions of Article 206Hun-Ga5 on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and it is obvious that the above penal provisions of Article 5 (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes were not applied to the defendant. According to the above provision of Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is 205 years or less than 207.

2. The point of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Proof, etc.) in the attached Table 1 No. 1 against Defendant B

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, as the actual operator of E, provided money and valuables to the officers and employees of financial institutions in relation to their duties by providing them with cash 200 million won in the name of indicating the audit of loan performance and provision of future loan convenience, etc. at the parking lot of the above "PMoel" as described in paragraph 1-A (A) at the early June 207.

B. Determination

Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012) is applied to the facts charged. However, it is clear that this part of the indictment was filed on Jun. 2, 2007, and Article 6 (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 11304, Feb. 10, 2012). According to this, the statutory punishment is a imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won. Thus, the above crime also constitutes a crime under Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 2007. Dec. 21, 2007), Article 249 (1) 4 of the former Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 249 (1) 3 or more years have passed since the statute of limitations for prosecution was completed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged corresponds to the completion of the statute of limitations, each of the facts charged and the facts charged in 2-5 Nos. 326 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be pronounced acquitted (On the other hand, each of the facts charged in this part and the annexed crime list No. 2-5 cannot be viewed as having a relation to a blanket crime as seen below. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion that the statute of limitations has not been completed on the premise that the starting point of the statute of limitations in this part of the facts charged is around June 9, 2008, which is the final time of the crime stated in 5.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc.) in the separate list of crimes (2-5) against Defendant A

From June 2006 to June 2008, the Defendant, who was in office as the NF loans from Solomon Savings Bank and was in general in charge of PF loans business from Solomon Savings Bank, was requested by the actual operator B. On May 25, 2007, the Defendant provided the instant loan amounting to KRW 21.5 billion in total with E as the debtor around May 25, 2007.

After that, the defendant requested to Haman B on June 2007 and allowed B to use the overdue interest payment of 2.3 billion won out of the loans in this case, which is the trading company of the Solomon Savings Bank, and the Klomon Savings Bank, and received money and valuables or other benefits in relation to its duties as executive officers and employees of financial institutions, by receiving money and entertainment equivalent to 72,646,000 won in total from the end of July 2007 to June 9, 2008, under the name of indication of the execution of the loan in this case and provision of future loan convenience, etc., and at the end of July 2007, B received 5,000 won in cash from the above company in return for the use of the above funds.

B. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Evidence, etc.) in attached Table 2-5 against Defendant B

Around July 2007, the Defendant offered money and valuables or other benefits in relation to his duties to the executive officers and employees of financial institutions, as described in the foregoing paragraph, including giving A cash of KRW 57,500,000,000, from July 2007 to June 9, 2008, as indicated in the same No. 2-5, from July 2007 to June 2-5, 2008, by offering money and valuables and entertainment equivalent to KRW 72,646,00,00.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor initially brought a prosecution against the Defendants only for the portion received 200 million won as shown in the separate list of crimes (2) No. 1 in the name of indicating the loan of this case, and against Defendant A as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Explosion, etc.) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Explosion, etc.). In addition to this part of the facts charged, on April 28, 2014, that the above 200 million won was a single comprehensive crime with the above 200 million won portion of the total money and valuables and entertainment received, including the above 200 million won, and the above 200 million won, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with the contents of the above 200 million won bill of amendment, and the court filed an application for changes in the indictment with the contents of the above 200 million won bill of amendment on the ground that the above 200 million won

B. Therefore, in a case where an executive officer or employee of a financial institution receives money and valuables several times in connection with his/her duties, it shall be deemed a single and continuous crime committed for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and if the legal benefits are the same, each crime shall be deemed an inclusive crime. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by this court, including the witness B’s partial statement at the 6th trial date, the witness B’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, the E- Solomon Savings Bank’s comprehensive transaction status, and the statement of ordinary deposit transaction details, all of the above series of money and valuables and entertainment, even if all of the Defendants are the same, it is difficult to view that the above series of money and valuables and entertainment received in this part of the facts charged, added by the amendment of the indictment, and the above 200 million won, are considered as a concurrent crime, not a single crime, but a concurrent crime. Therefore, in this case, it shall not be deemed as a separate crime to be charged for the amendment of a bill of indictment.

1) In other words, the facts charged in the part Nos. 2 and 3 of the Attached Crime List (2) are as follows: Defendant B, upon Defendant A’s request after the instant loan, required to use the interest payment of 2.3 billion won for the transaction companies that received the loan from Solomon Savings Bank; and given part of the amount received from the above transaction companies in return for the loan to Defendant A; thus, the receipt and payment of part of the loan of this case differs from the receipt and payment of 200 million won for the loan of this case. As such, it differs from the receipt and payment of the above 200 million won for the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions such as the execution of the loan of this case, not from the receipt and payment of money for the loan of this case, but from the receipt and payment of money for the duties of officers and employees of financial institutions such as the execution of the loan

2) Meanwhile, the facts charged in the section 4 and 5 above are as follows: Defendant B, along with Defendant A’s daily activities from June 6, 2008 to June 9, 2008, borne or provided entertainment for the travel of Mongolia. As such, there is time interval between the time of receipt of KRW 200 million and the time of receipt of KRW 200 million, and Defendant A already retired from Solomon Savings Bank at the time of the above trip and had already worked as the head of Solomon Investment Securities Resolution Co., Ltd., which was newly established, and it is difficult to view that Defendant A had performed the same duties as at the time of receipt of KRW 200 million originally charged.

3) Meanwhile, around May 25, 2007, Defendant B required to obtain the approval of Defendant A to use the instant loan deposited in the account under the name of Solomon Savings Bank. On June 2007, 2007, Defendant B had the head of Solomon Savings Bank Nlomon Savings Bank, the head of Solomon Savings Bank N, and had approximately KRW 2.3 billion remaining in the above E account use for the above payment purpose of overdue interests as above. From the end of July 2007, Defendant B returned the above 2.3 billion won from the above trading company as a check and deposited the above 2.3 billion won into the account of a national bank not the Solomon Savings Bank account in the name of E, and thereafter, Defendant A did not need to obtain the approval of Defendant A separately for the execution of the above 2.3 billion won. Accordingly, since there was no need to offer money or entertainment to Defendant A for any convenience in connection with the instant loan, it cannot be said that there was no direct relation to the execution of the instant loan 2.

4) Furthermore, in this court, Defendant B stated to the effect that, in the event of a business different after the future, Defendant B provided money and entertainment separate from 200 million won on the idea that Defendant A would be provided with loan convenience. In light of the fact that Defendant B did not receive any additional loan through Defendant A after the execution of the instant loan, Defendant B had a clear motive and purpose of giving and receiving KRW 200 million, which is the consideration for the execution of the instant loan. On the other hand, in the case of giving and receiving money and valuables and entertainment in this part of the facts charged, Defendant B was merely able to receive help in the future loan process by maintaining a friendly relationship with Defendant A, and there is also a significant difference in the degree of the duty relationship.

3. Conclusion

Thus, each part of the public prosecution can be deemed null and void in violation of the provisions of the law. Thus, each part of the public prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Yang Young-young

Judges Park Jae-min