A. Defendant 1

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant 1 (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

First, Defendant 2 did not commit each crime listed in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below in collusion with Co-Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 2, and committed each crime listed in paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance in collusion with Co-Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, despite the fact that Defendant 2 committed each crime listed in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance in collusion with Co-Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and rule of experience, thereby

Second, the sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant 2 (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(c) Prosecutors;

Article 628 (1) of the Commercial Act does not limit to the directors, auditors, etc. of the company lawfully appointed, unlike the special breach of trust under Article 622 of the Commercial Act. Thus, all of the defendants 1 and 2 who are in the position of representative director at the time of a provisional payment ledger constitutes the subject of the crime of recommending payment. Even if they are not in domestic affairs, the dismissal of joint representative director on August 1, 2003 against the co-defendant of the court of first instance is null and void. Therefore, the co-defendant of the court of first instance was a legitimate joint representative director at the time of the provisional payment ledger. Since it is probable that the defendants committed the crime of soliciting payment in collusion with the co-defendant of the court of first instance, it is likely that the defendants committed the violation of the Commercial Act due to the receipt of the provisional payment ledger, despite being guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of causing payment under Article 628 (1) of the Commercial Act, and by misunderstanding the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine Defendant 2’s first ground for appeal.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant 2 conspired with Co-Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 2 in collusion with Co-Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it can be fully recognized that each crime listed in paragraph 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance has been committed in collusion with Co-Defendant 2 in the judgment of the court

B. Next, we also examine Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal and Defendant 2’s second grounds of appeal.

Each of the crimes of this case was committed in a series of processes to seize the management rights of Nonindicted Company 1, and the nature of the crime was considerably poor, and the roles and roles of Defendants 1 and 2 involved in each of the crimes of this case, and all other conditions that form the basis for sentencing as stated in the records of this case, such as the defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are considered, and thus, it cannot be deemed unfair for the court below to have imposed the defendants on each of the crimes of this case. Thus, all of the defendants' arguments are without merit.

C. Finally, the prosecutor's appeal is examined.

Article 628 (1) of the Commercial Act is limited to persons specified in Article 622 (1) of the Commercial Act. "Directors, auditors, etc." under Article 622 (1) of the Commercial Act is a legitimate director or auditor of a company under the Commercial Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do218, Sept. 9, 1986). The crime of provisional payment under Article 628 (1) of the Commercial Act and special breach of trust under Article 622 (1) of the Commercial Act are both the crimes of provisional payment under Article 628 (1) of the Commercial Act and the crime of special breach of trust under Article 622 (1) of the Commercial Act, considering the social and economic influence of the company, the purpose of legislation is the same, and if the scope of application is not limited to legitimate directors, etc. of the crime of provisional payment under Article 628 (1) of the Commercial Act, it is not clear that the scope of application is against the principle of no punishment without law.

However, comprehensively taking account of the evidence and records lawfully adopted and examined at the court below's decision 205Da3368. The above defendant 1 and the first instance court's defendant 2 et al. conspired with the above defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were to have become one shareholder, and the defendant 1 was to be dismissed from all existing officers of the non-indicted 1 corporation on August 8, 2003 as one shareholder and the first instance court, the second instance court, the second, and the second, the defendant 1 were to be appointed as the auditor; the second, the second, the second, the second, the third, and the third, the second, the third, and the third, the third, and the third, the third, the shareholders' general meeting were to be held on August 9, 200; the second, the third, the directors' resolution was made to be made to have been made on the same date as the directors' first, the third, the third, and the third, the third, and the second, the third, and the third, the defendant's representative director's resolution.

In addition, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, co-defendants in the court of first instance can only recognize the fact that the co-defendants in the position of co-representative and director of the non-indicted 1 corporation were dismissed on August 1, 2003 as co-representative and director on August 5, 2003 and the registration of alteration has been made on August 1, 2003, and there is no evidence that the dismissal of the co-defendants in the court of first instance as of August 1, 2003 as to the co-defendants in the court of first instance was null and void, and as seen above, the co-defendants in the court of first instance appears to have resigned from the office of director and representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation as of August 12, 2003, but the co-defendants in the court of first instance cannot be deemed to have been in the position of director or representative director as of August 13, 2003, and there is no evidence that

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, the defendants' violation of the Commercial Act constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the decision of the court below to this purport is justified, and there is no violation of law as pointed out by the prosecutor. The reasons for appeal by the prosecutor are not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, all appeals filed by the Defendants and appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-hun (Presiding Judge)