207Gohap569, 831 (Joint), 1263 (Joint)

(a) Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act (wholly revoking the public prosecution against the defendant A);

B. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Defendant B)

Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

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

the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

p)brut tide;

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

(1) the name of the crime, occupational breach of trust, Defendant D

and the name of the crime recognized for Defendant E;

Second Instance Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Crimes (Misappropriation)

E. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

(f) Occupational breach of trust

1. (a) b. d.

F

2. A. b. e. B

3. (a) b. d. f.

A

4. b. D. D.

5. C. C

6. D. E:

7.(a)(b) G

Noise and vibration germs

Law Firm H (Defendant F and G)

Attorney I, J, and K

L Law Firm (Defendant B)

Attorney M, N, andO

P Law Firm (Defendant B)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Attorney Q, R, and S (for Defendant A)

Attorney T (Defendant D, C)

Attorney U (Defendant E)

December 21, 2007

1. Defendant F

(a) The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years and six months and a fine of seven billion won;

B. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period of 10 million won converted into one day.

(c) 156 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment;

(d) order the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine.

E. The defendant is confined in a workhouse until the above fine is fully paid.

F. Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the Defendant’s violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the use of undisclosed information, and the embezzlement of KRW 1,280,000,000 related to virtual V is not guilty.

2. Defendant B

(a) Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two and a half years, six months, and a fine of one billion won;

B. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period of 3.4 million won converted into one day.

(c) Two days under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment;

(d) however, suspend the execution of the above imprisonment for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

(e) order the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine.

F. The defendant is confined in a workhouse until the above fine is paid in full.

3. Defendant A

(a) The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;

(b) Two days under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

(c)Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(d) order the accused to provide community service for 500 hours.

E. Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the Defendant is not guilty of violating the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) due to the Defendant’s participation in capital gains tax evasion, and of 200 million won loan to W.

F. Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the prosecution against Defendant B’s violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is dismissed.

4. Defendant D

(a) The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

(b) One day under confinement prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

(c)Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for 3 years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

(d) order the accused to provide community service for 120 hours.

E. Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the Defendant’s violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) due to the Defendant’s participation in the evasion of capital gains tax on Defendant F’s stocks, and the embezzlement of KRW 1,280,000 won related to

5. The defendant

(a) The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

(b) One day under confinement prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

(c)Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(d) order the accused to provide community service for 80 hours.

6. Defendant E

(a) The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

(b)Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(c) order the defendant to provide community service for 80 hours.

7. Defendant G

(a) The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months;

(b)Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for 3 years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

C. Of the facts charged against the defendant, the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report in bulk, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) due to the defendant F'

Criminal facts

1. Status of the Defendants

A. Defendant F is the president who actually operates a State-X (hereinafter referred to as "State-X")-based entertainment planning company in Korea as of January 29, 2003. From July 1, 1996 to July 1, 2002, Y, from July 2, 2002 to October 17, 2005, Defendant F actually operated the State-based (hereinafter referred to as "State-based) Z (hereinafter referred to as "State-based Z")-based sales company as of October 17, 2005. As of April 18, 2005, from AAAA-based largest shareholder of X, 740,000 (State-based 3,192,000 (2,100%)-based stocks, 740,000,000 (State-owned G)-based stocks (hereinafter referred to as "State-owned stocks")-based stocks (hereinafter referred to as "State-owned stocks").

B. Defendant B: from July 15, 1994 to October 17, 2005, he held office as the representative director of the State (hereinafter referred to as “State”) who is a film, video import and distributor (hereinafter referred to as “State”). On April 18, 2005, he acquired 2,128,000 shares (14%) from the name of 2,88,000 shares among the shares of (State) AA from April 18, 2005 and then acquired 700,00 shares (4.6%) from the name of 3 persons, such as AD, to become the 2 major shareholders of (State) X, and then listed them by means of an all-inclusive share swap with (State) X.

C. Defendant A: (a) from July 2004 to June 2005, the vice president of (main) Z; (b) from June 30, 2005 to July 6, 2006, Defendant F and B were employed as the representative director of (main) X; (c) from June 30, 2005 to July 6, 2006; (d) Defendant F and B planned the process of taking over the management rights of (main) X from (main) Z and (e) Z, and (e) Z and (e) AC intended to make an all-inclusive share swap with (main) X.

D. Defendant D: from February 2005 to the end of January 2007, the head of the management department of the Z, and the director in charge of the accounting of the State X, who is in charge of accounting affairs.

E. Defendant C: The representative of the State (hereinafter referred to as “State”) AE (hereinafter referred to as “AE”) on the part of Defendant F.

F. Defendant E: (a) from August 9, 2004 to July 2006, 2006, Defendant E served as a public relations director of (State) Z and (State) X; and (b) was the representative of AF of an individual enterprise closed on December 31, 2002.

G. Defendant G: Defendant F’s birth from July 2002 to October 2005, as the representative director in the name of the State Z from July 2002 to October 2005, he actually worked as the head of the department, and (b) X’s major shareholder.

[Defendant]

2. (Case X’s Acquisition of Management Rights and Fraudulent Illegal Transactions in the course of (State) Z and bypass listing, violation of obligation to report stocks held in bulk, and violation of capital gains tax evasion;

around March 205, Defendant F, B, and A entered into a contract to purchase (M) X 10,000 won for the purpose of manufacturing golf products, and to purchase (M) video products operated by Defendant F and Defendant B, and (DVD distribution companies, by means of an all-inclusive share swap, and to operate (M) X X 1 as a comprehensive entertainment company including music records. Accordingly, Defendant F and B, as of April 1, 2005, purchased shares under the name of 30,000 (M) 1,0230,000 won of the total number of outstanding shares (M) 1,000,000,000 won and 1,000,000,000 won and 2,000,000,000 won and 3,000,000,000 won and 1,000,000,000,000 won and 1,000,000.

A. Defendant F, B, A, G - Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to fraudulent illegal transactions

No person shall commit any act to gain money or other benefits which has property value by inducing misunderstanding of other persons, through a false document containing a false representation with respect to the sale and purchase or other transaction of securities.

Nevertheless, Defendant F, B, and B conspired on April 1, 2005 with their own account on 1, 2005 and purchased a total of 14 persons with a plan to sell 4,910,000 shares out of 1,0230 shares with a view to the share price registration. At that time, Defendant F, B, and B submitted a report on the situation of shares held in bulk through the electronic disclosure system of the Financial Supervisory Service (for the purpose of management participation). The above facts were to purchase 1,0230 shares (67.30% of the total number of shares issued) with 60,000 shares (67.30% of the total number of shares purchased) with 5320,000 shares (35%) purchased in the name of Defendant G and Defendant B, with a total of 5,000 shares purchase and sale of 50,000 won shares (350% of the shares) with 50,000 won shares out of the acquisition fund.

B. Defendant F and B - Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of obligation to report in bulk

A person who holds stocks, etc. of a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ (where the total number of stocks, etc. held by the principal and his/her specially related persons exceeds 5% of the total number of the relevant stocks, etc.) shall report his/her holding status and holding purpose (whether it is intended to affect the issuer's management right) to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Exchange within five days from the date on which he/she holds them, and in such cases, he/she shall

Nevertheless, on April 1, 2005, Defendant F and B conspired to submit a report on the stock holding situation through the Financial Supervisory Service’s electronic publication system, and the fact was that Defendant F and B acquired the stock holding status of 1,0230,000 won on their account, and that part of the acquisition fund was borrowed, Defendant F and B made a false report or omitted on each of the important matters, stating that “G, 3,192,00 shares, 2,218,00 shares, 2,218,00 shares, 2,00 shares in possession, 3G,1,515,69,69,516 won, 00 won, 1,50 won, 1,010,46,344, and 0 won.”

(c) Evasion of capital gains tax;

(1) FUBE - Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act (Taxes)

Defendant F purchased (State) X shares 7,402,00 shares from A on April 1, 2005, and made a disguised purchase of less than 3% under the name of 11 person such as AB, etc., such as the statement of acquisition of shares in attached Form 'the details of acquisition of shares', in order to avoid the above 3% of the capital gains tax, the requirement for taxation of capital gains tax. Defendant F purchased 3,425,60 shares from A, and sold 3,427,598 shares among them, and sold 3,427,598 shares and made it difficult to levy capital gains tax for 200,000 won to make it impossible to file a false return, payment and payment period of capital gains tax for 3,427,598 shares, or to make it impossible to impose capital gains tax for 200,000 won by 3,586,786,7586,786,786, etc.

(2) BUB - Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

Defendant B purchased (State) X shares 2,828,00 capital gains tax from A on April 1, 2005 in order to avoid the above 3% capital gains tax requirement, Defendant B, as stated in the “the details of acquisition of shares by each holder of title” in attached Form 3, 70,00 capital gains tax, disguised purchase of less than 3% of the shares in the name of three persons, such as AD. From April 18, 2005 to July 26, 2005, following the following: (a) from April 18, 2005 to July 26, 2005, Defendant B’s acquisition and disposal details of the shares purchased under the above three third person’s name, including the following: (b) 700,00 capital gains tax of KRW 3,415,915,182 capital gains tax; and (c) thus, (d) it was considerably difficult to impose capital gains tax due to such reporting, payment deadline of KRW 2006,5,3151.

3. Breach of trust due to concealment of provisional payments of 1.6 billion won.

A. Defendant F and D - The Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) Z was audited by the accounting firm of the lender to make a bypass listing on February 2, 2005. In contrast, it was confirmed that the provisional payment amount of the representative director was about KRW 4 billion as the result of arranging the accounting books of the (State) Z from July 2003 to February 2005. In order to make a bypass listing, Defendant F and D were in the situation where the representative director should pay all the payment amount to the company, and they were willing to conceal the above debt by pretending that they were paid as advance payment of music record.

Defendant F is the actual operator of the (State) Z, and Defendant F is the person in charge of the accounts of the (State) Z and must arrange the said provisional payment only when there is a real repayment or equivalent act from the obligor returning the provisional payment, and there is an occupational duty not to disguise it as an advance payment to the Customer.

Nevertheless, in violation of such occupational duties, at the office of the State (State) around February 1, 2005, Defendant F did not have to pay money as an advance payment for music records, etc. to the AF whose business registration was registered under the name of Defendant E. However, Defendant E instructed Defendant E to take account of the amount of KRW 50 million, KRW 500,000,000,000,000 and KRW 600,000,000,000,000 to be paid to AF, and KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

B. Defendant E - Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust)

At the time of February 2005, Defendant E, as a person in charge of publicity of the (State) Z at the time of the foregoing paragraph, assisted Defendant F by allowing Defendant F to use AF whose name had been registered in order to conceal the provisional payment of KRW 1.6 billion, as described in the above paragraph (a), and aiding and abetting Defendant F’s breach of trust.

4. Breach of trust due to the issuance of the number of units per five billion won.

A. Defendant F and A - Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

In borrowing KRW 5 billion from AK, Defendant F offered as security the sole name of Defendant G or the co-ownership of Defendant F or F (hereinafter referred to as “N real estate”). However, the above AL demanded additional security to be easy to exercise the security right. Accordingly, Defendant F and A conspired with the Defendant F and A to offer the (State) X’s check as security, around May 16, 2006, with the order of the Defendant F and D to issue KRW 5 billion at the face value of KRW 5 billion at the victim’s (State), the Defendant F acquired the above victim’s property interest of KRW 5 billion at the expense of the Plaintiff F and D’s own loan as security, and the Defendant F provided the above Defendant F and D’s property interest of KRW 5 billion at the expense of the above Defendant F’s loan as security of KRW 5 billion at the expense of the above Defendant F and the Plaintiff’s property interest of KRW 5 billion at the expense of the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant D - Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust)

around May 16, 2006, Defendant D assisted and aided Defendant F and A to commit an act of misappropriation of 5 billion won in the same manner as described in the above paragraph (a).

5. Defendant C - Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

Defendant F had been in custody of the funds of the Victim’s (AL) X, with the intent to pay KRW 5 billion to the funds of the Victim’s (AL) X, and with the intent to pay KRW 5 billion to the funds of the Victim’s (AL) X office around June 16, 2006, Defendant A and D ordered Defendant A and D to pay the lease deposit money for the above NN real estate “AO building”, which was during the civil engineering work at the time, the bank passbook in the name of G, would be 3 billion, 1.2 billion won in the bank account in the name of Q, and 1.2 billion in the name of the first bank account in the name of Q, by pretending the advance payment for the music record management to AP, the advance payment for the music record management for Defendant C’s (AP), and Defendant A and D made the account transfer according to the direction. Accordingly, Defendant F embezzlement embezzled embezzled the funds of KRW 5 billion in accordance with each order.

In this process, Defendant C assisted and aided (i.e., (ii) the name of the State AE and the account for his own interest bank, by making it easy for Defendant F to perform 800 million out of the above embezzlement.

6. Defendant B - Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

Defendant B: (a) from January 2003 to October 17, 2005, at the office of the office of the (State) 7th floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul building, he was transferred part of the sales amount through the bank account of the ASEAN and the National Bank account of the ASEAN located adjacent to the actual transaction account; (b) concealed the sales amount of the ASEAN by means of preparing a double account in which actual sales and expenses are recorded; and (c) based on this, reported the corporate tax and the value-added tax for each taxable period, each time limit for filing a return was expired. Accordingly, Defendant B evaded each tax return and payment period for each taxable period, i.e., the corporate tax and the value-added tax on the ASEAN, fraud or other unlawful act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose the value-added tax, and i.e., the 2003 to 205 to 2005 to 201.

[2007Gohap831 - Defendant A]

7. Occupational breach of trust;

On July 18, 2005, the Defendant entered into an all-inclusive share swap contract with the victim (i.e., the victim) X office located on the eightth floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul AR building, and (ii) the State (hereinafter referred to as the "State")U on behalf of the State (hereinafter referred to as the "State").

In this case, as a representative director of X, the defendant shall pay a reasonable price calculated in accordance with the amount assessed by the AU company, and if the amount to be paid separately is determined to the shareholders of the AU, the defendant shall have the duty to obtain a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders by entering it in the share swap contract.

Nevertheless, on July 21, 2005, the Defendant violated such occupational duties and entered into a side agreement with AV, the largest shareholder of the AV, on the premise that (i) X shares were held for one year from the time when the AV shares were transferred to AV, (ii) where the assessed value of the shares falls short of 26 billion won, after the lapse of one year from the time when the AV shares were transferred to AV, (iii) X would pay the difference to AV, and (iv) on September 27, 2005, upon holding a temporary general meeting of shareholders in the said AR building, entered into the said exchange agreement with the special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders by concealing the above side agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant acquired the amount of property interest in the amount of AV and thereby caused property damage equivalent to the equivalent amount to the amount of (i) X.

8. Occupational breach of trust;

As the representative director of a company has a substantial interest in the dispute, if there is a dispute arising in connection with the act of an executive officer or employee, who has become a party to the lawsuit or other legal proceedings, or who has lawfully performed for the company as an executive or employee, for legal reasons, the representative director of the company has a duty not to bear the cost of the civil and criminal attorney-at-law who has become a party to the company, unless there is a special need to file a lawsuit or respond to a complaint for the benefit of the company in light of the deep relation to the company and the overall circumstances at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated such occupational duties, and around May 2006, at the AX attorney office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AW, the Defendant and the F, etc., who are the major shareholders of the Defendant and the State, were jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the contingent fee of KRW 225 million in a personal criminal case being investigated by the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office due to the suspicion of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act on behalf of the Defendant and F, etc., on behalf of the said AX attorney. Accordingly, the Defendant had the said AX attorney obtain pecuniary benefits of KRW 225 million and suffered pecuniary damage equivalent to the amount equivalent to the victim (state) X.

9. The representative director of the company in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust) due to a loan of 1 billion won has a duty to take reasonable and reasonable measures to collect claims, such as receiving sufficient collateral, if he lends company funds to another person including

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated such occupational duties, around May 30, 2006, lent to AY an amount of KRW 1 billion out of the company funds deposited in the foreign exchange bank account in the name of (i) X without any security, to AY bank account in violation of the said occupational duties. Accordingly, the Defendant acquired property gains equivalent to KRW 1 billion from AY and suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount as the victim (i.e., the victim) X.

10. Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act resulting from the exchange with interested parties of KOSDAQ-listed corporations;

Any stock-listed corporation or any KOSDAQ-listed corporation shall be prohibited from performing an act of lending money to or for a major shareholder, director or auditor of such corporation.

Nevertheless, the defendant, at the same place on June 1, 2006, lent KRW 174 million to the representative director who is the representative director.

Summary of Evidence

[200710569, 1263]

○ The respective legal statements of the Defendant F, B, D, C, and E, the respective legal statements of the Defendant A, BA, BB, BD, BD, BE, AK, BF, B (limited to other Defendants), B (limited to the other Defendants), A (limited to the other Defendants), BV, BH, BI, BJ, E (limited to the other Defendants), B, and B.

The statement of each protocol of suspect interrogation of Defendant A and E by the prosecution, each protocol of suspect interrogation of Defendant B by the prosecution, and the first protocol of suspect interrogation of Defendant D by the prosecution as to Defendant D.

Each written statement by the prosecutor's office on the BD-BE, B-B-BE, AS, AS, AV, ZBA, BL, E, BJ, BG, BG, BM andBN, W, BO, BH, B, B, and B I

OP, D(2), AL, and AK's written statements by each prosecutor's office, each written statement by each prosecutor.

O. Each description of the A, E, Z, BA, and BF preparation, and each description of the BB preparation.

Each investigation report on 00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

OAB and 10 other 10 shares acquisition funds, details of stock acquisition funds, details of stock entry funds, details of receipt and withdrawal of stock accounts, and each entry of the director of the office of transaction of entry into and withdrawal from a bank's Cheongb Account.

[207Gohap831] The defendant A's partial statement of 00 witness BR's legal statement of the court of the prosecution against the defendant A among each protocol of suspect examination of the defendant's prosecution against the defendant A.

·Entry of the second interrogation protocol of the defendant A in the prosecutor's office No. 2; entry of the first interrogation protocol of the defendant AV in the third interrogation protocol; entry of the fifth interrogation protocol of the defendant AV in the fifth interrogation protocol; entry of the first interrogation protocol of the defendant AV and BR in the sixth interrogation protocol.

Each statement of the prosecutor's statement of the OBR and each document attached thereto, each statement of the prosecutor's office's statement of the D and each document attached thereto, each statement of the BR preparation, each document of the D's confirmation, AZ and Y's written statement of each written statement of the D's written statement.

Each description of the complaint filed and accompanying documents filed by the complaint;

o Each investigation report (a list on the stock exchange transfer report of X on July 18, 2005, accompanied by the stock exchange transfer report of X on July 18, 2005) and each of the accompanying documents

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant F

Article 207-2(2)1 and (1)2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Articles 188-4(4)2 and 214(2) and (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Joint Penalty for Imprisonment and Fine concurrently)

Article 210 subparagraph 5-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 200-2 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

(1) Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 9(1)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Concurrent Imposition of Imprisonment and fine)

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

B. Defendant B

Article 207-2(2)1 and (1)2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Articles 188-4(4)2 and 214(2) and (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Joint Penalty for Imprisonment and Fine concurrently)

Article 210 subparagraph 5-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 200-2 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

(2) Violation of the Act on Punishment of Tax Evaders and fine) Articles 9(1)3 and 5 (Concurrent Imposition of Imprisonment and fine) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

○○○ (State)AC Tax Evasion: Articles 9(1)3 and 5(1)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Concurrent Imposition of Imprisonment and Fine)

C. Defendant A

Article 207-2 (2) 1 and (1) 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 188-4 (4) 2 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act (the fact that ○○○○, each of which is imprisonment with prison labor, is in breach of trust: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act

○○ Trading with interested parties of KOSDAQ-listed corporations at the time of 10: Subparagraph 7 of Article 207-3 and Article 191-19 (1) 1 (a) of the Securities and Exchange Act (Optional to Imprisonment)

D. Defendant D

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 32(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

E. Defendant C.

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act

F. Defendant E

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 32(1) of the Criminal Act

G. Defendant G.

Article 207-2 (2) 1 and (1) 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 188-4 (4) 2 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

2. Competition;

Defendant F and B: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Code (the crime of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the fraudulent fraudulent transactions of subparagraph 2 of each ruling, and the crime of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report possession of stocks in bulk under subparagraph 2 of the ruling, and the punishment of each punishment on the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the heavier

3. Aid and mitigation;

(a) Defendant D: Articles 32 (2) and 55 (1) 3 (Article 4-B of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) of the Criminal Act);

(b) Defendant C and E: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

4. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant F: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

This imprisonment: Aggravation of concurrent crimes against the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to fraudulent fraudulent transactions in Section 2 of the Judgment with the largest punishment, nature of the crime, and the criminal penalty;

◦ 벌금형 : 형이 더 무거운 판시 제2의 가 사기적 부정거래로 인한 증권거래법위반죄에 정한 형에 경합범 가중

B. Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

- Imprisonment: The Securities and Exchange Act due to a fraudulent fraudulent transaction in Article 2 of the ruling with the largest punishment.

Aggravation of concurrent crimes resulting from the offense of insurrection

This fine: Aggravating concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Securities and Exchange Act due to fraudulent and illegal transactions between the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; and

(c) Defendant A: the punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with the punishment provided for in the Securities and Exchange Act due to fraudulent illegal transactions by Article 2 of the above-mentioned holding)

(d) Defendant D: the provision of the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc

5. Discretionary mitigation;

(a) Defendant F and B: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act;

B. The remaining Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Code

6. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant F and B: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

7. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention;

Defendant F, B, A, D, and C: Article 57 of each Criminal Code

8. Suspension of execution;

A. Defendant B: Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant A, D, C, E, and G: Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code

9. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant F and B: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

10. Custody order;

Defendant F and B: The proviso of Article 69(1) of the Criminal Act

11. Social service order;

Defendant A, D, C, and E: Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for conviction

(1) On April 18, 2005, the entity to whom X shares are to be reverted;

A. In full view of the following facts, it is reasonable to view the entire shares as Defendant F’s borrowed-name shares, in view of the evidence duly admitted by the 4.210,00 shares in the name of 11,000 shares in G, including 3.192,00 shares and AB:

① Defendant F was provided with materials on arrears to a credit information concentration agency on July 2000, and around July 2005, Defendant F had no choice but to mobilize the following persons for economic activities, including financial transactions, since he could not engage in financial transactions under his own name until such cancellation (However, there was a lack of temporary cancellation).

② At around July 2002, Defendant F established (de facto conversion of a corporation) Z with an individual entrepreneur, Y, office, employee, etc., in which he had been operating, and acquired the shares of Z under the name of G, BS, BT, BU, etc. (de facto conversion of a corporation) without acquiring the shares in his own name due to the foregoing circumstances. After that, Defendant F was in the position of the president of the Z, and practically operated (main) Z while operating the Z under the name of the president of the Z (the Defendant G, a representative director, was in the position of the chief director).

③ Defendant F had a total of 15 persons 17 accounts using borrowed name accounts for the same reason even in the course of trading (State B Q shares) around the end of 2004, which was prior to the receipt of (State) X (Defendant F also recognized that he is his own borrowed name account with respect to 7-person accounts).

④ On December 204, 2004, Defendant F entered into an acquisition negotiation with BW of BBV, which was prior to determining state X, and Defendant F affixed the seal on behalf of Defendant F on behalf of (State) Z.

⑤ The above AB et al. did not directly participate in the process of (State) X acquisition negotiation, conclusion of contracts, and acceptance of share certificates, and (State) BC on the part of (State) A, which transferred shares of (State), was aware that Defendant F was taking over 3.192,000 shares in the name of G and 4.210,00 shares in the name of the above 11 person.

6 Of the acquisition price of the above shares, a considerable portion of the sales price of Q shares recognized as the name of Defendant F by himself, funds borrowed by Defendant F by Defendant F to be 475 won per share, and Defendant F, through Defendant E, have been sold in advance and received at KRW 1,00 per share, and Defendant F actually exercised the voting rights of the above shares, and most of the sale price was used by Defendant F.

7) F: F: 3,192,00 note B; 2,128,00 note B; 1,000 note B: 1,000 note B; 4,192,000 note B; 3,128,00 note B; 3,000 note B; 3,210,000 note B; 3,210,000 note free of charge; 2,00 note B’s note in the statement of B; 3,210,00 note B; 4,00 note B’s real name and sale of shares acquired by it; 475 won, which is its price taken over by it; 1,000 Won; 5,000 note A; 5,05,00 note A’s statement in the process of being taken over by it; 60,506,000 note A; 60,54,000 note A’s other shares in the process of being taken over by it.

(9)A set in which staff BH’s personal instructions from Defendant F are recorded (e.g., production, seizure) shall contain the name of the person, securities company, password, quantity, and details of prior sale of the shares in the above 11 name.

B. As seen in Paragraph 1 of the 100,000 shares of 3 persons, including AD, are the 700,000 shares remaining after the 300,000 shares out of the shares in AD’s name, except for 300,000 shares.

2. Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to fraudulent illegal transactions.

A. Whether it constitutes an illegal transaction

(1) Criteria for determination

Article 188-4 (4) 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act prohibits "an act of inducing misunderstanding of other persons with regard to material facts related to the sale and purchase or other transaction of securities". The prohibition of fraudulent unfair trading under the Securities and Exchange Act is aimed at protecting individual investors' interests in securities transaction and protecting investors' trust in the general securities market, thereby contributing to the development of national economy. In this context, whether the securities market is an act related to trading of securities, etc., or whether it is false or not to acquire economic benefits, shall be determined by objective criteria, comprehensively taking into account the status of the offender, the management status of the issuing company and the situation before and after such act, the purpose of the above provision, etc., such as the purpose of the Securities and Exchange Act and the legislative intent of the above provision, and the prohibition of fraudulent unfair trading under the Securities and Exchange Act can affect a large number of persons with regard to securities transaction, and thus, it shall be limited to 200 individual and corporate interests arising from the disposal of securities, and it shall be limited to 160 square meters or more, and shall be limited to 200.

(2) Whether it constitutes a false indication

Defendant F and B constitute a false indication as stated in the crime No. 2-b in the holding report submitted on April 1, 2005, including the ratio of acquisition of stocks, and the details of raising funds.

(3) Whether it constitutes a "material fact"

(a) Matters concerning the largest shareholder or a major shareholder;

The facts falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 186 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act are, in principle, "important matters" under Article 188-4 (4) 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act in light of its purport. Accordingly, Article 186 (1) 13 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that "when the facts prescribed by the Presidential Decree as those which have a significant impact on the management, assets, etc. of the corporation have occurred" and Article 83 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that "when there is a change in the largest shareholder, major shareholder, or affiliated company" as one of the facts prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Therefore, the above false facts stated in the report submitted by Defendant F and B on April 1, 2005 are about the largest shareholder or major shareholder, which may have a significant impact on the management of state X, or may have a significant change to the corporate environment of state, and they constitute facts that may have an impact on the investment decision of general investors. Thus, in principle, they constitute "important matters" under Article 188-4 (4) 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do686, Nov. 14, 2003).

(b) Details of stock acquisition funds

Defendant F and B publicly announced as the "management participation" for the purpose of acquisition, and whether the fund of the person who publicly announced as the "management participation" is its own loan or not is the basic and important data to determine the authenticity of public disclosure, possibility of acquiring additional stocks, possibility of the occurrence of management right disputes or M&A, success possibility of success, and propriety of subsequent investment, etc., and Defendant F and B's Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act, which was enforced at the time of reporting the status of stocks held on April 1, 2005, stated the details of raising funds necessary for the acquisition of stocks (including borrowing funds in the case of borrowing funds) as the matters to be stated in a stock report. In light of the fact that the contents of raising funds for the acquisition of stocks in the instant stock holding report of this case, the purpose of acquisition, together with the purpose of acquisition, may have a significant impact on the management of X, or a significant change in the corporate environment, or matters necessary for fair trading in securities and the protection of investors' investment judgment, and thus, constitutes an important matter of "2005."

(C) On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that the submission of the false financial statements by the representative director of the (State) Z which concealed the amount of KRW 1.6 billion upon filing a share swap report on May 8, 2005 by Defendant F constituted a false representation on important matters. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that it constitutes a fact that the representative director of the (State) Z becoming a complete subsidiary actually paid the amount of total assets as of the end of 22.4 billion won, which could affect the general investor's investment decision on the (State) X.

(4) Whether it is intended to gain money or other economic benefits by inducing misunderstanding of another person.

This objective is not a matter of whether the other purpose exists or what purpose is, but the degree of perception of that purpose is not a positive or conclusive perception, but a misunderstanding is sufficient if there is an incomplete perception, and it actually causes misunderstanding to others.

Whether or not damage has occurred to another person is not a problem (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do606 delivered on December 12, 2003).

Considering the above facts in light of the above legal principles, Defendant F, B, A, and G have an ordinary investor in the KOSDAQ market sell 32.28% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares up to half of the total number of issued and outstanding shares to the short-term period by taking over half of the acquired shares in the name of tea and making a false entry in the ratio of acquisition of shares in the acquisition of the stocks and the details of the acquisition fund, and thereby, Defendant F, B, A, and G obtained profits by selling a large amount of shares up to 32.28% without giving rise to the price registration of the share price.

① Defendant F and B planned to maintain only shares to the extent necessary to maintain management rights of the State F and X to use personal debts from the time the stocks were acquired, and to realize profits by selling the remainder to the State F and B’s registration of the UN Entertainment’s price; for this purpose, 14 persons were mobilized in total as above.

② Although X’s share price was KRW 300 on March 10, 2005, prior to the said report on possession, the date of the said report on possession of stocks increased to KRW 1,290 on April 1, 2005, which was the date of the said report on possession of stocks, and thereafter on May 1, 2005, the rise in the share price of KRW 15,000 on the KOSDAQ, which was due to power in the so-called Han-called Han-type heat, and the rise in the share price of KRW 205, at the end of the year when the UN-X’s share price claimed for the corporation in the KOSDAQ in accordance with this room.

③ From April 18, 2005 to October 28, 2005, Defendant F and B sold all the shares acquired under the above name from April 18, 2005, when the share price of the Note F rise, and Defendant F obtained enormous profits from the market price of 3.4 billion won for Defendant B.

④ If Defendant F and B reported the fact that the largest shareholder, who holds 67.30% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares, was selling 32.28% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares up to half of the total number of issued and outstanding shares in a short period, on the securities exchange. In this case, the general investor, who acquired management rights of the state F and B, did not intend to refer the state X to the general entertainment company, but rather, to the (i) X X’s share price, and (ii) sold the shares and sold the shares, and (iii) refrained from the purchase.

C. Whether Defendant A and G establish co-principals

According to the above evidence, Defendant A, and G knew of a plan to obtain profits by selling the borrowed stocks in the registration of the share price and 5% of the right to the interests of the public. Defendant A, Defendant F, and Party B, Defendant A planned and controlled the process of acquiring the stocks in the name of Defendant F, B, and the process of acquiring the stocks in the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of the name of

3. Crimes of evading capital gains tax;

A. Defendant F

As seen earlier, the shares in the name of 11, such as AB, are the following shares of all Defendant F. Defendant F. Defendant F’s acquisition of the shares in the name of (ju) X shares, and Defendant F purchased the shares in the name of less than 3%, one of the requirements for taxation of capital gains tax, by distributed less than 3% (2.9% for 11 persons). Such disguised act constitutes fraud or other unlawful acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose capital gains tax.

B. Defendant B

As seen earlier, Defendant B’s borrowed stocks of 700,000 out of three shares, such as AD, are those of Defendant B, and Defendant B also conducted a disguised act for the same reason as Defendant F, and thus, he/she is liable to evade capital gains tax.

C. On the other hand, Defendant F and B were aimed at avoiding the protection for the reason for the acceptance of the borrowed name. However, the above defense is rejected in light of the following: (a) Defendant F and B had no duty of protection in the case of accepting the shares of a major shareholder whose protection is unrecilable; (b) Defendant A, who was in charge of the negotiation on the acceptance of shares on behalf of the major shareholder, appears to have been aware of the protection deposit system since he had worked in the investment advisory company from 1997; and (c) if they had been intended to avoid the protection, they would not have any need to mobilize several borrowed names.

4. A violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the concealment of provisional payment.

A. Summary of Defendant F’s assertion

Each " sound records production and sales contract" is a normal contract that Defendant F entered into with the State (State) Z (main name BZ), AI (main name CA), and AJ with the name of AF as the exclusive right holder.

B. Determination

In cases where a director of a company has made a false accounting to conceal a company fund after using the company fund in mind as a provisional payment, it is difficult to deem that a false accounting itself alone causes a practical loss to the company or a risk of loss to the company. However, if there are special circumstances, such as that at the time of accounting, the company could recover the embezzlement or provisional payment, but it was given an opportunity to detect and recover it by conducting a false accounting, it may be deemed that a specific risk of loss has occurred to the company (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da25865, Sept. 20, 2007).

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

① On February 2, 2005, Defendant F’s operation (main state) had been audited by an accounting corporation for the purpose of the bypassing listing. In preparation for this, the accounting books of the (main state) Z were organized from July 2003 to February 2, 2005, and the representative director confirmed that the payment was approximately KRW 4 billion.

② At the time, the Financial Supervisory Service was providing administrative guidance to adjust the provisional payments of the unlisted corporation subject to bypass listing in accepting the comprehensive share swap report.

③ Accordingly, in order to resolve the above provisional payment issue, Defendant E, who was the representative director of the AF, who was, at the time, closed a public relations director of the (State) Z, explained the above circumstances to Defendant E, who was the representative director of the AF, and agreed that Defendant E lent the name of the AF to prepare a written advance payment contract that may be responsible and treated.

(1) After that, Defendant G prepared a "Contract for Production and Sale of Phonograms" as stated on the retroactive date, and Defendant E had the same affixed to Defendant E, and Defendant E affixed a seal to the contract in the name of AF.

⑤ At the time, Defendant F did not have a specific plan for the sale of the above trees as above, and there was no discussion about the sale of the above trees and the sale of the destroyed goods, and there was no fact that Defendant F paid KRW 1.6 billion to Defendant F or AF under the pretext of advance payment.

6 Although Defendant D had to account the above KRW 1.6 billion as the provisional payment to Defendant F, Defendant D prepared an account book, such as the president of each customer, as it had paid advance payment of KRW 1.6 billion on the basis of the above contract.

7. Thereafter, the State (State) Z or the State (State) X may not demand the Defendant F to return the provisional payment of the amount of KRW 1.6 billion.

In full view of the above facts, it is reasonable to see that the "Contract for the Production and Sale of Phonograms" in the judgment was made by falsity in order to conceal the provisional payment of the Z's identity against the Defendant F. The Defendant F et al., based on this, made it difficult for the State F et al. to recover KRW 1.6 billion out of the provisional payment from Defendant F at the time, by conducting false accounting as if the advance payment was made in the amount of KRW 1.6 billion, and thereby resulting in the risk of property damage equivalent to KRW 1.6 billion in the State.

On the other hand, the defense counsel of the above defendant can be viewed as acquiring the claim for the return of advance payment against the defendant F in lieu of the claim for the return of advance payment against the defendant F, and thus there is no risk of damage. However, the defendant F and AF are separate legal entities externally, and the defendant F are corporations already closed and thus they are not capable of performing the obligation for the return of advance payment (as a result of the inquiry about the Korea-U.S. accounting corporation, the former accounting corporation in charge of the audit of the accounting of the state X in the first half of August 2007, which established the bad debt allowance for the total amount of KRW 1.43 billion in advance at the time of the first half of August 2007, which was about KRW 1.43 billion in advance at the time of the accounting review on the semiannual amount of 2007. Such circumstance alone does not lead to the risk of damage to the State

In addition, (State) X combined with the Z on 2005, sold AH's benda of AH around 200, and 80% of the monthly income was paid as a discount to AF (However, the above advance payment was actually deducted from KRW 500 million), but this is only after the act of breach of trust, which does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust. The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the issuance of a note of 500 million number of shares.

According to the above evidence, criminal facts in the judgment are sufficiently recognized.

On the other hand, in order to secure Defendant FAL’s loan obligation of KRW 5 billion, a collateral security was established separately with respect to real estate of KRW 5 billion in the name of (5 billion in the name of (1) X. However, AL is highly likely to exercise a collateral security right with respect to real estate of KRW 5 billion in the name of (2) X. In this case, (1) X is obligated to immediately pay KRW 5 billion in order to prevent a party from exercising the right of subrogation on the said real estate. However, the act of issuing a share security right of KRW 5 billion in the name of (5 billion in the name of) X in order to secure Defendant FF’s personal liability constitutes a breach of trust that may cause the risk of property damage equivalent to the amount of (1) X.

6. Defendant C’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

According to the above evidence, criminal facts in the judgment are sufficiently recognized.

On the other hand, the prosecutor revoked the charge by deeming that the embezzlement part of the embezzlement part of the defendant F, D, and A, which was prosecuted as the defendant C and the accomplice, constituted an act of non-rapeing ex post facto act due to the issuance of the check number sheet at 5 billion won. Since it is possible for the prosecutor to establish an accomplice as well as an act of ex post facto act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Do541, May 18, 197). As such, the charge of aiding and abetting the defendant C is not affected.

7. Crimes of occupational breach of trust through a side agreement of Defendant A;

A. Summary of Defendant A’s assertion

(m)X has a need to take over (State)AU in the field of entertainment in order for it to grow into a comprehensive entertainment entertainment entertainment entertainment entertainment entertainment company. To this end, it was inevitable to guarantee AV, which had been its major shareholders, the share value of 26 billion won under a side agreement. Accordingly, this is within the discretionary scope of the business judgment permissible to the representative director;

B. Determination

If the representative director of a company has sufficiently investigated and examined the necessary information within the reasonable scope of use, and then, has made a business decision in accordance with the trust and good faith, reasonably trust that it accords with the maximum interest of the company, and its contents are not considerably unreasonable, and within the reasonable scope of choice at the time of normal representative director, the act of the representative director may be deemed within the discretionary scope of the business judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da33333, Nov. 1, 2007; 2006Da33333, Jul. 26, 2007); however, such business judgment rule does not apply in cases where the representative director of the company committed an act in violation of the law, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33609, Jul. 26, 2007);

However, in case where a company becoming a complete parent company in making a comprehensive share swap contract provides that the shareholders of the company becoming a complete parent company pay for any other price in addition to the reasonable price calculated according to the amount appraised by the company, such side agreement shall be an important matter in deciding whether to approve the share swap contract with the shareholders of the company becoming a complete parent company and shall be reported to the shareholders' general meeting along with the share swap contract and subject to a special resolution at the general meeting of shareholders (see Article 360-3(3)4 of the Commercial Act). Nevertheless, the defendant A obtained a special resolution at the general meeting of shareholders only for the share swap contract without reporting the share swap contract

Thus, Defendant A’s act is in violation of the law and thus cannot be exempted solely on the ground that it is a business judgment.

8. Violation of the Act on the AY of the AY of the Act on the AY Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) by lending one billion won company funds to Defendant AY;

A. Summary of Defendant A’s assertion

(A)X had previously been unable to refuse a request to grant a loan of KRW 1 billion because it was necessary for AY to maintain a close relationship with (State)CB in connection with the music record business as well as to borrow KRW 2 billion from (State) CB, which is the largest shareholder. Moreover, at that time AY was the largest shareholder of (State) CB, and there was no need to receive a separate security because there was a need to keep the representative director within the discretionary scope of the business judgment permissible to him.

B. Determination

In light of the following points, Defendant A’s act of lending KRW 1 billion to AY without obtaining any security from Defendant A to the representative director exceeds the discretionary scope of the business judgment allowed by the representative director.

(1) The above lending is limited to AY individual, not to be limited to (State) CB, and there is no evidence to deem that AY has used it for AYB.

② Even if shares are protected, it is not legally impossible to transfer, establish, preserve, or enforce compulsory execution (Article 21(4) of the KOSDAQ Listing Regulations provides that the shares held in the Securities Depository during the period of compulsory protection shall not be sold in fact by means of a pre-sale agreement, etc., and Article 22(1)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the KOSDAQ provides that if the provisions on sale restriction are violated, a sanction is imposed to extend the period of compulsory protection by adding up one year from the date the fact of sale is verified and the remaining period of compulsory protection to the total amount of compulsory protection. However, in general, the view that the violated legal act is valid under private law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do43184, Jul. 27, 2006). Thus, it cannot be deemed that (i) Category B shares, a debtor’s property held in charge of AY, are the same as the acquisition of security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do43184, Jul. 27, 2006).

The acquittal portion

1. As to the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to Defendant B’s fraudulent illegal transactions, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) due to the evasion of capital gains tax - 300,000 shares

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged and Defendant B’s assertion

On the premise that the 400,000 shares acquired in the name of AD are the entire name shares of Defendant B, the prosecutor charged all gains from the sale of the shares with the consideration of the profits of Defendant B or the amount of evasion. However, Defendant B is arguing that the shares of Defendant B are only one million shares and the remaining 300,000 shares are not its own borrowed shares.

B. Determination

(1) In light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, Defendant B seems to have considered all the above 400,000 shares as his own borrowed shares.

① Of the above KRW 400,000 acquisition price, KRW 1.90,000,000,000 was paid as Defendant B’s capital, KRW 1.5 million was paid as the amount borrowed from Defendant BICC. Interest on KRW 150,000,000 borrowed fromCC was paid by Defendant B.

② Defendant B used most of the share sales price as above 400,000.

③ The phrase “B” is indicated as “2,128,00 note, AD: 744,284 note, BX: 255,716 note in the name of Defendant B, which is the review of the acquisition of KRW 1 million in the name of Defendant B and “BX”.

④ Defendant B recognized that the above 400,000 week was his own name in the process of interrogation of the suspect prior to detention of this case.

(2) However, in light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, it is reasonable to deem that AD, the nominal holder, had the intention to own from the beginning the above 400,000 weeks, as to the above 300,000 weeks, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that there was an agreement between Defendant B and AD on the title trust from the beginning with respect to the said 300,000 weeks.

① AD offered to Defendant B that it borrowed the above KRW 150,000,000,000 fromCC.

② Unlike the nominal holder of the instant other nominal shares, AD directly affixed his seal to the place of stock acquisition contract concluded on April 1, 2005, which was concluded on April 1, 2005.

③ AD around April 18, 2005, opened a securities account to receive 400,000 main share certificates, and applied for text notice service in order to verify the details of the disposition.

④ After Defendant B sold 100,00 shares, around July 27, 2005, Defendant B sold part of the remaining 300,000 shares, AD changed the password of the said securities account in order to prevent Defendant B from disposing of additional money or withdrawing money with the knowledge of the aforementioned text notice service.

(3) Therefore, the above 300,000 shares are insufficient to be recognized as Defendant B’s borrowed stocks, and there is no other evidence to support the above 300,000 shares. If so, the market price gains from the sale of the above 300,000 shares cannot be viewed as gains from the fraudulent illegal transactions or as the amount of evasion of capital gains tax. As such, each of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged constitute a case without proof of criminal facts, and thus, shall be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the facts charged in each of the above crimes are found guilty of the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the fraudulent transactions as stated in Article 2(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the violation of the Punishment

2. Part on the over-the-counter sales in violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) due to Defendant F’s evasion of capital gains

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The prosecutor charged Defendant F with capital gains tax corresponding to the gains that Defendant F acquired through the “out-of-the-counter sale” of KRW 1,000 per share after purchasing KRW 475 per share of KRW 475 per share as it evaded by fraud or other unlawful act.

B. Determination

(1) Relevant statutes

Article 94 (Scope of Transfer Income)

(1) Transfer income shall be the following incomes generated in the relevant year:

3. Income accruing from transfer of stocks or investment shares falling under any of the following items (including preemptive rights; hereafter referred to as "stocks, etc." in this Chapter):

(a) Transfer of stocks, etc. of stock listed corporations under the Securities and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as “stock listed corporations”) by major stockholders as determined by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the ratio of stocks owned, total market value, etc. (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as “major stockholders”), and transfer of stocks, etc. not by transaction on the securities market under

(b) Transfer of stocks, etc. of an Association-registered corporation under the Securities and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as “Association-registered corporation”) by major stockholders of the relevant corporation not based on transactions in an Association brokerage market under the same Act (hereinafter referred to as “Association-registered corporation”). Article 157 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 18988, Aug. 5, 2005) of the corporation which is not a stock-listed corporation

(4) The term "major shareholders prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 94 (1) 3 (a) of the Act means persons falling under any of the following subparagraphs (hereafter referred to as "major shareholders" in this Chapter):

1. In case where one stockholder or one investor (hereafter in this Chapter, referred to as “one stockholder”) possessing the stocks or equity investment shares of a corporation (including the preemptive right, and hereafter in this Chapter, referred to as the “stocks, etc.”) and his relative or a person under special relation with him under Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereafter in this Chapter, referred to as the “other stockholders”) possess not less than 3/100 of the total sum of stocks, etc. of the relevant corporation as of the end of fiscal year immediately preceding that whereto belongs the transfer date of stocks, etc.: relevant one stockholder and other stockholders, and in this case, while it has been short of 3/10 as of the end of immediately preceding fiscal year, but thereafter come to possess not less than 3/100 by acquiring more stocks, etc.: one stock holder

(2) Determination

According to the above relevant laws and regulations, if the shares of an Association-registered corporation are transferred outside the Association brokerage market, such shares shall be subject to capital gains tax regardless of whether the transferor is a major shareholder. On the other hand, the mere failure to report under the tax law or making a false report without accompanying any active acts does not constitute "Fraud or other unlawful acts stipulated in Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3976, Feb. 9, 2006).

However, among the facts charged, the part that transferred on April 18, 2005 of the transfer margin of the shares in the name of AB, BP, CD, Q, CE, CE, CF, CG, CH, and each share transfer margin in the name of CI, the part that was transferred on April 18, 2005 is that all Defendant F sold the shares in the name of 475 won per share to KRW 1,00 per share.

Therefore, this part of the transfer margin is naturally subject to capital gains tax regardless of whether the shares are the shares of Defendant F, a major shareholder, regardless of whether it is the shares of Defendant F, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was any fraud or other unlawful act beyond the mere failure to report and pay capital gains tax, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, it is necessary to determine innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as it is found guilty of a violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) due to the evasion of capital gains tax

3. Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to Defendant G’s violation of duty to report in bulk;

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant G in collusion with Defendant F and B, a co-owner, violated the duty to report stocks held in bulk, such as the facts stated in Section 2-b of the crime committed on April 1, 2005.

B. Determination

(1) Joint holders, i.e., a person who has agreed to jointly acquire or dispose of shares by agreement or contract with the principal and jointly exercise voting rights (Article 10-3(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act). However, as seen earlier, as long as the shares in Defendant G and shares in the name of 11, such as AB, are all shares in the name of Defendant F, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant G is a borrowed-name shares in the name of Defendant F. Thus, it is difficult to view that Defendant G is in a joint

(2) Since the general provisions of the Criminal Act apply to a violation of the duty to report on holding in bulk under the Securities and Exchange Act, even if a person who is not the subject to the duty to report is not the person holding in bulk, he/she shall be held liable for the crime of co-principal if he/she commits a conspiracy to commit the violation (see Seoul High Court Decision 2004No1743, Dec. 16, 2004).

However, in full view of the evidence duly examined by this court, it is acknowledged that Defendant G was aware of the fact that Defendant G, at the time of this case, was in charge of the acquisition of name addresses by Defendant F and B, and there is no evidence to deem that Defendant F and B were involved in the violation of the duty to report possession of stocks in collusion in collusion with the duty to report ownership by Defendant F and B.

(3) Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

4. Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to Defendant F’s use of undisclosed information

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

A major stockholder of a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ who becomes aware of important information which is undisclosed to the public in connection with the business of such corporation in connection with his duties shall not allow another person to use such information in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of securities issued by such corporation.

Nevertheless, on April 1, 2005, the Defendant F entered into a sales contract with the State A, the largest shareholder of the State F, with respect to (1) X shares 7,402,000 shares (48.69%) and became the major shareholder of (1) X after receiving the share certificates, and (2) X listed by means of an all-inclusive share swap and changing the purpose of its business to the general entertainment entertainment entertainment entertainment companies, including music records, to transfer to BOO on April 26, 2005, the Defendant F purchased the above material information from April 28, 2005 to April 205, 207, 205, using the information on the purchase and sale of the shares to BO in relation to the above material information (6) prior to May 6, 2005).

B. Determination

(1) According to Article 188-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, an insider's act of allowing another person to use undisclosed information as well as "the act of allowing another person to use undisclosed information" is also prohibited, and an act in violation of this provision is subject to criminal punishment pursuant to Article 207-2 of the same Act. The act of providing information to another person is sufficient to the extent that the recipient knowingly provides the information to him/her, and there is no need to encourage him/her to use such information.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that "the act of allowing another person to use such information" is based on the premise of another person's use, and that the act of providing information does not cause any danger to the general public's trust in the fairness of the securities market, and therefore, in the case prosecuted for the act of providing information, it cannot be deemed that the facts charged are specified unless specific criminal facts are stated as to when the information recipient used nonpublic information at any time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7112, Mar. 26, 2004). In order to constitute "the act of allowing another person to use such information" under Article 188-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, not only the act of providing information but also the causal relationship between the act of providing information and the act of providing information by the information recipient, if the information recipient already knows such information as a different circumstance, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes "the act of allowing another person to use such information" as well as the act of allowing another person to use it.

However, the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, i.e., (i) Defendant F, before Defendant F’s purchase of the Jeju X, notified Defendant F or A’s instruction of the plan to list bypass and sold (Provided, That at the time, the target company was not informed of the fact that it was the Jeju) X stocks, (ii) Defendant F entered into this contract on April 1, 2005, and published this date on the same day, and thereafter, this fact was reported to the press; (iii) Defendant F was aware of the fact that the target company was the Jeju X; and (iv) Defendant F was not aware of the fact that the target company was the Jeju Z’s use of the information; and (iv) Defendant EO’s use of the information that the target company had already been aware of the fact that the target company was the Jeju 20 U.S. 6. 26. 26. 205. 26. 26. 2005. 26. 2005. 206

(2) In addition, the evidence duly examined by this court is insufficient to deem that the defendant FE instructed the above act of providing information on April 26, 2005 or intended to offer such information, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(3) Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

5. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) due to the participation of Defendant A, D, and G in an offense of evading capital gains tax by Defendant F

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant A, D, and G participated in the crime of evading capital gains tax as stated in Section 2-C (1) of the criminal facts in collusion with Defendant F.

B. Determination

Defendant F’s crime of evading capital gains tax is that: (a) the part of the capital gains tax plan to be sold in the future is less than 3% in the name of 11 persons, such as AB, in order to avoid 3% of the requirements for taxation of capital gains tax when acquiring stocks of the state X; and (b) the Defendant F purchased less than 11 persons, such as AB, and made it impossible or remarkably difficult to impose capital gains tax

However, in the case of Defendant G and D, there is no evidence to deem that they knew that they were about the above 3%rus at the time of committing the crime of tax evasion by Defendant F.

In addition, in the case of Defendant A, it appears that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been entering into this contract on April 1, 2005 on the part of Defendant B before entering into this contract, but this court has lawfully investigated the following circumstances, namely, ① the reason why Defendant A discussed Defendant F, B, and B in the early stage of promoting the acquisition of Defendant F, and B on behalf of Defendant F, B, the reason why he did not aim at avoiding the above 3-% rule of law because it was for the purpose of avoiding the so-called 5% rule of law on the duty to report possession in bulk under the Securities and Exchange Act. ② However, Defendant F and B were aware of the economic newspaper by acquiring the above 3-% rule of law, and changed the plan to divide the name of less than 3% from the fact that Defendant F and B were trying to divide the name of less than 5% according to their proposal. ③ In light of the fact that Defendant F’s criminal act of evading capital gains tax did not have any economic interest, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the participation of capital gains tax.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325.

6. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the concealment of provisional payment by Defendant E

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant E, in collusion with Defendant F and D, participated in the 1.6 billion won act in breach of trust as stated in the 3-A criminal facts of his judgment.

B. Determination

In order to establish a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through a functional control based on the joint doctor. Here, the intention of joint process is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to allow it without restraint, and it should be one of the two with intent to commit a specific criminal act as a joint doctor, and it should be transferred to the execution of one’s own intention by using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004).

However, in full view of the evidence duly examined by this court, Defendant E merely lends the name of the AF registered in his name in preparing a false contract at the request of Defendant F as an employee of the (State) Z. Furthermore, it seems that Defendant F actively intended to commit an act in breach of trust of Defendant F or intended to obtain any economic benefit from Defendant F. Thus, Defendant E merely intended to assist the act in breach of trust of Defendant F to facilitate the act in breach of trust, and it is difficult to view that there was an intention to jointly process it.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) in Article 3-

7. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) related to Defendant F and D's virtual V

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant F and D: (a) in collusion with A Q on July 1, 2005, the facts were produced and processed directly by AV, CJ’s production, public relations, etc.; (b) Defendant F, despite the fact that Q Q’s name had decided to take charge of the production and public relations of the above AP’s production and public relations; (c) Defendant F, as the above AP intended to take charge of the above AP’s production and public relations of the CJ’s production, false content, as of July 1, 2005; and (d) Defendant F, as of August 16, 2005, kept an additional agreement for the production and public relations of the same day’s music record; and (d) Defendant F, under the pre-payment for the production and public relations of the records, deposited KRW 1 billion with the national bank account of Q Q, and KRW 1 billion in total, KRW 800,000,000,000,000,000 for each of the victims’ acquisition of real property.

B. Summary of Defendant F’s assertion

Defendant F, as an exclusive holder of the AP name, drafted each of the above 'P' production and sales contract of July 1, 2005 and 'Additional Agreement' of August 16, 2005 between the State-X and the above 'AP name'. Accordingly, the above 1.28 billion won was remitted under the pretext of advance payment. Thus, this does not constitute embezzlement.

C. Determination

(1) According to the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this Court, V appears to have been exclusively Z and (State) X.

① On December 6, 2003, V entered into an exclusive agreement with the State Z on the exclusive agreement, and on July 19, 2005, V shared all the costs, such as the night consumption, sex cost, universal cost, the cost of manufacturing the master tape, public relations cost, etc., until the sale of the crime Nos. 1 and 1, 2005.

(2)The Z shall assess the value of the Company for the comprehensive stock exchange with the State (State) X around April 2005 and evaluate V as the assets of the State (State).

③ Since then on October 2005, as the (State) Z was merged into (State) X, the exclusive license to V was succeeded to (State) X, and (State) X paid the exclusive license toV at its annual expense.

(iv)X directly entered into a contract on V’s contribution to advertising and events and publicly announced as having exclusive rights to V.

⑤ On February 2, 2007, X filed a complaint with a view to a direct violation of the Copyright Act of NAE as the negative source of V 2 EM was illegally distributed via the Internet.

(2) However, in light of the following points, there is a lot of room to deem that there was an implied agreement or understanding that Defendant F, who found AV, still maintains exclusive rights to V in an internal relationship between the State Z or (State) X and Defendant F.

① Defendant F did not receive the consideration for the transfer of exclusive rights from the State when the (State) area entered into an exclusive agreement with V, even though he directly discovered the V.

(2)X has settled with AP each month 10% of the earnings from the production and sale of music records as of July 1, 2005, 60% of the earnings from the destruction of V1 books, and 10% of the earnings from the contributions to advertisements and events as of August 16, 2005 pursuant to the above 'Additional Agreement'.

③ The above AP paid the management fee for neighboring rights related to V 1 to the Korea Music Copyright Association (KOMCA).

(No.4) When the Defendant F tried to establish a new entertainment company at the mid-term radius of 2006, there was no person who particularly raises an objection in the State-X.

⑤ It is true that the Defendant F bears all of the costs related to V and (State) X; however, Defendant F appears to have set his own profit on its behalf less than that of other general cases (for example, in the case of a sound record, where the exclusive licensee with respect to the water has planned the sound record at his own expense and produced the posters tape, it seems that the exclusive licensee with respect to the water would have 80% of the profit from the sound record), and it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant F did not bear the costs related to V.

6)It was true that X filed a direct complaint in the music source outflow case of V 2 A. m. However, there are many cases where the right to music sources is reverted to the music record selling company according to the terms and conditions of the contract between the music record selling company and the planning company. In fact, even in the case of a person who destroyed V 1mix, the right to music sources belongs to the music record (Article 10(1) of the "Contract for the Production and Sale of Music Records" dated 1, 2005. Thus, the exclusive right to music sources is not denied immediately on the sole ground that X has the right to music sources.

(3) Therefore, solely based on the aforementioned circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that the aforementioned “production and sales contract” as of July 1, 2005, and the “additional Agreement” as of August 16, 2005 is a false contract prepared as a means for Defendant F’s embezzlement.

(4) Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the above contract was issued on July 19, 2005 and published on July 19, 2005, and the amount of KRW 1.280,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,0.

(5) If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, is pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325

8. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the issuance of Defendant D’s 5 billion shares per share.

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant D, in collusion with Defendant F, Defendant F, and A, took part in the act of misappropriation 5 billion won as stated in the crime No. 4-A of the judgment of Defendant F, and A.

B. Determination

In order to constitute a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Code, it is necessary to implement the crime through the functional control based on the intention of joint processing and the intention of joint principal offender.

However, in full view of the evidence duly examined by this court, Defendant D was a director in charge of the accounting of Defendant F and the representative director at the time involved in the issuance of the check number according to the direction of Defendant F and the representative director at the time. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that Defendant F actively intended to engage in the act of breach of trust of Defendant F or committed such act in order to obtain any economic benefit. Accordingly, Defendant D merely intended aiding and abetting that Defendant F’s act of breach of trust was easy and cannot be said to have had an intention to jointly process it.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) in Article 4-B,

9. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) due to the embezzlement of Defendant C 5 billion won

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant C, in collusion with Defendant F, D, A, and Q to pay the personal debt of KRW 5 billion borrowed from AL with the funds of the Victim F, Defendant F, D, A, and Q, in collusion with Defendant F, D, and D around June 16, 2006, Defendant F instructed Defendant F to pay the lease deposit for the above “AO building on the ground of the above NN real estate during the civil engineering work at the time,” under the premise that Defendant F would have paid the lease deposit for the said “AO building on the ground of the civil engineering work at the time,” the bank’s passbook’s passbook’s passbook’s passbook’s passbook’s passbook’s passbook’s deposit for the performance of the work, leading C to the advance payment for the music record management for AE, and ordered C to transfer the total amount of KRW 8 billion to the bank’s account for the performance of the work. Defendant C, A, and D, in accordance with the instructions given to each of the above order, each of the above Defendant C’s embezzlement of the total amount of KRW 5 billion to the victim.

B. Determination

(1) Whether an accomplice has been established with respect to the whole five billion won

Although Defendant C was deemed to have remitted KRW 5 billion to AL, the above 5 billion embezzlement act by Defendant F, etc. was already completed when the sum of KRW 5 billion was transferred from G, Q, and C to G, Q, and C’s account. Thus, Defendant C’s above act is merely a part of the participation after the commencement of embezzlement of KRW 5 billion, and there is no other evidence to deem that Defendant C knowingly recognized and participated in the entire embezzlement of KRW 5 billion.

(2) Whether joint principal offenders with respect to KRW 80 million have been established

In order to constitute a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Code, it is necessary to implement the crime through the functional control based on the intention of joint processing and the intention of joint principal offender.

However, in full view of the evidence duly examined by this court, Defendant C is merely a false advance payment contract under the name of Defendant F with Defendant F, and it is merely a loan of the account under the name of the K K K bank in the name of the K K bank to transfer the capital of Defendant F. Furthermore, it is difficult to deem that Defendant C actively intended to engage in the embezzlement of Defendant F or committed such act in order to gain any economic benefit. Accordingly, Defendant C merely intended to assist Defendant F’s 80,000 won embezzlement and did not have an intent to jointly process it.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the crime of aiding

10. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to Defendant A’s 4.3 billion won support for the AU

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On July 18, 2005, Defendant A entered into an all-inclusive share swap agreement with the victim (i.e., the victim) X office on the eightth floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul AR building, (ii) the owner of (i) X on behalf of the State (State) hereinafter referred to as the "State") on behalf of the State, and (iii) the owner of (iv) X on July 21, 2005, in violation of the board of directors' duty and (iv) on July 25, 2005, to pay the amount of KRW 4.3 billion operating capital to the AU by July 25, 2005. Accordingly, Defendant A entered into a contract with the State (State) X on behalf of the State (State) X on behalf of the State (State) hereinafter referred to as the "State").

B. Determination

In lending funds to a related company without being in violation of laws and regulations, if the representative director of the company sufficiently collects, investigates, and examines necessary information within the reasonable scope of use as to the degree of contribution to the company's business operation, the amount of adequate funding required for the rehabilitation of the related company, the financial burden of the support of the related company on the company, the possibility of rehabilitation of the related company, the possibility of bankruptcy, and the degree of anticipated profits and disadvantages to the company if not supported by the related company, etc., are not provided, based on this procedure, the company has rendered a reasonable decision on its management in accordance with the good faith and trust and trust, and the contents are considerably unreasonable and are within the scope of reasonable choice based on ordinary representative director, the act of the representative director is within the scope of discretion of the business judgment allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3333, Oct. 11, 207).

However, in light of the following facts admitted by the evidence duly examined by this court, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above act was in violation of the representative director's duty, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, solely on the basis that there is room to view that the act of Defendant A was within the discretionary scope of the permissible business judgment.

① At the time of Defendant A’s lending of KRW 4.3 billion operating capital to State AU on behalf of (State) X, the situation was that Defendant AU would immediately become a wholly owned subsidiary of State AX under an all-inclusive share swap contract between State AX and StateU on July 18, 2005. Furthermore, Defendant AU was scheduled to be merged into State AX (However, it was not yet yet prior to the actual merger phase).

② Around May 2005, X had a plan to develop into a comprehensive entertainment entertainment entertainment entertainment business entity by listing (main) AU on the part of the sound records business and the video business part (main) and (main) AC around July 2005. However, in the course of the bypass listing negotiation, the representative director of the (main)AU’s representative director of the CK and CL (which is the core postponement belonging to the (main)AU, to pay the exclusive amount and to provide the operating funds for the resolution of the obligations of AU, as above, 4.3 billion won.

③ Although the above 4.3 billion won support did not have a resolution of the board of directors in the state, among five directors, Defendant A and B consented thereto (B up to the 300 million won of their own personal funds in the state X in order to provide the above subsidy). The F, who served as the representative of the director G, appears to have consented thereto (the Defendant F asserted that his seal affixed on the back contract was forged, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it). At least three members of the board of directors, who are the majority of the directors of the board of directors, agreed thereto.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of the facts charged, it should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the facts charged in the crime of occupational breach of trust as stated in the judgment of the court below are found guilty,

11. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) by Defendant A’s guarantee of KRW 26 billion under a side agreement

The prosecutor calculated 11 billion won after subtracting 15 billion won, which is the amount guaranteed by the side contract of this case, from the amount guaranteed by the defendant A's 2.6 billion won, due to the act of breach of trust of Paragraph 7 of the facts constituting the crime of this case, and charged the defendant A with this part of the facts charged by applying Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

However, the content of the above side agreement is that if the assessed value of the shares falls short of KRW 26 billion after the lapse of one year on the premise that AV holds the shares for a year from the time when the shares were transferred to AV, then the difference shall be paid to AV. Thus, if the assessed value of the shares falls short of KRW 26 billion, the profits from the property of the Defendant AV incurred property damage to AV due to the (State) X’s share price after one year (if the assessed value of shares after one year is less than KRW 15 billion) may be changed from the 11 billion (if the assessed value of shares after 1 year is less than 1.5 billion) to the 0 billion (if the assessed value of shares after 1 year is less than 2.6 billion).

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the above 11 billion won is a property profit that Defendant A obtained from the above side agreement, and that the amount of such profit is an amount not exceeding 11 billion won.

Therefore, Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes cannot be applied to this part of the facts charged, which requires that the amount of profit is more than five billion won, and thus, it shall be judged not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of the facts charged. However, as long as it is recognized as guilty of a crime of occupational breach of trust under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

12. The point of occupational breach of trust due to the loan of KRW 200 million to Defendant A’s company funds

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On May 12, 2006, Defendant A gave a loan to W by means of remitting KRW 200 million out of the company funds deposited in the foreign exchange bank account in the name of W to W, without obtaining any security from the board of directors at the above office of the victim (the victim) X, and without obtaining any resolution from the board of directors, in violation of his duties. Accordingly, Defendant A obtained financial benefits equivalent to KRW 200 million to W, and suffered financial damage equivalent to the amount of KRW 200 million in the (State) X.

B. Determination

According to the evidence duly examined by this court, it is recognized that Defendant A did not obtain any security and lent KRW 200 million to W without obtaining the resolution of the board of directors as above.

However, around January 2006, Defendant A agreed to invest about KRW 1 billion in (1 billion) CN, in return for the investment of KRW 5 billion from CMF Mutual Aid Association. As one of the implementation thereof, Defendant A stated that: (a) CN’s representative director of CN lent KRW 200 million to W; and (b) according to the entry of a copy of a copy of the passbook of IFF of the (2007Dahap831 Investigation Record 342) attached to the defense counsel, W was actually deposited into the CN bank account.

In addition, Article 393(1) of the Commercial Act provides that "the disposal and transfer of important assets of a company, borrowing a large-scale asset, the resignation or dismissal of a manager, and the establishment, relocation, or closure of a branch office, etc. of a company shall be subject to a resolution of the board of directors." Thus, the representative director may independently make a decision on the company's daily execution of business, unless otherwise restricted by the articles of incorporation or the rules of the board of directors, etc. of the company. However, as of the end of 2005, X was a KOSDAQ-listed company whose total amount of assets as of the end of 2005, was approximately KRW 47.8 billion, the total amount of capital was KRW 18.7 billion, the total amount of capital was approximately KRW 374,00,000, and the articles of incorporation or the rules of the board of directors of the company, etc. of X, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that the

Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant A violated the duties of representative director solely on the fact that Defendant A did not obtain a resolution of the board of directors without obtaining any security for lending KRW 200 million to W, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, Defendant A is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article

The dismissed portion - Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) due to the participation in Defendant B’s capital gains

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant B and A conspired on April 1, 2005 to purchase (State) X shares 3,128,000 shares and then sell shares later, Defendant B purchased less than 3% of the shares from AD (State 400,000 shares), 1 million shares in order to evade capital gains tax, and made a disguised purchase of shares under 3% of the shares under CP (State 300,000 shares), and made a disguised purchase of shares under 6,195,632,979 shares purchased under the above 3 borrowed name from April 1, 2005 to August 30, 2005, by failing to report and pay it by no later than May 31, 2006, and thereby 6,195,632,979 shares acquired under the above 3 borrowed name from April 1, 200 to August 30, 2005.

2. Determination

As seen above, as seen in Paragraph 1 of the aforementioned part of innocence, 300,000 shares out of 400,000 shares in the above AD cannot be viewed as Defendant B’s borrowed stocks.

Therefore, the amount of capital gains tax evaded by Defendant B is merely KRW 341,591,518 and does not constitute a violation of Article 8(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which applies to cases where the amount of tax evaded is 500 million or more, and only a violation of Article 9(1)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act can be established.

However, pursuant to Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, a public prosecution may be instituted only upon the accusation of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the commissioner of the regional tax office, the head of the tax office, or the public official engaged in the tax affairs. Since there is no evidence to deem such accusation, the public prosecutor dismissed this part of the public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (the public prosecutor revoked this part of the public prosecution in preparation for the case where 300,000 won out of the shares AD shares are not recognized as the borrowed name of Defendant B), but there is no express provision to allow the revocation of the public prosecution under the current law, and the cancellation of the public prosecution is the same as revoking the public prosecution after the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court. The same applies to the cancellation of the public prosecutor's prior public prosecution after the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court. The granting of the indictment by the public prosecutor opens a way to avoid the trial of the propriety of the decision of acquittal.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Determination of the prosecutor's additional collection penalty against Defendant F and B

A. The purpose of the collection is to deprive illegal profits and prevent them from holding them pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 1 [Attachment Table] subparag. 16, Article 8, and Article 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and the above collection is not necessary to require strict certification. On the other hand, if it is impossible to specify the criminal proceeds subject to the collection, it shall not be collected, and since the collection under Article 10 of the above Act is voluntary, the issue of whether it should be collected even if the property falls under the requirements for the collection is subject to the discretion of the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007).

On the other hand, "profit from a violation" under the proviso of Article 207-2 (1) and (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act refers to the profit from a transaction related to such violation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1256, Jun. 14, 2002). It does not necessarily mean that there is a direct causal relationship with the violation. If it constitutes the profit from a transaction involved in such violation, it constitutes a crime if it is the profit from such violation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do1628, Sept. 3, 2004; 2005Do632, Apr. 15, 2005). Such a legal principle is not a criminal act that violates the law, such as market price manipulation or other market price manipulation, and thus, it can be deemed that there is a lot of factors that can not be more than punishment for the violation of the law, and thus, it can be deemed that there is a lot of factors that can be more illegal profit from such violation.

B. From this point of view, the fraudulent unfair trading conducted by Defendant F and B was not an act of actively raising the price of (i) X, such as the false publication of hosation, but an act to the extent that the price is not shocked at the time when the price increases due to normal factors; (ii) Defendant F and B acquired around April 2005 the price of (i) X by the end of April 2005, it is difficult to readily conclude that the direct causal relationship between the price of the Defendant F and B was not only the fraudulent unfair trading but also the price of the (ii) X’s profits in the KOSDAQ market, in light of the fact that there was no other direct causal relationship between the Defendant F and B’s profits in this case, in light of the fact that the N and B acquired the (ii) X’s profits at the time when the UN Entertainment was performing theme in the KOSDAQ market.

Therefore, Defendant F and B shall not be sentenced to additional collection, but shall be deprived of their unjust enrichment by setting a reasonable amount of fine in consideration of the above points.

2. Reasons for sentencing by Defendant

A. Defendant F, B, A

(1) Summary of the instant crime

The above Defendants, by taking over the KOSDAQ-listed companies (State) X, planned to operate the KNE as a comprehensive entertainment company, including records records, by selling (State) video products of (State) and Defendant B’s operation, and by conducting a comprehensive stock exchange (State) with DVD distribution companies (State). The (State) X’s purpose of business was changed, and subsequently, planned to purchase the above 4.30 million stocks (State 67.30% of the total number of issued stocks) from the above 4.1 billion stocks to realize gains by selling the above 4.1 billion stocks (State 32.28% of the total number of issued stocks) to the KN-listed companies, and selling the above 4.1 billion stocks to the KNE under the name of Defendant 14,000,000,000 won, and then selling the stocks to the KNE under the name of Defendant 14,000,0000 won.

In addition, Defendant F, through false accounting, was practically exempted from the obligation to return the provisional payment of KRW 1.6 billion to the Z, provided (1.6 billion unit of shares in the name of the State) X to secure personal debt, and performed a breach of trust against the company by repaying the debt with (5 billion unit of shares) X funds. Defendant B, while operating the (State) AC, evaded taxes of KRW 530 million in total for three years, and Defendant F, as Defendant F’s above 5 billion won representative director, offered a public invitation to commit a breach of trust and committed a variety of breach of trust as the representative director of X.

(2) Defendant F.

Although the Defendant committed the above serious crimes and obtained enormous economic benefits therefrom, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant for a considerable amount of punishment.

On the other hand, the fraudulent unfair trading of this case does not intend to artificially increase the share price, but rather intends not to shock the price naturally increased price, and thus, it is somewhat weak compared to other general fraudulent unfair trading, and thus, it is difficult to see that the profit gained from the purchase and sale of stocks of this case is due to the whole fraudulent unfair trading, the total amount of evaded capital gains tax has been paid, and the fact that most of the damage suffered from breach of trust has taken measures for recovery, etc., as set forth in the order, considering favorable circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the punishment is determined as ordered.

(3) Defendant B

Although the Defendant committed the above serious acts and obtained considerable economic benefits from such acts, the circumstances favorable to the Defendant are considered, such as the fact that the mode of the instant fraudulent acts does not artificially increase the share price, but rather the fact that the criminal intent was somewhat weak compared to other general fraudulent unfair acts; that it is difficult to deem that the gains accrued from the instant stock transaction were due to the entire fraudulent unfair acts; that the total amount of taxes evaded was paid; and that the said fraudulent acts were dead and contradictory to one’s mistake.

(4) Defendant A

The defendant acquired the management rights of the defendant F, B, X and planned the process of bypassing (State) Z, (State)AC, and participated in his fraudulent unfair trading, and he committed various breach of trust while holding office as the representative director of the state X.

However, the economic benefits that the defendant directly acquired is not much high, the issue of the unit of shares 5 billion won in the name of (15 billion won) X to secure the defendant F's personal obligation is subject to the direction of the defendant F, who is the actual operator of (2) X, and immediately thereafter, the defendant F recovered the damage in whole, the fact that the defendant F, while negotiating the AU acquisition, has guaranteed the shares value equivalent to 26 billion won in the name of (2) X to the largest shareholder, there is no real loss in (1) X due to the waiver of the rights; the defendant and the F and B et al.'s contingent fees are less than 15 billion won in personal benefits; the lending of 1 billion won to AY as a security without collateral; the circumstances that the defendant would be able to cooperate with the defendant in the investigation of this case are significantly more favorable to the defendant; and the circumstances that the defendant would be able to cooperate with the investigation of this case.

B. Defendant D

Defendant F’s 1.6 billion won conspiracy, and aided and abetting 5 billion won in breach of trust, and the liability for such crime is not weak. However, as an executive officer in charge of accounting of the victimized company at the time engaged in the act in accordance with the direction of Defendant F, who is the actual operator, and thus, may be considered in the course of participation. As to the instant crime, Defendant F did not obtain direct economic benefits; Defendant F took measures for recovery of full damage as to the breach of trust; Defendant F recovered a considerable amount of damage due to the return of KRW 1.1 billion to the victimized company. As to the 1.6 billion breach of trust, the circumstances favorable to the Defendant are considered.

C. Defendant C

Defendant F, etc. aided and abetting the act of embezzlement of 800 million won by Defendant F, etc., taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as: (a) lending the name of the State EE, which he operated in the preparation of a false contract at the request of Defendant F, and offered his own account for the purpose of remitting funds; (b) the degree of participation is small; (c) the amount of embezzlement was returned to the entire company after the commission of the instant crime; and (d) there was no economic benefit that the Defendant

D. Defendant E

Defendant F and D’s 1.6 billion won in breach of trust was assisted by Defendant F and D’s 1.6 billion won, but there are circumstances that may be considered in relation to the process of participation as an employee of (Z) Z at the time, and the preparation of a false contract was merely lending the name of AF, and thus, the degree of participation is small; Defendant F at that time, he did not know about whether he is responsible and solved; Defendant F returned KRW 1.1 billion to AX after the investigation of the instant case; Defendant F appears to have been restored to a considerable portion of the company’s damages; Defendant F appears to have been recovered; Defendant F did not have any direct economic benefits accrued from the instant crime; and Defendant was able to divide the instant crime in depth.

E. Defendant G.

Although Defendant F, B, and A conspired to engage in the instant fraudulent act, the degree of participation is small, taking into account the fact that Defendant F, B, and A’s current health status is not very good.

Colonel of the presiding judge;

Judges Noh Jeong-man

Judges Noh Jae-ho

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.