Defendant 1 and one other

Mandong Exchange

Attorneys Kim Hong-ro et al.

Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 in the judgment of the Supreme Court) shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, and imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.

The 29 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 1.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years for Defendant 1, and for three years for Defendant 2 from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant 1 shall order each other to provide community service for 200 hours and 160 hours to Defendant 2.

Defendant 1 established ○○ University (the change of the name to ○ University on May 1, 1998) after acquiring Nonindicted School Foundation 23 in around 196 and changing the name to 1 school foundation. From then on December 5, 2007, Defendant 1 was in office as the president of the above school foundation from February 18, 2008 to now, and actually operates the above school foundation, universities, and industry-academic cooperation foundation, and actually controls personnel affairs, administration, and accounting affairs of the above school foundation and the university. The above school foundation and the university were established a limited liability company 14 for the purpose of clothing, manufacturing, retail business, etc. on September 17, 2002; from around July 13, 2005 to around September 27, 2005, Defendant 1 established a limited liability company for the purpose of civil engineering and construction business from around 200 to the above school foundation, and Defendant 20 to the above school foundation’s management and accounting affairs for the above school foundation.

1. Defendant 1:

A. On September 2005, the president of the ○ University, located in the Gangnam-gun, Jinjin-gun (hereinafter omitted), voluntarily withdrawn the principal expenses of the Defendant’s ○ University, the president of the ○ University, and Nonindicted 24, the secretary general of the ○ University, in the course of business, and conspired with Nonindicted 24 for use by the Defendant or the Defendant for a company substantially controlled by the Defendant;

(1) On September 27, 2005, the first bank note located in the upper Dong-dong, offered 200 million won of time deposit at ○○ University as security, and deposited 500 million won of time deposit in the name of ○ University, deposited ○ University’s account (Account Number 7 omitted) in the name of ○ University, and then withdrawn KRW 500 million from the first bank account at ○ University’s name. On the same day, the said KRW 500 million was arbitrarily remitted to the first bank account (Account Number 8 omitted) in the name of 2 limited liability company, and embezzled it by arbitrarily using KRW 500 million of ○ University’s tuition.

(2) On November 28, 2006, the first bank note 200,000,000 won for time deposit at ○○ University was offered as security and deposited in the first bank account (Account No. 9 omitted) with the name of ○ University’s 245,00,000 won deposited in the second bank account (Account No. 9 omitted), and then remitted to Nonindicted 3 the amount of KRW 19,00,000 to Nonindicted 14 Limited Liability Company, and Nonindicted 25 the amount of KRW 193,00,000 to Nonindicted 25; and

(3) On December 15, 2006, the above KRW 300 million was transferred to ○○ University upon providing as security the term deposit amount of KRW 300 million in the name of ○ University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation, and being kept in the bank account (Account No. 4 omitted), while being transferred in the name of ○ University and Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation for ○ University, ○ University.

B. The president of ○○ University on December 15, 2006, in the name of 200 million won, from 200 million won, as the defendant lent 200 million won to 200 million won to 200 million won in the account in the name of ○○ University (Account Number 4 omitted), and then he withdraws 200 million won from 20 billion won in the name of ○○ University (Account Number 5 omitted), from 200 million to 200 million won in the above account under the name of ○○ University (Account Number 6 omitted), from 200 million to 1.7 billion won in the above account under the name of ○ University (Account Number 6 omitted), and from 200 million to 20 billion won in the above account under the name of ○ University's account in the name of 200 million to 20 billion won in the above account under the name of 1.7 billion won in the above account under the name of 200 million won in the above account of ○ University.

2. The Defendants are invited to use the above university tuition and the funds of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 1 for private purposes, such as using Defendant 1’s personal debt repayment in the office of the president of the ○○ University located in the Gangnam-gun, Gangnam-do (hereinafter omitted) around November 2004.

A. Defendant 2, upon Defendant 1’s order on January 21, 2005, offered as security the amount of KRW 500 million fixed deposit (Account No. 10 omitted) at ○○ University, which was in the business of ○ University, and withdrawn KRW 500 million borrowed in the name of the victim non-indicted 1 educational foundation in the name of the victim non-indicted 1 educational foundation by 10 copies of cash cashier’s checks. The above money is embezzled by arbitrarily using the total amount of KRW 1.2 billion of the funds of the non-indicted 1 educational foundation for two times as shown in the attached list of crimes, such as embezzlement of the above money by using 1.2 billion cash check in the name of the victim non-indicted 1 educational foundation.

B. Defendant 2, upon Defendant 1’s order on January 24, 2005, withdrawn 300 million won from the ○ University’s post office account (Account No. 11 omitted) which was kept on behalf of the victim ○ University on behalf of the Defendant 2 at ○○ University’s post office, and then embezzled 300 million won of the victim ○ University’s school expenses by using the said money in repayment of loans to Red-Profit Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Co., Ltd., 6.

C. On April 8, 2005, Defendant 2 deposited KRW 1.21,966 million in the Agricultural Cooperative account of the victim ○○ University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (Account Number 12 omitted) with the check, and deposited KRW 600 million in the name of Non-Indicted 7’s account. After withdrawing KRW 600 million out of the above amount and opening the deposit account in the name of Non-Indicted 7, Defendant 2 loaned KRW 460 million in the name of Non-Indicted 7, and Defendant 1 withdrawn KRW 460 million from the above loan account of Non-Indicted 7 (Account Number 14 omitted) to the above Non-Indicted 7 (Account Number 14 omitted), and then embezzled KRW 60 million to Non-Indicted 20 million in the name of Non-Indicted 60 million in the name of Non-Indicted 7’s account, and embezzled KRW 660 million in the name of Non-Indicted 2,210 million in the amount of KRW 1.6 million in the exchange.

3. Defendant 2 prepared a contract for supply or construction at a price higher than the actual transaction price in executing the project amount of the National Treasury subsidy 2,09,220,000 in the year 205, which was received from the victim’s Republic of Korea as the project amount of the “Plan of Fostering Specialized Regional Innovation Industry” (the “Plan of Fostering Specialized Regional Innovation Industry”) which was specialized in the junior college from the victim’s Republic of Korea. Defendant 2 conspired with Nonindicted 8 and 7, the head of the above university specialized industry-academic cooperation foundation, who was the head of the above university specialized industry-academic cooperation foundation, for personal use, with Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 8, etc. from August 2005, in collusion with the above contents:

around August 9, 205, Nonindicted 8 used 70,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 2, 30,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 2, 70,000 won in the aggregate for Nonindicted 2, 70,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 2, 70,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 2, 70,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 2, 70,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 2, 7,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 3, 70,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 2, 70,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 2, 36,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 1, 46, and 70,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 2, and 76,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 2, 26,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 3, and 76,06.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each of the defendants 2, non-indicted 19, 8, 12, 31, 7, and 5's legal statements

1. The entry of some of the statements made by Non-Indicted 32 and 8 in the third copy of the trial record in this Court 2007 Gohap24 and each of the statements made by Non-Indicted 5 and 22 on Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 22

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of each prosecutor's suspect against the Defendants (including the part on which Nonindicted 8's statements are written)

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 4 as to Nonindicted 4 contains some statements

1. Each statement in the written answer against Nonindicted 31 and 8

1. Each statement of the certificates issued by Nonindicted 31 and 8

1. Each part of the prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 32, 31, 13, 24, 19, 22, 5, 7, 8, and 11

1. Each investigation report [the receipt of a list of accounts for school expenses of ○○ University, the report on Nonindicted 5’s statement (the timing of solicitation, etc. by Defendant 1), the confirmation report on the use of cashier’s checks, etc., the confirmation report on the use of cashier’s checks (the period of withdrawal from Nonindicted 28’s account) and the confirmation report on the source of the amount claimed by Defendant 1, the report on the investigation results of tracking the accounts of government subsidies, and the receipt of Defendant 1’s account

1. A certified copy of each register;

1. Status of individual entry or departure;

1. Loans related to the capital of Nonindicted Company 2

1. Loan data of each ○○ University (the amount of KRW 45 billion on November 27, 2006, the amount of KRW 45 billion on December 29, 2006, the amount of KRW 400 million on January 15, 2007, the amount of KRW 400 million on January 27, 2007, and the amount of KRW 200 million on January 17, 2007);

1. Loan data for each industry-academic cooperation foundation (each 300 million won on December 15, 2006);

1. The loan materials of each non-indicted 1 school foundation (the amount of KRW 50 million on January 21, 2005, and the amount of KRW 1.5 billion on January 26, 2005)

1. Data on time deposits at the ○○ University (Sengsung 2, 2005, 300 million won);

1. Each national subsidy document (Non-Indicted 7 Loaned April 8, 2005, Non-Indicted 22, 28, 27 Deposit Accounts)

1. A copy of a check withdrawn from the account of Nonindicted 27 and 28

1. A written request for delivery of application documents for registration and change;

1. A request for delivery, including application documents for construction business license;

1. Details of the deposit and withdrawal of the paid-in capital account for Nonindicted Company 2

1. Import resolution;

1. Statement of deposit transactions;

1. Deposits of unsettlemented funds related to the industry-academic cooperation foundation;

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

A. Defendant 1: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(1) [the crime No. 1-A. (1) of the Criminal Act] of the Criminal Act, Articles 356 and 355(1) [the crime No. 1-A. (2) and (3) of the Criminal Act] of the Criminal Act, including all of the business embezzlements under Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act [the crime No. 1-B. of the crime at the time of the market; Articles 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act [the crime at the time of the market], Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30(2)36(3) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 2: Each of them covers Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of each occupational embezzlement and each occupational embezzlement under paragraph (3) of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below), Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of each occupational embezzlement under subparagraph 2-b and c of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below), Article 41 and Article 22(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of each occupational embezzlement under subparagraph 2-b and c)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [The crimes of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Leave (Embezzlement) and the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies under paragraph (3) of the same Article and punishment prescribed for violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Leave (Embezzlement) with heavy punishment];

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendants: The Defendants’ choice of imprisonment for each crime of occupational embezzlement

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendants: Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [as to Defendant 1, the punishment shall be imposed on him/her and the punishment imposed on him/her for the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Leave (Embezzlement) as stated in Article 1-b of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Leave (Embezzlement) with the largest criminal facts, and as to Defendant 2, the punishment shall be aggravated and aggravated for each concurrent crime against him/her as stated in Article 2-A of the Criminal Act with the largest

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 2: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant 1: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendants: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendants: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. As to the status of Defendant 1’s occupational keeper

A. The assertion

According to Article 29(4) of the Private School Act, a person in charge of accounting management of a private university is the dean, according to Article 33(2) of the Promotion of Industrial Education and Industry-Academic Cooperation Act, and Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person in charge of accounting management of an industry-academic cooperation foundation (hereinafter “industry-academic cooperation foundation”) of the ○ University is the president of the industry-academic cooperation foundation. Therefore, Defendant 1 is not in the position of a person in charge of accounting of the ○ University and the ○ University. Thus, the ○ University and the industry-academic cooperation foundation can not

B. Determination

The principal agent of embezzlement is a person who keeps another’s property through a consignment relationship and is in a de facto relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9632, Jan. 31, 2008). According to Defendant 2’s legal statement and witness Nonindicted 8 and 31’s legal statement, Defendant 1 can be recognized as having a de facto custodian’s status, such as exercising direct and indirect influence on the operation of the ○ University and the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation as the chief executive officer of the non-indicted 1 educational foundation, and ordering ○ University Educational Expenses or the Foundation for Industry-Academic Cooperation to deposit money. As such, Defendant 1 is in a de facto custodian’s status as to the funds of the ○ University and the Foundation for Industry-Academic Cooperation. The aforementioned assertion by the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

2. As to the crime No. 1-A(1) as indicated in the judgment

A. The assertion

Defendant 1 paid KRW 500 million to Nonindicted Company 2, a construction company of the golf practice range of ○○ University. Since Nonindicted Company 2 used the said money to any extent within the internal circumstances of the said company, whether the said money was used as the capital for the establishment of Nonindicted Company 2, there is no reason to consider whether the said money was used as the capital for the establishment of Nonindicted Company 2, and the said money was not used as the capital for the establishment of Nonindicted Company 2.

B. Determination

According to the transcript of corporate register, registration documents, application documents for construction business license, and statement attached to the defense counsel's opinion on August 14, 2008 submitted by the prosecutor, the non-indicted 2 limited liability company's total amount of KRW 175 million from the members, non-indicted 9, 10, and 4 on September 27, 2005 and KRW 245 million from the non-indicted 2's attorney's opinion, and issued the share of KRW 50 million to the non-indicted 2, and completed the registration of incorporation on the same day after it delivered the share of the non-indicted 2's incorporation; the time when the ○○ University concluded the construction contract with the non-indicted 2 limited liability company was found to have been the same as the date when the non-indicted 1 was transferred to the non-indicted 2's defense counsel at the nearest date of the non-indicted 2's transfer of money to the non-indicted 1,500,000 won.

Meanwhile, in the case of a private school, the accounts of the school foundation are divided into the accounts of the school foundation and the corporate accounts under Article 29 of the Private School Act and Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and since the revenues of the school accounts particularly belonging to the accounts of the school accounts are strictly limited, such as transfer or lending to other accounts, etc., if the accounts of the school expenses are used for any other purpose, the crime of embezzlement is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do1779, May 10, 2002; 2003Do4570, Dec. 24, 2004). As long as the said money was used as the incorporated capital of the non-indicted 2 limited company, the circumstance that the said money was actually incorporated into the capital of the non-indicted 2 limited company does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of embezzlement. The aforementioned assertion by the counsel is difficult to accept.

3. As to the crime No. 1-A(2) in the judgment

A. The assertion

In 2006, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development) received pointed out that ○ University paid the amount in excess of the construction cost to the adjacent construction works in the training place. The Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development) determined that it would be desirable to request a preference by depositing the amount that was paid in excess of the construction cost before the disposition by the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development) in the school expense account. Accordingly, after depositing the sum of KRW 247 million from Nonindicted 3, 14, and Nonindicted 25 to the school expense account, the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development) requested to change the above amount, but the said amount was not preferred. Ultimately, Defendant 1 is merely a refund from ○ University and repaid

B. Determination

Even if the above assertion by the defense counsel is true, since the above deposited money by Defendant 1 as a correction of the matters pointed out by the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, it shall be deemed that the above deposited money belongs to the accounts of school expenses completely. Therefore, as long as the above money is voluntarily withdrawn from the accounts of school expenses with strict use and used for personal purposes, it shall be deemed that embezzlement is established. The above assertion by the defense counsel is difficult to accept.

4. As to the crime No. 1-A(3) in the judgment

A. The assertion

○○ University received a loan under the name of the industry-academic cooperation foundation due to the lack of funds to pay school staff fees, general management expenses, etc., and received the loan in the name of the industry-academic cooperation foundation. Defendant 1, the president of the industry-academic cooperation foundation, who was the president of the industry-academic cooperation foundation, used the loan in the form of a provisional deposit for Defendant 1, who was the president of the ○○ University. After that, Defendant 1 paid the said provisional deposit to Defendant 1 by paying the said provisional deposit. Defendant 1 repaid the said provisional deposit with the said deposit. Meanwhile, according to Articles 25(5), 27(1)6, and 32(1)3 of the Promotion of Industrial Education and Industry-Academic Cooperation Act, the funds of the industry-academic cooperation foundation under the ○○ University can be used as the salary for school staff after deposit into the accounts of the school expenses of the ○○ University. Thus, the disbursement of the funds for purposes other than the purpose of the industry-academic cooperation foundation cannot be deemed as an expenditure

B. Determination

Even if the money borrowed under the name of an industry-academic cooperation foundation was used by Defendant 1 in the form of a provisional deposit, its substance constitutes a case where the funds of the industry-academic cooperation foundation are used for the sake of the industry-academic cooperation foundation. According to Defendant 2’s statutory statement, etc., all of the funds of the industry-academic cooperation foundation can be known that the funds of the industry-academic cooperation foundation consisted of national subsidies only. According to the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies, subsidies are clearly classified and managed by separate accounts (Article 34(1)), and are strictly prohibited from being used for other purposes (Article 22(1)). In addition, in light of the purpose of Article 31(1) of the Act on the Promotion of Industrial Education and Industry-Academic Cooperation (Article 30(1)), it is difficult to interpret the funds to be used for the government subsidies within the scope of the original purpose of Article 31(1) of the Act on the Promotion of Industrial Education and Industry-Academic Cooperation (Article 31(1) of the same Act).

5. As to the crime No. 1-b. of the judgment

A. The assertion

At the time, the persons related to the ○ University was aware that the ○ University could borrow money only in the form of a president’s provisional deposit. Accordingly, the ○ University provided each term deposit under the name of the industry-academic cooperation foundation and the ○ University as security, and obtained a loan of 1.2 billion won in total under the name of the ○ University and the ○ University, and then deposited the said loan to the ○ University in the form of a provisional deposit for Defendant 1’s ○ University, who was the president, and used it as necessary expenses for the university, such as taxes and public charges, general administration expenses, payment of principal and interest on loans of the ○ Foundation, and employee benefits. After all, Defendant 1 transferred the total amount of KRW 1.4 billion from the ○ University to the post office account on five occasions under the pretext of repayment of each additional deposit.

B. Determination

According to the fifth prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 of the ○ University, the total amount of KRW 1.4 billion deposited by Defendant 1 of the ○ University was not used for the purpose of repaying the loan granted under the name of the ○ University and the ○ University. It can be recognized that Defendant 1 was used for personal purpose, such as deposit in the name of the ○ University, or transfer to the Agricultural Cooperative (Account Number 21 omitted) in the name of the ○ University, and that most of it was used for other purposes, such as taking over the loan granted by Defendant 1 of the ○ University in the name of the ○ University. As seen earlier, since the accounts for school expenses are strictly limited, it is difficult to accept the above assertion by the defense counsel itself.

6. As to the crime No. 2 of the judgment

A. The assertion

In order to partially relocate ○○ University, around 2001, Nonindicted School Foundation 1 purchased the transportation Dong (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), and (number 3 omitted) forest land (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development) and applied for the cancellation of the transfer of the instant land after obtaining permission for partial transfer from the name of ○○ University. However, in order to cancel the school transfer plan, it was found that there was no plan to relocate the instant land, and that there was no need to cancel the transfer of the said land, and that there was no need to deposit the instant land in the account in the name of ○○ University’s 200,000,000,000 won before the tax investigation. However, as ○○ University was intended to sell the instant land, it was decided to sell the instant land in the form of 40,000 won on account of the Plaintiff’s heavy taxation of the Mine Office and the auditor of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources.

However, at ○○ University’s name, KRW 816,07,496 out of KRW 1.5 billion deposited in the name of ○○ University’s account number of KRW 1.5 billion (2 billion deposited in the name of ○○ University’s account number of KRW 1.5 billion) and deposited in the name of ○○ University’s account number of KRW 1.5 billion (2 billion deposited in the name of ○○ University’s account number of KRW 1.5 billion) and Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 80 million from ○○ University’s account (200 million deposited in the name of ○○ University’s account number of KRW 1.5 billion) and deposited in the name of ○○ University’s account number of KRW 200 million (1.5 billion deposited in the name of ○○ University’s account number of KRW 500 million). However, Defendant 1 first deposited in the name of 200 million in the name of ○ University’s loan and repaid money in the name of 15 billion.5 billion.

Meanwhile, on January 26, 2005, Defendant 1 offered agricultural time deposit (Account Number 24 omitted) 1.596 billion won in the name of ○○ University as collateral in order to repay KRW 1.596 billion deposited at ○○ University, and received a loan of KRW 1.5 billion in the name of 1.5 billion in the name of ○○ University, and repaid the money borrowed from Nonindicted 14-liability Company by remitting KRW 700 million to Nonindicted 1.4 billion in the same day (attached Form 1 No. 2 in the table of crime in the market). On the same day, Defendant 1 repaid KRW 50 million in the name of Nonindicted 6 Company 1 in order to repay a loan to the Hong Profit Mutual Savings Bank in the name of ○○ University, and KRW 300 million was repaid in the name of 1.3 billion in the name of Nonindicted 1 Company in order to keep the account in the name of ○ University with the post office in the name of ○ University.

Ultimately, the ○○ University repaid only KRW 700 million remitted to Nonindicted Company 14 out of KRW 1.29,600,000, which Defendant 1 borrowed from Defendant 1 (the use of KRW 500 million for loans under the name of Nonindicted Company 1 in order to repay KRW 800,000,000, which was borrowed from Hong Kong Mutual Savings Bank, is not a problem since Nonindicted Company 6 used for loans under the name of Nonindicted Company 1, 1, and KRW 300,000,000,000, which was borrowed from ○○ University, was repaid on behalf of Nonindicted

After that, in order to repay KRW 1.5 billion loans under the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Foundation 1, Defendant 1 sold to ○ University and three other lots of land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “△△△ Education Center”) owned by Defendant 1 (However, Defendant 1 paid KRW 1.5 billion after repaying the above loans to KRW 1.5 billion, Defendant 1 paid KRW 1.5 billion to ○○ University. If the genuine purchaser of the instant land appears, Defendant 1 was willing to settle the purchase price of the target Education Center, but Defendant 1 did not appear, Defendant 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 16, one’s affiliated company (the instant land was actually purchased by Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 acquired the status of president and purchased the instant land at a low price in the process of investigation, and Defendant 1 offered the instant land at KRW 1,500,000,000,000,000 won, and Defendant 1 returned the instant land to Defendant 1’s college in accordance with the form of sale and purchase agreement.

B. Determination

Even if Defendant 1 created KRW 1.296 billion out of the total deposit money in the name of ○○ University, which was originally deposited as the purchase price of the instant land, and thereafter, Defendant 1’s deposit amount of KRW 1.596 billion in the name of ○○ University was set off against the existing loan amount, and Defendant 1 actually assumed the total amount of KRW 1.596 million in the name of ○○ Mutual Savings Bank, it was necessary for ○○ University to dispose of the instant land in comparison with the notice of the intended disposal of heavy taxation at the time of Gwangju Mine-gu Office or the auditor of the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (this is the matters recognized by Defendant 1 or his defense counsel) to sell the instant land for KRW 1.596 billion in the name of ○○ University and KRW 1.6 billion in the name of ○○ University and KRW 1.6 billion in the name of ○○ University and KRW 1.6 billion in the name of ○○ University and KRW 1.6 billion in the future.

Defendant 1’s assertion to the effect that Defendant 1 would settle the purchase price of the instant land instead of receiving KRW 1.5 billion from ○○ University’s intermediate payment to △△ Education Center. However, according to the transcript of the register of register as reference materials attached to the defense counsel on July 10, 2008, Defendant 1 can be recognized as having completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of non-sale of △△ Education Center on May 3, 2005, and Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 19 also stated that Defendant 1 donated △△△△○ Education Center to ○○ University. In particular, even according to the defense counsel’s assertion, it is difficult to view that the sale contract for the instant land was concluded between ○○ University and ○○ University and Nonindicted 4, and that Nonindicted 4 and 16 were transferred to ○○ University on the date of maturity 50 billion, and that it was difficult to view that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 15 billion won were transferred to ○ University’s defense Foundation’s name or 16600 billion.

7. As to the crime No. 2-C.

A. The assertion

In around 2005, while the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology promoted a plan to be designated as a specialized project university in 2006 from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, it is necessary for professors to pay accommodation expenses, project research expenses, performance-based bonus, etc., and Defendant 1 requested Defendant 1 to provide financing. Accordingly, Defendant 1 loaned an amount equivalent to KRW 460 million to an industry-academic cooperation foundation by financing funds from non-indicted 14 limited liability companies, and Defendant 1 was only paid the above loans through Defendant 2 who managed the funds of the industry-academic cooperation foundation.

B. Determination

In full view of Defendant 2’s legal statement, each protocol of interrogation of the prosecution against Defendant 2, and the statement of reference materials attached to the summary of the pleading on September 23, 2008, Defendant 1 gave a loan to the industry-academic cooperation foundation through Defendant 2 around 2005, and that money was used as preparation expenses for specialization projects of the industry-academic cooperation foundation.

However, according to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s each legal statement and reference materials attached to the defense counsel’s statement on July 10, 2008, as reference materials attached to the statement of July 10, 2008, Defendant 1 lent the above money to Defendant 1 in around 2005 as preparatory expenses to be designated as a university of specialized business in 2006, the next year. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the ownership is reserved until the government subsidy was used for the original purpose as limited funds. Accordingly, it is reasonable to consider that the government subsidy granted for specialized business in 2005 was used for the preparation expenses for designation of specialized business in 206 because it does not fall under the original purpose of use of the government subsidy. The defense counsel’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

8. As to the crime No. 3

A. The assertion

Defendant 1 had never been aware of the fact that Defendant 2 or Nonindicted 8, who executed the government subsidy of the industry-academic cooperation foundation, created the funds by way of receiving a refund of some construction cost under the name of the school development fund, such as the fact of the crime, and there was no request from Nonindicted 5 for opening the passbook account on or around August 2005. However, Defendant 1 did not have been offered for a public offering of funds with Nonindicted 2 or Nonindicted 8, who was aware of the creation of the school development fund as above, after having returned from September 10, 2005, Defendant 2, etc. knew of the creation of the school development fund as above and used it to repay the funds of KRW 345 million out of the non-indicted 50 million, which was managed by Nonindicted 5 at the time. Accordingly, Defendant 1 did not have any fact that Defendant 2 or Nonindicted 8 offered for a public offering to raise funds.

B. Determination

According to Defendant 2’s legal statement, Nonindicted 8 and 5’s statement in the court room, each protocol of examination of the prosecution against Defendant 2, each protocol of examination of Nonindicted 5 and 22 by the prosecution, and each transcript of the protocol of examination of the witness against Nonindicted 5 and 22 (this court case’s 2007Dahap24 case), etc. Defendant 1, around April 8, 2005, offered subsidies from the industry-academic cooperation foundation as security and brought about KRW 460 million borrowed under the name of Nonindicted 7, and Defendant 2, who was actually in charge of the funding management of the industry-academic cooperation foundation at the time of the office director of the industry-academic cooperation foundation, in collusion with the head of the industry-academic cooperation foundation at least 8,000 won, which was the first time after Defendant 2 retired from office due to traffic accidents, could not be acknowledged as having opened a passbook account by calling the account to Nonindicted 5 on August 28, 2005, which was established under the name of the Defendant 228.

In addition to Article 1-1 (1), (2), and (3) of the criminal facts in the judgment, the prosecutor has instituted a public prosecution for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), Article 2-1 (1), (2), (3) of the same Act.

However, the crime of embezzlement is a separate crime for each victim, and the amount of embezzlement should be determined for each victim if there are two victims. Therefore, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes that should be at least 500 million won for one victim (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2609, Dec. 26, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 95Do1269, Sept. 5, 1995). According to Article 29 of the Private School Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if the accounts of the school juristic person are strictly divided into school accounts and corporate accounts, and the revenues belonging to school expense accounts are strictly limited to those of the school juristic person, and if the school juristic person uses the funds for other purposes, the crime of embezzlement should be established by itself (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do4570, Dec. 24, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2006Do165, Jun. 15, 2006).

However, the victims under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment are ○ University, and the victims under paragraph (3) are different accounts, and the victims under subparagraph (a) of Article 2-A of the criminal facts in the judgment are ○ University, and the victims under Paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment are ○ University, and the victims under Paragraph (c) are 1 of the crime in the judgment. The victims under Paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment are ○ University, and the victims are 1 of the non-indicted School Foundation, and the victims are different to each industry-academic cooperation foundation, and they cannot be viewed as a blanket crime. The time when the crime under subparagraph (a) (1) of Article 1-A of the criminal facts in the judgment is the date when the crime under paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment is committed on September 27, 2005, and one year after the date of the crime under Paragraph (2) of Article

Therefore, as to each of the above facts charged, separate rates of embezzlement for each victim shall be applied to each of the above facts charged separately, even if the same victim is the same, at time, separate rates of embezzlement shall be applied to each of the above facts charged, and the amount of profit under Articles 1-A. 2(2), 3-2(3) and 2-2(b) of the facts charged in the judgment shall not exceed KRW 500 million. Since each of the facts charged in the above facts charged is not proven, each of the facts charged should be found not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the facts charged in each of the facts charged in the occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment are included, so

1. Defendant 1

In around 195, while the Defendant was carrying out the new construction of a school building of Nonindicted 23 school foundation, a telegraph of Nonindicted 1’s school foundation, in collusion with Defendant 2, etc., who was appointed as the secretary of the ○ University, the Defendant arbitrarily used the funds of the said school foundation, the school foundation’s school expenses, and the government subsidies of the industry-academic cooperation foundation, in collusion with Defendant 2, etc., who had been appointed as the principal of the ○ University, on or around July 2, 1996, in lieu of the construction cost. On August 5, 1996, the name of the said school foundation was changed to Nonindicted 1’s school foundation on or around August 31, 1996, and had been practically controlled and operated the said school foundation after obtaining authorization for establishment of the ○ University. At that time, the Defendant did not seem to have been able to have undermined transparency and transparency due to a series of acts by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not appear to have been directly and indirectly punished.

However, according to the fact that the Defendant was to take over school juristic person instead of the original construction cost, the Defendant’s personal contributions to ○○ University, which is the only university in the strong area, and continued to contribute money to the operation of the school even thereafter, it appears that the Defendant’s personal contributions to 0 billion won or more is difficult to accurately calculate the amount of the Defendant’s personal contributions, as well as the Defendant’s contribution in its subsequent operation. The most of the crimes of this case appears to have been established with the Defendant’s personal capacity; the Defendant’s personal contributions to 4 years ago and actually operated the company (non-indicted 6, non-indicted 14, non-indicted 2, and non-indicted 16 limited liability company) with the Defendant’s personal contributions to 0 years ago; the Defendant’s personal contributions to the school juristic person or ○ University, which is the only school juristic person or ○○ University, and the Defendant’s personal contributions to 10 years ago, or to receive money from each of the school juristic person’s own funds from time to time to time, and without any specific circumstances.

2. Defendant 2

The Defendant, as the secretary general of the ○○ University, exercised considerable influence over the operation of Nonindicted School Foundation 1 or ○ University. Furthermore, the Defendant, as the director of the ○ University, was in charge of the fund enforcement business of the ○ University Foundation, and was in violation of the relevant statutes, such as the Private School Act, and was in charge of managing the business in a way that violates the pertinent statutes, such as the Private School Act, and actively participating and planning and implementing the said crossing. Therefore, the crime

However, the Defendant appears to have operated funds in accordance with Defendant 1’s explicit and implied instruction, and it appears that it was difficult for Defendant 1 to act against Defendant 1’s instruction, which was the founder of ○ University and the president of Nonindicted Foundation 1, who had exercised a strong influence as the chief executive officer of the school juristic person. Each of the crimes of this case in question, the Defendant has almost no profit acquired by himself due to the crime of this case, the Defendant is divided into and against his mistake, and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and motive and circumstance of each of the crimes in this case, it is appropriate to sentence the Defendant to a suspended sentence of one year and six months, and add a community service order of 160 hours.

[Attachment]

Judges old-gu (Presiding Judge)