Defendant

Gangwon-do

Law Firm Don Law Firm Choi-young et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 80 hours.

The Defendant knew that Nonindicted 3 (the “○○○○”) operating a gold-type production company with the trade name “Nonindicted Company 1” in Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, would have been placed in financial difficulties. On December 2007, the Defendant agreed that Nonindicted 3 (the former name “○○○○”) operating a gold-type and investment company, a gold-type and investment company, a gold-type and investment company (hereinafter “victim”) would be called the “victim Company 4” (hereinafter “victim Company”) should be called the “victim Company”). Nonindicted 3 would be able to increase the number of main goods while extending and moving the factory to the area of Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter address 1 omitted). Nonindicted 3 would have good factory sites of the Victim Company, and would have sold 20 billion won within two years if the Defendant operated the business as the signboards of the Victim Company. In addition, Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 3 who complied with it will be the vice president of the Victim Company, and would be paid 50% of business profits from the Victim Company.

In addition, the Defendant, around January 2, 2008, agree on the following basic agreements between the factory of the above victim company, Nonindicted 3 and the victim company (○○○) and the Nonindicted Stock Company 1 (Defendant). On January 1, 2008, the external business activities and contracts revert to the victim company. On February 2, 200, the position for external activities and contracts belongs to the victim company. On March 3, 200, 50% of the total contracts was made by Nonindicted Stock Company 1 and the settlement method is settled according to the guidelines for the payment of the mother company. In principle, in principle, the fees for parts (including resignation) shall be settled on April 5, 200 in principle, but the general standard was 3% with six months’ rent promoted without compensation.”

Therefore, the defendant who has worked as the vice president in charge of the business for the victim company was ordered to receive the case of gold-type and withdrawal supply, and treated it with the order records of the victim company, and had the victim company deliver it to the orderer and have the business profits accrue to the victim company.

Accordingly, around June 2008, the Defendant received from Nonindicted Co. 5 about KRW 34.6 million from Nonindicted Co. 5 on or around September 2008, each of the gold production and supply units amounting to KRW 80 million from Nonindicted Co. 6 and KRW 8.6 million in the name of the victim company, and had the victim company manufacture and supply the original product, and received 50% of the net profit accrued from the two contracts from the victim company.

However, around June 2008, the Defendant closed down Nonindicted Co. 1 and established a business entity with the trade name of “Nonindicted Co. 2” for the same type of business as that of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”) in the name of the wife, Nonindicted Co. 10 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”) in the name of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 3”). In violation of the above duty, the Defendant used accumulated transaction information so far, and attempted to use the accumulated transaction information so that gold-out and withdrawal delivery can be ordered in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3’s “Nonindicted Co. 2,” and the Defendant made and supplied the order products through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, thereby excluding the victim Co. 2 and benefiting profits.

Therefore, around November 17, 2008, the Defendant requested a gold production from the ‘Nonindicted Co. 11 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter address 2 omitted)' located in Ansan-gu, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter address 2 omitted), and supplied it to the ‘Nonindicted Co. 11 Co., Ltd. after the external production,' after receiving an order in the name of the ‘Nonindicted Co. 11 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Nonindicted Co., Ltd. 2'), acquired the monetary profit equivalent to KRW 11.6 million, and

In addition, from the beginning of July 2009, the Defendant acquired a total of KRW 160,360,000,000 from five times, such as the list of crimes, and incurred property damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim company.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 3

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the part concerning the testimony of the defendant's three major statements);

1. A report on investigation (around 26, 49, 119, 134, 157, 191, 224 pages of investigation records);

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

Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Inasmuch as the Defendant was to receive 50% of operating income, considering the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant appears to have deducted total expenses from the amount received as indicated in the separate sheet of crime; and (ii) the amount of actual damage for which the Defendant would have been deemed not to have been substantial in the

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

The defendant asserts that the defendant cooperations in the establishment of the non-indicted 2, and that the defendant voluntarily permitted gold production in the name of the above non-indicted 2 company.

However, the fact that Nonindicted 3 consistently allowed the defendant to register his business in Nonindicted Company 2 from the investigative agency to the court is consistent, but the defendant stated that there was no fact that the defendant allowed him to conduct his own business and take profits therefrom; the defendant and Nonindicted 3 decided to conduct the same business around January 2, 2008, and maintained the validity of the above agreement at each time indicated in the annexed crime list; Nonindicted 3 allowed him to use his office free of charge according to the above agreement; and there is no obvious distinction between the contract that the defendant entered into in the name of the victim company by holding the vice president of the victim company and the contract that the defendant independently concluded in the name of the victim company in the name of the non-indicted company 2 (the defendant is specialized in the manufacturing part of the above non-indicted company, while the victim company was able to independently use the gold portion in the name of the non-indicted company 2, the defendant prepared the above agreement with the non-indicted 3 as well as the defendant's production and delivery of the above non-indicted 209.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Dong-won