Defendant 1 and two others

Dangsung

Attorney Full-time (for the accused)

The punishment against the defendant 1 and 2 shall be two years of imprisonment, and the imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant 3 shall be ten months, respectively.

The number of days of detention prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be 16 days, including each of the above punishment against Defendant 1 and 2.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for 4 years from the date of the final judgment, and for 3 years from the date of the final judgment.

300 million won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1 and 2.

Defendant 1 served as the chairman of the labor union of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) from around August 291, 1991 to around July 20, 198, Defendant 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) who had been working as the chairman of the taxi transport business located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City as the chairman of the labor union of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) and, on May 20, 198, Nonindicted Co. 2, the former representative director of the company, went back to a foreign country and went back, took over all of the company’s shares from creditors. Defendant 2 was working as the managing director of the company from around April 29, 200 to the present day. Defendant 2, from around April 12, 2001, was sentenced to a fine of three million won as a violation of the Passenger Transport Business Act from around February 26, 200 to July 19, 199.

1. Defendant 1:

가. (1) 공소외 4, 5와 공모하여, 공소외 4가 1994.경부터 1995. 8.경까지 공소외 1 회사 전 대표이사인 공소외 2에게 2억 5,000만원을 대여하고 1995. 8. 25.경 그 채권에 대한 담보 명목으로 공소외 2로부터 그가 소유하는 회사 주식 총 11,400주( 공소외 2 명의로 되어 있는 4,560주, 그의 처로서 회사 이사인 공소외 6 명의로 되어 있는 3,420주, 공소외 2의 아들이며 회사 이사인 공소외 7 명의로 되어 있는 3,420주 합계 11,400주) 전부를 공소외 4가 본인 명의로 또는 공소외 8, 9의 이름을 빌려 양도받는 내용의 각 주식양도증 및 대표이사와 이사직을 사임한다는 사임서를 각 교부받았으나, 1998. 4, 5.경 공소외 2에게 7억원 상당을 대여한 공소외 10이 회사 운영 및 재산에 대한 권리를 주장하는 등 회사 운영을 둘러싼 분쟁이 예상되자 1998. 5. 15.경 공소외 4는 공소외 2로부터 장소는 공소외 1 회사 회의실, 일시는 공란으로 된 ‘주주총회 소집서’를 교부받은 후 그 각 주식양도증, 대표이사 및 이사 사임서, 주주총회소집서를 근거로 임시주주총회를 개최하여 공소외 5를 대표이사로, 공소외 4, 8, 9를 주주 겸 이사, 감사로 각 선임하려 하였으나, 1998. 5. 20. 부도가 나고 1998. 6. 초순경 회사 상무인 공소외 11, 총무과장 공소외 12, 업무부장 공소외 13, 경리 공소외 14 등으로부터 회사 설립일인 1967. 4. 3.경부터 1998. 6.경까지 회사 주주로 공소외 2가 3,450주, 공소외 6이 2,100주, 공소외 15가 2,700주, 공소외 16, 17, 18이 각 1,050주를 소유한 것으로 주주명부에 등재되어 있고, 공소외 15는 주식 2,700주를 소유한 실질적인 주주로서 현재 일본에 거주하고 있으며 공소외 4가 공소외 9의 명의로 주식 3,420주를 양도받은 것으로 되어 있는 이사 공소외 7은 처음부터 주주로 주주명부에 등재되어 있지 않다는 말을 전해 듣고, 피고인 1과 공소외 5는 1998. 6. 5.경 일본에 거주하는 공소외 15를 회사로 오게 하여 그녀의 주식 소유 사실을 확인한 다음 그녀로부터 주식포기 및 주주로서의 권한을 양도한다는 위임장을 교부받으려 하였으나 그녀가 거절하자, 피고인 1과 공소외 4, 5는 “임시주주총회는 이사회의 결의에 의하거나 법원의 허가를 받아 주주 등에게 통지를 한 후에 개최하고, 주식을 양도하여 주주의 변동이 생긴 때에는 주주명부에 등재된 이후에야 주주로서의 권리를 행사할 수 있다”고 규정된 회사 정관에 따른 절차에 따라서는 공소외 4, 8, 9가 주주명부에 주주로 등재되어 있지 않아 주주로서의 권리를 행사할 수 없고, 주주명부에 주주로 등재된 공소외 2, 6은 해외도피로, 공소외 16, 17, 18은 각 소재불명으로 임시주주총회를 소집하거나 임시의장이 될 수 없어 결국 공소외 15에게 임시주주총회 개최 통지서를 발송하여 그녀가 임시의장으로서 임시주주총회를 개최할 경우 피고인 1 등의 회사 경영권 장악이 불가능해지자, 사실은 실질적인 회사 주주인 공소외 2와 공소외 15는 물론 주주로 등재된 공소외 6, 공소외 16, 17, 18에게 1998. 6. 22. 14:30에 서울 동대문구 장안동 365-8 소재 알프스호텔 커피숍에서 공소외 1 회사 임시주주총회를 개최한다는 통지를 보낸 사실도 없고, 그들이 임시주주총회에 참석한 사실이나 의결권을 위임해 준 사실도 없으며 임시주주총회를 개최한 사실이나 공소외 5를 대표이사로 선임한 사실이 없음에도 불구하고, 위 일시·장소에서 공소외 1 회사 주주 공소외 4, 8, 9가 전원 참석하여 임시주주총회를 개최하여 대표이사 공소외 2, 이사 공소외 6, 이사 공소외 7, 감사 공소외 19 등 회사 임원을 해임하고, 공소외 5, 공소외 4, 9는 각 이사로, 공소외 8은 감사로 선출한 것으로 된 허위의 임시주주총회 의사록과 그 자리에서 개최된 이사회에서 공소외 5를 대표이사로 선출한 것으로 된 허위의 이사회 회의록을 각 작성하고, 1998. 6. 23.경 공소외 4가 회사 주식중 4,560주, 공소외 9, 공소외 8이 각 3,420주를 각 소유한 것처럼 허위의 주주명부를 작성하여 공증인가 새한합동법률사무소에서 이를 각 인증받은 다음,

(a)For the purpose of exercise:

around June 24, 1998, at the office of the senior certified judicial scrivener Cho Jong-dong 45, Jung-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul, stating that “In the temporary general meeting of shareholders held on June 22, 1998, Nonindicted 2, directors, Nonindicted 6, directors, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 19, etc., who are the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, were dismissed, elected respectively by Nonindicted 5, 9, and Nonindicted 4 as the auditor, and appointed by Nonindicted 8 as the auditor, and the board of directors appointed Nonindicted 5 as the representative director and taken office on that day, the board of directors appointed and taken office on that day, would disrupt its registration.” The applicant column stated that “The applicant column shall be read as “Nonindicted 5, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1,” and without authority, shall prepare an application for registration of change, which is a private document concerning rights and duties, one copy

(B) Around June 24, 1998, the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court) submitted to a registry official an application for registration of change of a stock company, which was prepared with the qualification ambiguously prepared by a registry official through the consideration of certified judicial scrivener from the commercial registry office of the Seoul Central District Court located in Jung-gu, Seoul.

(C) Around that time, a registry official who may know that the entries in the application for registration of change are false shall enter false facts in the corporate register in the original certified book, as stated in the application for registration of change; and

(D) around that time by requiring a public official of the registry to keep the corporate register containing false facts in the registry; and

(2) around August 1998, Nonindicted 15 decided to suspend the execution of duties, including the representative director with respect to Nonindicted 5, etc. who applied for the branch of the Seoul District Court for the branch of the Seoul District Court, and the fact was that the board of directors was held at the meeting room of the company located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 10, 1998, or that Nonindicted 4 was elected as the representative director, despite the fact that Nonindicted 4, the representative director, Nonindicted 5, 9, and Nonindicted 8 were held at the above time and place, and the board of directors was held at the meeting room of the company located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 10, 1998, and the minutes of the false board of directors which were appointed Nonindicted 4 as the representative director, and Nonindicted 5 as the manager, and the notary public obtained the certification from the law office of the Northbuk-dong branch of the law firm,

(a)For the purpose of exercise:

Around November 12, 1998, in the blank, Chuncheon, which is a certified judicial scrivener located in Gongung 1, 617-7, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and in the distribution room, Nonindicted 5, who was the representative director, resigned and was appointed and taken office as the representative director on November 10, 1998, and Nonindicted 5, who was appointed and taken office as the representative director. Nonindicted 5, who was appointed and taken office as the manager, shall be recorded in the applicant column, stating that “The applicant column,” stating that “Non-Indicted 1, the representative director of the non-Indicted 4, who was qualified as the representative director of the non-Indicted 1, is stated as “non-Indicted 1, the representative director of the non-Indicted 1

(B) around November 12, 1998, the Seoul District Court submitted to the registry official an application for registration of change of the corporation, which was prepared by the registry official with qualification inside the above qualifications, through the ancientization of a certified judicial scrivener at the commercial registry office of the Seoul District Court, as if the application

(C) around that time, a registry official who may know that the entries in the application for registration of change are false shall enter false facts in the corporate register as stated in the application for registration of change in the certified original corporate register; and

(D) around that time by requiring a public official of the registry to keep the corporate register containing false facts in the registry; and

B. In collusion with Nonindicted 5:

around July 14, 1998, while keeping the company transportation revenue of KRW 30 million in the office of Nonindicted Company 1 for business purposes, around that time, in the corporate bond office of “(trade name omitted)” operated by Nonindicted Party 4 located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, for the acquisition price of Nonindicted Company 1’s shares held by Nonindicted Party 4, embezzled by recklessly delivering it to Nonindicted Party 4 for the acquisition price of Nonindicted Company 1’s shares, as well as embezzlement from that time until November 2, 1998, in total four times as shown in Table 1 of the Crimes List of Attached Crimes.

C. Around May 31, 1999, around the same day, the company's transportation revenue of 10 million won was withdrawn from the company's account at the Dong branch of a livestock cooperative (Account Number omitted) in the Defendant's name, and embezzled by recklessly delivering it to Nonindicted 4 for the acquisition price of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 held by Nonindicted 4 in the Gyeongnam hotel shop located in Dongdaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government;

2. Defendant 1 and 2 conspired:

A. (1) The facts were: (a) around 10:00 on July 20, 199; (b) there was no fact that Nonindicted 2 held a temporary shareholders’ meeting at the office of Nonindicted 3; (c) around 10:0, Nonindicted 20; (d) Nonindicted 21, and Nonindicted 22 attended all of the shareholders of the company at the same time and place; (d) the officers of the company, including Nonindicted 4; (e) Nonindicted 5; (e) Nonindicted 20; and (e) Nonindicted 21, who were elected as directors; (e) Nonindicted 4; (e) Nonindicted 20; (e) Nonindicted 3; (e) Nonindicted 4; (e) Nonindicted 20; (f) Nonindicted 4; (f) Nonindicted 9; (f) Nonindicted 20; (f) Nonindicted 4); (f) Nonindicted 3; (f) Nonindicted 9; and (f) Nonindicted 20) Nonindicted 4; and (f) Nonindicted 9; and (f) on July 22222, 1999999.

(a)For the purpose of exercise:

On July 22, 1999, at the office of the judicial scrivener assistance day located in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 22, 1999,,: (a) stated in blank that “Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 8, who is the representative director at the temporary general meeting of shareholders on July 20, 199, resigns from office; (b) Defendant 2, Non-Indicted 20, and Non-Indicted 21 were elected as each director and appointed as the auditor; and (c) Defendant 2 was appointed as the representative director and taken office on that day; (d) stated in the applicant column that “The applicant column stated “Non-Indicted 1, the representative director of the non-Indicted 1, Defendant 2”; and (d) written an application for registration of change, which is a private document on rights and duties,

(B) On July 22, 199, the Seoul District Court's commercial registry office submitted to the registry officer an application for registration of change of a corporation, which was prepared for qualification as described above, to the registry officer through a certified judicial scrivener assistance day at the Seoul District Court's commercial registry,

(C) around that time, a registry official who may know that the entries in the application for registration of change are false shall enter false facts in the corporate register as stated in the application for registration of change in the certified original corporate register; and

(D) around that time by requiring a public official of the registry to keep the corporate register containing false facts in the registry; and

(2) In fact, despite the fact that a special general meeting was held at the company office around 10:00 on August 3, 1999, or that Nonindicted 24 was not appointed as a director, the company’s shareholders at the above time and place, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 21, and Nonindicted 24 attended all of the shareholders at the company at the above time and place, and the minutes of the false special general meeting of shareholders were prepared to elect Nonindicted 24 as directors by holding an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders at the same time and place, the notary public

(a)For the purpose of exercise:

On August 4, 1999, the certified judicial scrivener stated in blank that “Non-Indicted 24 was appointed and taken office at the temporary general meeting of shareholders of Non-Indicted 1 Company on August 3, 1999, and thus the registration thereof would be avoided.” In the applicant column, the applicant column stated “Non-Indicted 1 representative director of Non-Indicted 2” as “Defendant 2 of the representative director of Non-Indicted 1 Company,” and prepares one copy of the application for registration changing the private document on rights and obligations, which is a private document for the change

(B) On August 4, 199, at the commercial registry of the Seoul District Court on August 4, 199, submitted to the registry officer an application for registration of change of a corporation, which was prepared for qualification as above, to the registry officer as if it were genuine; and

(C) around that time, a registry official who may know that the entries in the application for registration of change are false shall enter false facts in the corporate register as stated in the application for registration of change in the certified original corporate register; and

(D) around that time by requiring a public official of the registry to keep the corporate register containing false facts in the registry; and

나. (1) 2000. 9. 14. 공소외 3 주식회사(대표이사 상피고인 3, 이하 ‘ 공소외 3 회사’라 한다)가 “ 피고인 3과 공소외 25는 공소외 1 회사에 대한 1,545,400,000원의 대여금 채무변제에 갈음하여 1998. 5. 20. 공소외 2와 공소외 1 회사로부터 회사 주식, 자동차운수사업면허권 등 회사 자산 일체 및 경영권 등 회사의 모든 권리를 양수하였고, 공소외 3 회사는 2000. 9. 6. 피고인 3, 공소외 25로부터 그들의 공소외 1 회사에 대한 자동차운수사업면허권을 양수하는 등 공소외 1 회사와 관련한 계약상 지위를 양수하였으며, 피고인 3 등은 2000. 9. 9.경 그 양도양수 사실을 공소외 1 회사에 통지하였는 바, 따라서 공소외 1 회사는 공소외 3 회사에게 자동차운수사업면허권에 관하여 1998. 5. 20.자 양도약정을 원인으로 하여 그 명의변경 절차를 이행할 의무가 있다”는 취지로 공소외 1 회사를 상대로 제기한 면허권명의변경의 소와 관련하여, 상피고인 3 등이 소장에 그와 같은 양도약정의 근거로 첨부한 ‘양도양수이행합의서’는 그 작성일이 1998. 5. 20.로서 그 날은 공소외 1 회사의 최종부도일이자 전 대표이사 공소외 2가 미국으로 도주한 날이고, 또 그 합의서상 합의명의자가 ‘갑. 양도인 공소외 1 회사 대표이사 공소외 2’, ‘을. 양수인 1) 피고인 3, 2) 공소외 25’로 되어 있는데도 양수인들인 피고인 3, 공소외 25의 서명날인은 누락되어 있었고, ‘갑’ 이라는 표시도 없이 ‘ 공소외 1 회사 대표이사 공소외 2’의 서명과 그의 날인이 있을 뿐이며 공소외 2의 서명도 본인이 직접 서명한 것인지 여부도 불분명한 등 그 합의서의 진정성립 여부가 상당히 의심스러운 상태였고, 또한 당시 공소외 4, 10, 26 등 공소외 2로부터 회사 주식 등을 양수받았다고 주장하는 다른 채권자들도 많이 있어 그 채권자들 중 누가 공소외 2로부터 회사 주식 등을 정상적으로 양수받은 것인지 여부도 불분명하였으며, 그 합의서의 내용에 의하더라도 ‘기타 세부적인 사항은 추후 갑과 을들이 협의하여 처리하기로 하고’라는 기재가 있어 합의서 작성 당시 확정적으로 면허권을 상피고인 3 등에게 넘겨주기로 한 것이 아니라고 해석할 여지가 많고, 추후 채권채무액과 회사 자산가치 등을 평가하는 등 정산절차를 거치는 것이 필요한 것으로 보이고, 또한 합의서상 상피고인 3 등이 양도받는 대상에는 공소외 1 회사의 ‘자산’도 포함되어 당시 회사의 채무도 모두 인수받아야 하는 것으로 해석될 여지가 있으며, 공소외 2의 둘째 딸 등이 공소외 2로부터 받아왔다고 하는 2000. 9. 27.자 공소외 2 명의의 확인서는 그 작성일이 공소외 2가 국내에 거주하지 않고 있었던 시기이고, 그 필체 또한 공소외 2의 자필인지 여부가 불명한 등 확인서의 진정성립 여부가 극히 의심스러운 상태였으며, 그 내용 또한 피고인 3, 공소외 25에게 약 16억 5천만원의 채무가 있다는 것으로 이는 합의서상의 채무액수의 합계와도 상이하며 확인서상의 채무가 공소외 2의 개인부채도 포함된 것인지, 공소외 1 회사 법인의 채무만을 의미한 것인지도 불명하였으며, 피고인 1과 피고인 2 자신들이 직접 공소외 2에게 합의서 내용대로 면허권을 상피고인 3 등에게 양도하기로 약정한 사실이 있는지 여부에 관해 확인한 바 없었고, 상피고인 3 등의 공소외 1 회사 법인에 대한 정확한 채권액수가 얼마인지에 대해서도 객관적으로 확인한 바 없었으며 자동차운수사업면허권은 당시 공소외 1 회사의 핵심적인 재산이라 할 수 있고, 이것이 없으면 공소외 1 회사는 그 존재가치가 없어지고 채무만이 남게 되는 껍데기 회사가 될 것이 명백하였으므로 이러한 경우 어쨌든 당시 회사 운영을 책임지고 있는 피고인들로서는 만연히 위 청구내용에 대해 인정을 할 것이 아니고, 적극적으로 응소를 하여 위와 같은 여러 가지 의문사항들에 대해 소송과정에서 명백히 밝혀 회사에 불필요한 손해가 미치지 않도록 해야 할 뿐만 아니라 운송회사에 있어 면허권은 ‘영업의 전부 또는 중요한 일부’이므로 이에 관한 처분행위를 할 경우에는 주주총회의 특별결의를 거쳐야 할 업무상 임무가 있음에도 불구하고 그 임무에 위배하여, 2000. 10. 26. 서울 광진구 자양동 소재 서울지방법원 동부지원 제5호 법정에서 피고인 2가 공소외 1 회사의 대표로 출석하여 청구를 인낙함으로써 공소외 3 회사에게 당시 위 면허권의 시가인 약 30억원 상당(인낙 당시 회사택시 면허 1대당 3,000만원 정도로 거래되었고 공소외 1 회사의 면허대수가 108대이다)의 재산상 이익을 취득하게 하고, 공소외 1 회사에게 같은 액수 상당의 손해를 가하고,

(2) On October 17, 200, at the multilateral bank located in the streetdong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, Defendant 2 received, on a total of 300 million won, a sum of 300 million won in face value, including the following: (a) Defendant 2 did not dispute the claim details in the lawsuit for change of the license title between Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 1 and Defendant 3 in the lawsuit for change of the license title; and (b) obtained, on October 26, 2000, 300 million won in face value, at the head office of the Nam-gu, Seoul, Nammun-gu, Seoul, Seoul, which was delivered by 14 billion won in the same name (a part of 300 million won was deposited into the bank account of Defendant 2 and a part of it was issued) on two occasions.

3. Defendant 3:

A. (1) On September 5, 200, at the Dongdong branch of Choungung Bank located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 5, 200, 500, 50 million won was deposited as the paid-in share capital for the total of 50 million shares issued (10,000 won per share) in the establishment of Nonindicted Co. 3, and on that day, upon receipt of a share capital payment custody certificate from Choung Bank, filed an application for the registration of incorporation of a stock company with the total amount of 50 million won paid-in capital of Nonindicted Co. 3 at the commercial registry office of the Seoul District Court on September 6, 200, and filed an application for the registration of incorporation of a stock company with the total amount of 50,000 won at the above branch

(2) On September 5, 200, at the commercial registry office of the Seoul District Court located in Seomun-gu, Seoul, Seomun-gu, Seoul, 38,000, a registered official who may know of such fact, submitted documents necessary for the registration of incorporation, such as a certificate of payment of share capital, to the effect that the payment of share capital for Nonindicted Co. 3 was completed for 10,000 common shares per share (5,000 common shares) and made the registration of incorporation for the total number of outstanding shares and total amount of capital of Nonindicted Co. 3 on the same day, and entered false facts in the commercial registry which is the original copy of the authentic deed;

(3) Around that time, a registry official shall be required to keep a commercial register containing false facts at the same place, and shall be exercised;

B. At the same time and place as set forth in paragraph 2. B(2), Defendant 2, etc. made the above illegal solicitation and provided a total of KRW 600 million on two occasions in consideration of such solicitation.

1. The facts set forth in Section 1-A (A) and Section 2-A (2) of the ruling made by the Defendants in this Court, and the facts set forth in Section 3-A (2) of the ruling, and each statement consistent with some of the remaining facts.

1. Statement consistent with the facts set forth in Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in this Court by Non-Indicted 10 and the facts set forth in No. 3-b. of this Court

1. Each statement in accordance with the facts stated in the judgment among each protocol of interrogation of the Defendants prepared by the prosecutor (including the part of interrogation of Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 29) and each copy of the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 5 (including the part of interrogation of Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 30, and Nonindicted 11).

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment among the copies of each statement of Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 4, 5, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 25, and Nonindicted 29 prepared by the prosecutor, and each statement of Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 34, and Nonindicted 30, respectively.

1. Each statement prepared by Nonindicted 10 that corresponds to the facts set out in the judgment

1. Up to 40 copies of each written judgment (not more than 5, not more than 12, not more than 94 pages), the roster of shareholders (not more than 103 pages), copies of respective notices on transfer of stocks ( not more than 104, not more than 494 pages, not more than 845 pages), transcript of the parking lot management passbook (not more than 152 pages), copy of the video (not more than 182 pages), copies of the application for registration (not more than 33 pages), copies of the investigative report (not more than 367 pages), non-indicted 3, copies of the investigative report (not more than 47 pages), non-indicted 44, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 94, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 199 (not more than 780, non-indicted 19, non-indicted 179, non-indicted 297, and non-indicted 197, respectively.

1. Statement that corresponds to the confirmation of the sentence in the holding against Defendant 2 in the previous disposition and report on the result of confirmation (4573 pages) bound in the investigation records;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1

Article 232 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

The use of private document prepared in accordance with Article 234, Article 232, and Article 30 (Appointment of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

Article 228(1) and Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

Article 229, Article 228(1), and Article 30(1) and Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act

Article 232 (Appointment of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

Article 234 and Article 232 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment) (Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act

Article 229 and Article 228(1)(2)(d) of the Criminal Code

§ 1-b. Occupational embezzlements: Articles 356, 355(1), and 30(Appointment of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

(C) Occupational embezzlement: Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

B. Defendant 1 and 2

Article 232 and Article 30 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Code shall apply to the preparation of each qualification document referred to in paragraph (1)(2)(A):

Article 234, Article 232, and Article 30 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Code

Article 228(1) and Article 30(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code shall apply to the false entry of the original notarial deed in the judgment of the court.

Article 229, Article 228(1), and Article 30(1) and Article 30(2) of the Criminal Code

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

The point of taking property in breach of trust: Articles 357 (1) and 30 (Selection of Imprisonment) of each Criminal Act.

C. Defendant 3

Article 628 (1) and Article 622 (1) of the Commercial Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act. Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act

Article 229 and Article 228 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

The point of giving evidence of breach of trust: Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes (as to the defendant 2):

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (the crimes of each subparagraph of Article 2 of the Judgment with respect to Defendant 2 and the violation of the Passenger Transport Business Act which have become final and conclusive)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, etc. (Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) with the largest punishment, Defendant 3: Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) of each Criminal Code

1. Mitigation (as to the defendant 1 and 2):

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Code (The following favorable circumstances specified in the reasons for sentencing)

1. The inclusion of the number of days pending trial (as against the defendant 1 and 2):

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (as to the defendant 2, 3)

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (Consideration of favorable circumstances, etc. described in the Grounds for Sentencing below)

1. Collection (as to the defendant 1 and 2);

Article 357 (3) (60 million won in part) of the Criminal Code is delivered in the form of a check by Defendant 2 to receive some deposits in the deposit account of Defendant 2, but immediately thereafter, it is unclear whether Defendant 2’s deposit account was actually used for each of the above Defendants, such as Defendant 1’s remittance of KRW 135 million from among the deposit accounts to Defendant 2’s deposit accounts, and Defendant 1’s joint use of the money for each of the above Defendants’ 1 and 2. As such, it is presumed that Defendant 1 and 2 were jointly used and equally collected KRW 300 million from each of the above Defendants)

Defendant 1 and 2: (a) around June 10, 1999, Defendant 1 and 2 notified Nonindicted 22, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 18 and Nonindicted 17, the shareholders listed on the former shareholder registry, as well as Nonindicted 23, who were registered as shareholders on the company registry at the time when the representative director was acting as the representative director, of the fact that the general meeting was held on June 29, 199; (b) held a temporary general meeting of shareholders at the company office and appointed directors and auditors; and (c) held the board of directors and appointed Defendant 2 as the representative director; and (d) erroneously stated the date on which the temporary general meeting of shareholders was held on July 20, 199 in the course of registering the corporation, even if it was merely a clerical error, and Defendant 2 is a legitimate representative director, and therefore, the said Defendants cannot be responsible for the crime.

However, as alleged by the above Defendants, even though the above Defendants held a temporary general meeting on June 29, 199 and followed the procedure such as appointing Defendant 2 as representative director, Defendant 2 was recorded falsely on July 22, 199 as the date and time when the general meeting of shareholders was held on July 22, 199, and thus, it is found guilty in that the creditors, such as Nonindicted 10, alleged to have received the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 at the time of acquisition of the shares of the above Defendants asserted their rights. In the situation where the creditors, such as Nonindicted 22, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 23, were registered on the list of shareholders prepared by the above Defendants, and it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant 1, who trusted their names, purchased shares from Nonindicted 4 and trusted their names to them, and Defendant 1 cannot be seen as a genuine shareholder of Nonindicted Company 1, who purchased shares from Nonindicted 24 and the general meeting of shareholders held on July 20, 199, and thus, Defendant 1 was also aware of the validity of shares transfer agreement between Nonindicted 24 and Nonindicted 16.

As to each part of the prosecution by the prosecutor, the defendants' payment of KRW 600 million to the defendant 1 and 2 was made in advance by purchasing 30% of the shares of the non-indicted 1 company (3,420 shares), and there was no relation between the defendant 2 and the non-indicted 3's claim for the change of the name of the non-indicted 3 company. The defendant 2 determined that the non-indicted 3 company's claim is objectively reasonable, and even if the claim is accepted, the provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal (the provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal that was filed by the non-indicted 4 around June 1998) was taken against the non-indicted 3 company, so the defendant was aware that the right to the license was not exceeded the non-indicted 3 company, and the defendant 3 was also aware of such fact, so the defendants cannot be held liable for each of the above crimes.

However, Defendant 3, Nonindicted 25, and Nonindicted 2 were 40 million won in consideration of the content of the agreement on the transfer and acquisition of shares between Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, the preparation of Nonindicted 2’s confirmation document, and the amount of claims against Nonindicted 1 on September 27, 200, Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 25 stated that it was not possible to investigate the management status or distribution of shares of Nonindicted 1 in order to facilitate recovery of claims by acquiring shares and taking part in the management. Defendant 3 paid 300 million won in the remaining 60 million won on the date of the claimant’s refusal to return 40 million won in consideration of the fact that it was impossible for Defendant 2 to return 10 million won in consideration of the fact that the change in the name of the license of Nonindicted 3 was 40 million won in consideration of the fact that the change in the name of the license of Nonindicted 3 was impossible. 9 billion won in consideration of the fact that Defendant 2 did not return the shares to Defendant 160 million won in consideration of the fact that Defendant 2 did not return the remaining 16000 billion.

Of the facts charged in this case against Defendant 1, the summary of some of the following facts is as follows: “Defendant 1 embezzled 40,500,000 won of the company’s transportation revenue at the office of Nonindicted Company 1 on or around April 1, 1999 while he had been in custody of 1,50,000 won of the company’s transportation revenue at the office of Nonindicted Company 1, Defendant 1, around April 9, 1999, by delivering it without permission to Nonindicted 4 as the purchase price for the company’s shares held by Nonindicted Company 4 at the Gyeongnam hotel shop located in Dongdaemun-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and up to April 8, 1999, Defendant 1 embezzled it through the above three times in total, such as the No. 1, 2, and 3 as described in Table 2. of the Crimes List 1, 199.” The above Defendant does not change that this part of the facts charged was embezzled.

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated prior to the examination, each of the above amounts is recognized as having been withdrawn from the account in the name of the defendant who manages the transportation revenue, etc. of the non-indicted 1 and paid to the non-indicted 4 only because it is insufficient to recognize the embezzlement of the defendant 1. Rather, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the witness non-indicted 37 and non-indicted 38's legal statements and the records of reference materials 8 (Minutes of the board of directors) submitted by the defense counsel, the 1.5 million won No. 1. 22 million won in the No. 23,383 and 271 won in the interim settlement of the retirement allowance at the request of the defendant at the request of the non-indicted 38, and the defendant was lent KRW 23 million in the settlement amount, and the 3-2,167 and 123 million won in the title of the non-indicted 1's interim settlement of the defendant's own interim settlement, and this part of the facts charged is not guilty.

Defendant 1 appeared as creditors of Nonindicted Company 1’s non-indicted 1’s trade union at the time of the bankruptcy on May 20, 1998, and asserted their rights, and the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2, who is an ordinary operation of the company, participated in the operation of the company by using unlawful and unlawful methods, such as preparing the minutes of temporary shareholders’ meeting, minutes of board of directors’ meeting, etc. In collusion with Defendant 2 for the purpose of exercising the right to manage the company’s shares under the name of the non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s corporate management. Furthermore, even if the dispute between the non-indicted 1’s company and the non-indicted 2’s company was committed on September 29, 199, the non-indicted 1’s corporate management rights were easily acquired from the non-indicted 1’s creditors, and the non-indicted 1’s representative director, who is the non-indicted 2’s representative director, was divided by the non-indicted 10’s name and the non-indicted 29394’s own shares.

On the other hand, in the case of Nonindicted 10, only one person asserts that the dispute is the true shareholder of Nonindicted Company 1, except for Nonindicted 15, but around July 27, 1998, Nonindicted 2 (the fact that Nonindicted 41 was delegated by Nonindicted 2) by borrowing the name of Nonindicted 40 and taking over the entire shares of Nonindicted Company 1 from Nonindicted 2 (the fact that Nonindicted 41 was delegated by Nonindicted 2), and that if there is another person who received shares from Nonindicted 2 prior to the acquisition of the shares, he would not raise an objection against the transfer of the shares after the date (the fact that the amount of claim against Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 is not clear), it is difficult to conclude that Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 4 were the unlawful acquisition of shares by taking account of the fact that Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 15’s name were not indicated in the transferee’s certificate of stock transfer and confirmation (the name of Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 14’s name were not indicated in the register of shareholders, and there is no room to conclude that the agreement between Defendant 10 and Nonindicted 1410’s own shares.

However, considering such fact, Defendant 1’s act of acquiring shares and managing the company should be subject to criticism in that it has become more important for a person who was in the position of the president of the trade union to acquire shares of Nonindicted 4 by embling the company’s funds and raising funds again, resulting in the occurrence of various crimes, and as a result, creating the appearance of holding 65% of the company’s shares.

In light of the above circumstances, although the Defendants returned to Defendant 3 the specific contents of each of the crimes of this case committed by the Defendants, the course and means of the crimes of this case, the degree of participation, the degree of profits acquired, the effect of judicial recognition still remains, and there is a possibility of dispute in the future. Defendant 1 took measures to have Nonindicted 4 return the amount of embezzlement on July 15, 2002 to the company. Defendant 2 paid KRW 10 million on the embezzlement on July 15, 2002; Defendant 2 did not have any benefit from the crimes of this case from a somewhat subordinate standpoint to a certain extent, and did not have any other circumstances revealed; Defendant 1 and 2 were punished by Defendant 1 and 2; Defendant 2 did not have any other specific crimes including breach of trust; Defendant 3’s punishment before the suspended sentence of execution; Defendant 1 and 2’s punishment; Defendant 3 did not have any other specific crimes including breach of trust; Defendant 1 and 2’s life and conduct at home; Defendant 2’s age period of punishment; Defendant 1 and any other specific crimes including criminal punishment.

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

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)