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

(b) Property in breach of trust;

1. A. (b) A. (45 years old, south), and XX representative director;

2. A. A. A2 (55 years old, South), and XX regular business;

Jin-sicking

Law Firm International (for all the defendants):

Attorney Ha Man-young

Attorney Yellow Jin-jin (for defendant A1)

October 31, 2008

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above punishment against Defendant A1 for 4 years, and against Defendant A2 for 3 years is suspended. Defendant AI collected KRW 145,115.310 from money.

Criminal History Office

Defendant A1 is a representative director of PP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " XX"), who actually operates the above company, and the above A2 is an executive director of P, who is in charge of fund management and accounting.

1. The point of embezzlement;

around October 23, 2003, the Defendants conspired in collusion with the above XX office to use the funds owned by the above XX for the above rest, and Defendant A2 voluntarily withdraw 100 million won out of the above XX fund without following lawful procedures such as the resolution of the board of directors in accordance with the direction of the same A1, and pay it to the above A1. The above A1 arbitrarily used it as the purchase price of golf membership in the name of A1, and embezzled it by using it as a short-term loan accounting method from January 22, 2002 to November 24, 2006 in the above manner, as stated in the list of crimes in the separate list of crimes (Omission) above, the above funds of the XX were arbitrarily used as the purchase price of real estate in the above name of the above Al, the bill was delivered to the above company for personal debt security of the non-indicted A1, and the above company’s funds were voluntarily withdrawn for the above company’s personal purpose, and the above company’s funds were not distributed to the above company’s 1080 or 37.

2. Occupation of taking property in breach of trust;

Defendant A1 sold YY Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “YY”)’s shares to SSSS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “SS”), upon reflecting the increase in real estate prices, Defendant A1 demanded KRW 35 billion as the sales price of shares to be received from the above SS in the process of sales negotiations, while taking advantage of the increase in real estate prices, Defendant A1 demanded KRW 200,000,000,000,000 for KRW 35 billion from the above SS in the process of sales negotiations. From November 10, 2004; KRW 30,000,000,000 for KRW 20,000,000,000 for KRW 230,000,000,000,000,000 for KRW 230,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

Omission

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion (a point of embezzlement)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Although Defendant A1’s lending relationship between XX and Defendant Al used the money from XX, such as the fact of occupational embezzlement, among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A1 borrowed the said money from the said company for a short term, it does not constitute embezzlement.

B. Although there is a fact that money is paid to C in the wage issue XX for C, it is not embezzled by registering C as a director in the form of a director, but by performing its duties as a registration director, C has paid legitimate benefits.

C. Whether there exists an intention of unlawful acquisition

Since the Defendants accounted for the embezzlement of the facts charged in the instant case as a short-term loan while paying interest thereon, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have expressed an intent to acquire unlawful profits from the same money.

D. The number of crimes

The Prosecution stated the amount of occupational embezzlement as KRW 8,947,380,270 among the facts charged in the instant case, and the rate is based on Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes. However, even if it constitutes domestic embezzlement, as seen in the facts charged itself, the use of the amount borrowed by the Defendants from Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes differs depending on the contents indicated in the attached Table, and thus, it was erroneous for the Defendants to rate the sum of the withdrawal of 91 times of funds managed by the short-term loan and the amount of 29 times of payment for C

2. Facts and circumstances acknowledged based on evidence.

A. Lending and borrowing relationships between XX and Defendant Al

(1) The Defendants acknowledged the fact that Defendant A1 brought money from XX, such as the fact of occupational embezzlement, among the facts charged in the instant case, and used each of the pertinent money, such as the statement in the attached list of crimes, from the investigation process to this court.

(2) Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A1 did not have agreed to the due date or interest in advance while using the money, such as occupational embezzlement, and did not have prepared a separate loan certificate. Although the interest rate of 9% per annum was not determined through a separate agreement, it is nothing more than that the accounting firm accounts on the account basis of the interest rate on the provisional loan under tax law at the end of the year. Defendant A2 also agrees with the fact that Defendant A1 was using the money in the form of short-term loan and did not have any separate interest or repayment agreement and did not have any written agreement.

(3) The reason why Defendant A1 used the money as a short-term loan in accounting is not because the above money was actually used as a loan, but because there was no way to record the amount of loss in an ordinary account unless it was disposed of as a short-term loan. Defendant A1 voluntarily asked that “A2 only includes a short-term loan when the suspect uses the company’s bills, funds, etc. for personal account, and if the suspect personally uses the company’s bills, etc., he would bring about the company’s money at any time, and that he would handle it as a short-term loan for accounting because there is no other way to deal with the money.” On the other hand, Defendant A1 voluntarily asked that “A2 would be a short-term loan for personal account because he would not put it into a separate account because he would be used as a personal loan, and it would naturally be treated as a short-term loan.”

(4) Although there is a change that the Defendants paid interest, Defendant A1 did not pay to the Company the amount equivalent to the actual interest, and only was treated as having paid interest at the end of the year on the accounting basis, and the interest accrued therefrom is merely a short-term loan account by including it in the principal of the next year.

(5) The money used by Defendant A1 was disbursed for personal purposes without any relation to the company’s management, including the purchase of picture, travel expenses, vehicle purchase, golf membership purchase, individual global income tax, support payments for members of the National Assembly, and payment of house repair fees. In particular, KRW KRW 00 million was frequently disbursed with real estate purchase funds.

(6) Even if Defendant A1’s assertion that the loan has been repaid, according to Defendant A2’s statement, it is nothing more than keeping the company in custody at the time of withdrawal when the loan was paid or the loan was received rather than repayment of the loan. This is nothing more than the use of the company’s account and funds as an individual, and this is nothing more than the use of the company’s account and funds as an individual, and such temporary storage amount was arranged by the accounting corporation only in the account settlement.”

(7) According to Defendant A1’s assertion, the embezzlement funds accounting for short-term loans have been repaid with the borrowed money from Defendant’s wife D and his siblings. In light of such circumstances, Defendant A1 does not seem to have been able to repay the above embezzled money.

(8) The fact that Defendant A1 embezzled the money under XX as a short-term loan was confirmed by the books of revenue and expenditure discovered at the time of search and seizure of XX.

(9) Defendant A1 owns shares amounting to 83.5% of XX (the end of December 2006). Since other shares are owned by the wife, mother, and women and children, there is no difference between the above company and the company. Thus, Defendant A1’s mother and the above company raise an objection against the share of the above Defendant’s shares without any separate procedure, Defendant A1’s parent and the above Defendant A1’s parent raised an objection against the share of the above Defendant’s shares. In addition, even if there were circumstances to deem Defendant A1 as a single-owned company, the above Defendant did not have been able to handle the shares of the mother’s shares at his own discretion, and thus, the company did not coincide with the interests of the company as independent of its shareholders, and thus, if other shares were disbursed for private purposes, such as personal debt of the shareholder or representative director, acquisition of another company’s shares or investment, personal donation or loan, regardless of its business affairs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do979, Apr. 19, 2009).

(10) Furthermore, in the case of a company with which the shares of a stock company actually belong to a single shareholder, the company and its shareholder are separate personality and the company's assets are not immediately owned by its own shareholder. Thus, if the company's assets are consumed at will during the course of its business management (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do59, Mar. 14, 1995). Defendant A1's de facto single-person company, and thus does not interfere with the establishment of embezzlement. In other words, even if Defendant A1, the private owner, without any written agreement such as due date or interest rate, is less than 1 million won and more than 2.4 billion won, without any security provision, it cannot be said that the company's funds were carried over at will to the short-term company's own expense for personal purposes, and even if it did not take any measures to obtain funds from its own private company, it cannot be said that the company's funds were not carried over at will after the short-term company's own expense.

B. Benefit issue for C

(1) C is registered as a director on the registry, and it does not actually work for C to work as a company office.

(2) On July 2004, C does not have any participation in the management of the company at all before being registered as a director on the registry, nor did he have any other social experience, and continued to attend the company abroad, and there is no performance or art related to the performance or art that the XX has considered as a new business field, in particular, due to the major divers, textile and fashion, bail appraisal, etc.

(3) In relation to the content that C performed the work for the sake of the company, it is nothing more than to the extent that C provided information on art works to Defendant A1 even in the testimony of C, and the comparison of such information was limited to non-professionals that can be collected through the Internet. In addition, in relation to art works, Defendant A1, the father, rather than having his knowledge and experience, appears to have been more than having been assisted by his father, rather than having been assisted by his father.

(4) Although C was registered as a director in XX, there is no participation in the decision of the board of directors relating to performance and admission benefit business, and C was not aware of the existence or content of the articles of incorporation of the board of directors.

C. Whether there exists an intention of unlawful acquisition

In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intent to dispose of the company's property in violation of his/her duties, such as the case of his/her own property, for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, and even if he/she has an intention to return, compensate or preserve it later, it does not interfere with the recognition of the intent of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005). Thus, even if Defendant A1 borrowed the amount he/she has embezzled as above in the short-term lending form as above, there is no problem to recognize the criminal liability for embezzlement of Defendant even if he/she had an intention to return it later, even if he/she had an intention to return it later, even if he/she had an intention to return it in the future. In addition, although the Defendants could have raised the company's funds by distributing earned surplus, the dividend of earned surplus is premised on the dividend to the

D. Even in the case of multiple occupational embezzlements, if the legal interest of damage is uniform, the form of crime is identical, and if it is recognized as a series of acts due to the realization of a single criminal intent, it shall be deemed as one of the crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3929, Sept. 28, 2005). Examining the above criminal facts, the name of the crime is identical to occupational embezzlement, the legal interest is equal to that of the crime, and the damage legal interest is equal to X. In the form of the crime, the part against C is registered as a false director and embezzled the amount equivalent to the payment, and is somewhat different from the part of the embezzlement of the money. However, even between the embezzled money under the short-term loan lending, there is a difference between the amount embezzled and the amount of the embezzlement, and it is reasonable to view that all of them have the same type of crime as a series of continuous criminal acts, and that all of them have the same form of comprehensive embezzlement as a crime of embezzlement.

3. Conclusion

In light of all the facts and circumstances examined by each item, the Defendants, through a public contest, account for short-term loans or wages to employees, and the Defendants, in substance, can be recognized that they consumed the company’s funds with unfair spending, so this part of the facts charged against the Defendants is proven, regardless of whether they were repaid thereafter. The Defendants and their defense counsel’s arguments are not accepted. Determination of Defendant A1 and their defense counsel’s assertion (the point of violation of trust acceptance) is not accepted.

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant A1’s appointment as a non-execution officer in charge of advisory services from SS and payment of USD 300,000 for three (3) years under the title of the fee is merely a provision of advice or information, as well as a provision of advice or information, and was paid at the honorable level for the former joint representative director to prevent any commercial conduct or divulgence of trade secrets that may arise after the transfer of shares, and as the payment of the above amount was not associated with an illegal solicitation in the process of transfer of shares, Defendant A1 did not receive the above amount in return for an illegal solicitation from S.

2. Facts and circumstances acknowledged based on evidence.

A. Y is a company established by joint investment in XX and SS. According to Article 5(1) of the Joint Investment Agreement concluded between Y and S at the time of establishment of the Y, “Y” agreed that “if one party wishes to sell shares, he/she shall increase the quantity of shares sold to the “book price of the Joint Venture Company” and purchase solicitation shall be made to the other party having the right to acquire shares in advance at the limited value of shares issued (Evidence record 1596 pages).

B. The net value of Y203’s Y203’s Y-based net asset value was 51,709,303,237 won in accordance with the “book price” under the joint venture agreement, and K, the representative of SS, presented as the initial purchase amount of 25 billion won in excess of 50 per cent of the shares of Y, taking into account these circumstances. On the other hand, Defendant A1 presented 3.5 billion won in the negotiation process on the ground that the value of Y’s Y factory site has increased. The amount presented on both sides was determined as the purchase price of 28.5 billion won in a higher price than the book price. Article 14(1) of the said joint venture agreement provides that the parties to the contract and S, as to the contract, shall be strictly and strictly required to keep confidential technology and other information considered as the external technology or cost acquired in relation to the contract, or as to the operation of the joint venture company, and shall be strictly required to keep confidentiality.

D. Article 2 (d) of the SS and A1 of the Delegation Agreement between the Non-Standing Director and the SSA1 provides that "for the duration of this contract and two years after the termination of this contract, A1 does not provide or sell services to any third party to assist him or other person to sell the same product as that of the company's product or similar thereto, and (2) does not participate directly or indirectly in the business of the SS Group or invest in any company, person or company directly competitive with the SS Group and its business, or (3) does not directly or indirectly interfere with or in the past with the relationship between the SS Group's present or customer, or any personal company or company that was a customer or any company that was a customer, or to be employed or induced by the SS Group", and Article 7 (a) provides that "for the duration of this contract and the termination of this contract, the SS Group shall not obtain any confidential business information or other confidential business information during the period of five years after the termination of this contract."

E. F, the representative director of the SS side, is assessed as a reasonable price for the decision of 28.5 billion won as the proceeds from the sale of shares. Moreover, it is stated that the appointment of the company's share sale contract and Defendant A1 as a non-execution should be understood as a separate contract at all.

F. In the agreement between the companies related to the sale of shares, Article 8 of the provisional contract provides that two companies shall determine the aggregate of the proceeds from the share sale and the salaries of Defendant A1 as the total amount of the payments incurred in the transaction in question and shall not pay or demand any other consideration (Evidence Record 1515 pages).

G. Defendant A1 received KRW 145,115,310, total sum from the said company on several occasions under the pretext of advisory fees, etc., even though he/she did not perform duties under the agreement by providing management advice on the SS side or performing duties as a director after having entered into the payment agreement as above.

3. Whether the acceptance of money and valuables by Defendant A1 constitutes the acceptance of a breach of trust

In light of the above facts and circumstances, the first price at the time of purchase shall be recorded in the account book (the cost of the share acquired in 1982 shall be 2.59 billion won, and the price of the share shall be increased in succession after revaluation) and if the same price is different from the actual price due to the factors such as price increase, it shall be left in the relevant period for the settlement of accounts, and shall be properly assessed in accordance with the authorized accounting practices, and the appropriate price shall be reflected in the account book price. This is because the same price is not only the general standard for the transfer of the relevant asset, but also the regulation and burden on taxation, but also the rationalization of corporate management, etc. It is not clear that: (a) in holding YY shares, the agreement that "the price of the share at issue shall be based on the account book price at the time of the transfer of the relevant asset owned by the company is not a formal meaning in accordance with the general principle in cases of transfer of the asset owned by the company; and (b) in this case, the account price at the time immediately preceding settlement is reflected in the account book price at the time of sale.

(4) If the above-mentioned shares are evaluated by the company itself as a shareholder of the above-mentioned company, the company's disposal of the above-mentioned shares will be increased to 12 billion won to 13 billion won or more (Evidence No. 1745), and the company's disposal of the above-mentioned shares will not be regarded as an adequate value for 24,00 square meters or more for appraisal of the investment shares, and there is no doubt that the company's disposal of the above-mentioned shares would be against the law of the company's disposal of the above-mentioned shares and the company's disposal of the shares to 10 billion won or more. Thus, there is no doubt that the above-mentioned shares will not be sold to the company as a shareholder of the above-mentioned company for the reason that the company's disposal of the shares would have become more and more reasonable than the above-mentioned company's disposal of the shares, such as the above-mentioned company's disposal of the shares, and there is no reasonable doubt that the above-mentioned company's disposal of shares would not be a reasonable price for the above.

1. The reason for sentencing 1. Defendant A1 was the representative director; Defendant A2 conspired with each other to arbitrarily withdraw the company’s funds; Defendant A2 used them for personal purposes; Defendant A1 sold at a low price for the purpose of personal gain in selling the company’s investment shares; and Defendant A1 also received the price equivalent to KRW 140 million for the purpose of causing damage to the company as much as the difference between the normal price and the profit. Defendant A1 collected the remaining company’s funds from time to time to time to time to make the company’s own representative director, referring to the amount of the company’s funds, such as the payment of subscription money, travel expenses, vehicle purchase, golf membership purchase, individual global income tax, payment of the principal and collection of the company’s total income tax; Defendant A2 used the company’s institutional advantages to realize its own personal gain; Defendant A2 also actively participated in such criminal acts, and thus, Defendant A2 should not be punished for the following reasons.

2. However, the Defendants did not have any past history of criminal punishment, returned the entire amount of embezzlement to the company to compensate for damage, Defendant A1 appears to have contributed to social development through various social service activities, such as appointment of honorary consuls in Belgium, and Defendant A2 is deemed to have been in a position that is difficult to refuse Defendant A1’s request, the representative director, and such circumstances should be considered in determining the punishment.

3. It shall be determined and sentenced as ordered by the Acts, comprehensively taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, home environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, within the scope of the term of punishment, and the punishment for the crime of this case is to be imposed.

Chief Judge, Senior Judge and Senior Judge

Judges Kim Gin-ok

Judge No. Doingk