The director of a corporation, without the approval of the general meeting of shareholders, shall be liable for any financial gain by the corporation's own account by making transactions belonging to the same

A trademark cannot be transferred unless it is the designated goods business, and the director of a stock company is not allowed to trade that belongs to the same kind of company or the same business for his own account or for the third party's account without the approval of the general meeting of shareholders. If the defendant transferred part of the trademark right he possessed to a company and takes office as a director of the company, even if he is a joint owner of a trademark right, if he gains property benefits by producing and selling the same kind of the same company or the same type of company as the company, even if he is a joint owner of a trademark right,

Article 622(1) of the Commercial Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Southern Branch Court (80 High 287)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A. Punishment of a fine of KRW 500,00 for a crime of KRW 1-B, (c), and (2) for a crime of KRW 500,00 for the judgment of the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 2,000 into one day.

The ninety-five days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney Choi Byung-ok is not all class 1, but class 2 and class 3. The defendant's attorney-at-law's attorney-law's attorney-at-law's attorney-law's attorney-at-law's attorney-law's attorney-law's attorney-at-law's attorney-law's attorney-at-law's attorney-law's attorney-law's attorney-at-law's attorney-law's attorney-law's attorney-at-law's attorney's attorney's attorney-at-law's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney-at-law's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's (name omitted)'s attorney's second class and class 3 level 1 product were all class 1 product, and the court below's decision was erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the amount calculated unilaterally by a tax official's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's attorney's decision.

Therefore, the first ground for appeal as well as the first ground for appeal, and the first examination of the various evidence duly admitted by the court below (in particular, the fact that the defendant led to the confession of all the crimes in the court below) in light of the records, the original facts charged by the court below can be fully recognized, and therefore, the argument of appeal for mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

Next, the second ground for appeal by a state appointed defense counsel is examined, and the trademark cannot be transferred unless it is the designated goods business (Article 27 (1) of the Trademark Act). The director of a corporation is unable to engage in transactions belonging to the same or limited liability company for himself or the third party's account without the approval of the general meeting of shareholders (Article 397 (1) of the Commercial Act). If the defendant transfers part of the trademark right to the non-indicted 1 corporation and takes office as a director of the company, even if he is a joint owner of the trademark right, he voluntarily opens a secret factory in relation to the company, and if the defendant gains property by producing the same kind of business as the company or the same type of business or the (name omitted), he or she shall immediately return to the company's losses. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal for

Then, the lower court ex officio examined the lower judgment. The lower court determined that the total amount of tax evaded by the Defendant in the year 1978 and year 1979 was KRW 20,830,685 (in total, KRW 20,830,686; however, it is clear that it is an error of calculation), which constitutes a single comprehensive crime, and thus, constitutes Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and is punished at a rate under the same Act.

However, the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Evasion of Taxes do not purport to punish as a single crime a person whose amount of evaded tax is more than a certain amount for a year based on the basis of the taxable year, a single crime including other amount of evaded tax. In this case, it is evident by the original adjudication that the tax evaded by the defendant was imposed over the year 1978 and 2 years 1979.

Thus, the court below aggravated punishment by treating the whole amount of evaded tax as a single crime by treating it as a concurrent crime for each taxable year. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below is not reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing, and the members of the company are again decided as follows.

On August 25, 1978, the defendant was manufacturing and selling (title omitted) tables (registered trademark 5302) with the trade name of industrial company from October 1976, and ordered a summary order of KRW 4,00,000 as a result of a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders in the branch court of the Seoul District Court on August 25, 1978, and the summary order has become final and conclusive upon the lapse of the period for requesting formal trial on September 8, 196;

1. On April 30, 1978, when the Defendant had been engaged in the chemical speculation manufacturing business and had tax evasion investigated after being discovered on April 1978, the Defendant passed a resolution to evade taxes by unlawful means such as failing to make a tax return, intentionally omitting a tax return, or intentionally omitting a return of tax evasion, while continuously producing and selling (title omitted) a mark-making factory even though he filed a voluntary report of business closure on April 30 of the same year;

A. From May 1, 1978 to June 30, 1978, Nonindicted Party 2’s house located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu, Seoul with 10 employees equipped with two presses machinery, etc., and, even if he manufactured 27,500 items and sold 280 won for 7,70,000 won for 280 won in total, he/she concealed 7,70,000 won in his/her Sungdong-gu, Sungdong-gu, Seoul, without filing a report thereon, while he/she concealed 7,70,00 won in his/her jurisdiction, special consumption tax, 3,181,818 won, and 636,36363 won in defense defense;

(b) During the period from July 1 to December 1 of the same year, a false report is filed with the two competent tax offices that produced only the amount equivalent to KRW 4,500 for the total of KRW 19,750 for 28,750 for 5,00 for 19,250 for 28,00 for 280 for 19,750 for 280 for 19,750 for 4,000 for 25,50 for 25,50 for 1,301,300 for 7,954,54,545 for 1,590 for 1,590,90 for 1,696,69 for global income tax for 1978, and the amount of value-added tax for 4,500 for 1,301,200 for 7,94,59,69 for 196.

C. From the beginning of September 1979 to the beginning of November 1979, Nonindicted Party 3’s house located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gain 2 (Name omitted) to produce 30,00 items of class 1 product of class 30,00 items of class 1 product of class 30,00 won in (name omitted) in Guro-gu, Seoul and sell them at the district tax office, and did not report it at the district tax office, and thereby, the value-added tax thereon was not reported, which was value-added tax amounting to 763,636 won, special consumption tax, 3,471,074 won, special consumption tax, 694,214 won, and global income tax of 1979, 31,418 won, and 31,418 won of class

2. On September 29, 1978, the Defendant, while manufacturing and selling the speculation in his personal name, established Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation for the purpose of the chemical speculation manufacturing business at Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, with four employees on September 29, 1978, and transferred part of the Defendant’s (title omitted) trademark rights to the company, and the Defendant was appointed as a director of the company. Thus, the Defendant or the third party’s company’s account without approval by the general meeting of shareholders, despite the fact that the Defendant or the third party’s company’s account is not allowed to engage in the transaction belonging to the same kind of company or the limited liability company, the Defendant, without approval by the general meeting of shareholders, cannot independently obtain the above sales proceeds from September 1, 1979 to November 2, 1979, equipped with two facilities, such as press machine 2, etc. at the house of Nonindicted 3, located in Guro-gu, Seoul, with ten employees and sold 10 employees.

The summary of evidence presented by a member is the same as the evidence column of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 8 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 9 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act are applicable to the crimes under the former part of Article 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 8 (2) 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders, and Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is applicable to the crimes under Article 9 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders and Article 9 (2) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders, and Article 9 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders and Article 7 of the former part of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders, and Article 9 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the crime under Article 9 (2) 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders and Article 9 (2) of the same Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Tax Act.

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

Judge final (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-dae et al.