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

B. Occupational breach of trust

C. Violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act

(d) Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies;

(e) Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

1. (a) b. d.

A

2.(a)(c)

B

3.(a)(c)

C

4.(c) ;

D

5.(a)(c)

E

6. D. E.

F

Defendant A, B, C, E, F, and Prosecutor (Defendant A, B, C, D, and F)

Attorney G (for Defendant A)

Attorney L (for the defendant B, C, and D)

Law Firm GW (for Defendant E)

Attorney HI, GX, HJ, HK

Attorneys GY (for Defendant F)

Law Firm H (Defendant B and C)

Attorney I, K

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Do401 Decided July 12, 2013

November 28, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, C, E, and F, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established when it is combined with the perception that the intention of a person handling another’s business to cause property damage to the principal and that the intention to obtain property benefits to him/herself or a third party is in violation of his/her duty. In cases where the Defendant denies the criminal intent by asserting that he/she committed an act at issue in the interest of himself/herself, which is a subjective element of the crime of occupational breach of trust, such as intentional intent, etc., which is a subjective element of the crime of occupational breach of trust, in view of the nature of the object, it is inevitable to prove by the method of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention in view of the nature of the object. What constitutes an indirect fact having considerable relevance, the method of reasonably determining the link of the fact through the strict observation or analysis should be based on normal experience. If the employees of a financial institution provided loans, it is reasonable and reasonable to have a third party obtain property benefits and have no knowledge of property damage to the financial institution.

In addition, a co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. Even if there was no process of conspiracy among co-offenders, if a combination of intent to jointly process a crime and realize the crime is formed in order or impliedly through a certain crime, then a conspiracy relationship is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, a person who does not directly participate in the conduct shall be held liable for the other co-principal's act as a co-principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do235, Apr. 26, 2007; 2009Do13868, Apr. 29, 2010).

After compiling the evidence adopted by the first instance court and the lower court acknowledged the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined as follows: (a) loans of KRW 3.3 billion to Defendant B on April 11, 2006; (b) loans of KRW 1.4 billion (in case of Defendant B, KRW 80 million); (c) loans of KRW 1.4 billion to Defendant A Co., Ltd. on July 2008; (d) loans of KRW 1.5 billion on December 28, 2006 to X Co., Ltd.; (e) loans of KRW 8.8 billion on March 30, 207; (e) loans of KRW 11.3 billion to Defendant AF; (e) loans of KRW 3.3 billion to Defendant B Co., Ltd. on external audit; (e) loans of KRW 1.3 billion to Defendant E-B Co., Ltd.; and (e) thus, constitutes an aggravated punishment of KRW 1.3 billion on external audit; and (e., KRW 3 billion loans to Defendant E.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s findings of fact

The judgment is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the intent and joint principal offense of occupational breach of trust, the principle of no punishment without law

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies 1.5 billion won among the facts charged, 21.4 billion won loan to Defendant A’s S Co., Ltd., 21.4 billion won loan, 21.4 billion won loan, 1.5 billion won loan to K Co., Ltd.’s limited liability company, 2008.10, 2008.10, 2000 won loan to Defendant A and D, 2.2 billion won loan to each individual borrower, 2.8 billion won loan, 3.5 billion won loan to Defendant B, 205, 3.5 billion won loan to Defendant C Co., Ltd., Ltd., 2005, 3.5 billion won loan to Defendant B, 208.3 billion won loan to Defendant A Co., Ltd., Ltd., and 208.3 billion won loan to Defendant C Co., Ltd.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim In-bok

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok, Counsel for the appeal

Justices Park Young-young