Defendant 1 and three others

Park Ho-ho et al.

Law Firm continental, Attorneys Choi Jong-jin et al.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and fine for 17,200,000 won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 50,000,000 into one day.

The number of detention days before this judgment is sentenced shall be 252 days per defendant 1, and 181 days shall be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for defendant 4.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order the Defendants to pay the amount equivalent to each of the above fines.

The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) against Defendant 1, each violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report possession of stocks held on March 9, 2007, and April 9, 2007, each violation of the duty to report possession of stocks held on April 9, 2007, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) against Defendant 2 and 3, all the charges against Defendant 2 and Defendant 4

피고인 1은 공소외 7 주식회사의 최대주주인 공소외 14 주식회사의 실소유자이고, 홍콩 소재 페이퍼컴퍼니인 ▲▲▲, ◆◆◆, ◇◇◇, ●●●의 실소유자이자 ○○○에 개설된 위 페이퍼컴퍼니들 명의 계좌의 실소유자이다. 피고인 4는 ■■■의 주요주주로서 그 자회사인 ⊙⊙⊙의 우회상장을 위해 코스닥상장법인인 □□□(2007. 3.경 ◐◐◐로 상호변경)을 인수한 자이다.

[207Gohap 569] - The point of evasion of compulsory execution against Defendant 1

Defendant 1, upon the request of Nonindicted 1, the chairperson of △△ Group, around June 30, 199, accepted 2.58 million shares of Nonindicted Company 7 in the name of Nonindicted Company 14 in the name of Nonindicted Company 1, using part of USD 44.3 million embezzled by Nonindicted Company 1, upon the request of Nonindicted 1, the chairperson of △△△ Group, but around August 1999, the workout program was commenced for △△ Group. From March 2001 to March 2001, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation conducted an investigation into insolvent debt companies with respect to △△△ and Nonindicted 1, it discovered the fact that the funds embezzled by Nonindicted 1 were used for purchasing the shares of Nonindicted Company 7, and around September 24, 2001, the Corporation, as its affiliated organization, took legal measures, such as filing an application for provisional seizure against the said shares, with intent to conceal compulsory execution.

around September 27, 2001, at the office of the non-indicted 17 corporation, which is in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, concealed the total of 1630,00 share certificates of non-indicted 7 corporation 162, 250,000 won by delivering them to the auditor of the non-indicted 7 corporation and to the defendant 2 for his long-standing friendship, thereby allowing the defendant 2 to keep them.

[207Gohap720] - Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Defendant 4

피고인 4는 □□□을 인수하는 과정에서 자금이 부족하자 ■■■로부터 250억 원을 단기차용하기로 마음먹고, 대표이사 공소외 18, 감사 공소외 19와 공모하여, 공소외 18, 19는 ■■■의 경영자로서 회사자금을 대여함에 있어 자금의 사용처 및 상환계획 등을 조사하고 이사회결의 등 적법한 절차를 거치는 한편 적정가치의 담보를 제공받음으로써 회사에 피해가 발생하지 않도록 노력해야 할 임무가 있음에도 불구하고 그 임무에 위배하여,

피고인 4는 ‘급하게 돈이 필요하니 회사에서 자금을 마련하라’고 일방적으로 지시하고, 이에 공소외 18, 19는 자금의 사용처나 상환계획 등을 조사하지 아니하고 이사회 결의를 거치지 아니하는 한편, 담보도 전혀 제공받지 아니한 채 은행으로부터 기업어음을 할인받는 방식으로 250억 원을 대출하여 자금을 마련한 다음, 피고인 4의 자금 사용일정에 따라 피고인 4에게 2006. 9. 28.경 100억 원, 2006. 10. 4.경 150억 원 합계 250억 원을 대여함으로써, 피고인 4에게 동액 상당의 재산상 이익을 취하게 하고, ■■■에 동액 상당의 재산상 손해를 가하였다.

[207Gohap720] - Violation of each of the Securities and Exchange Act against Defendant 1 and 4

1. The point of inducing a fluctuation in the market price against Defendant 4;

No person may make any sale and purchase transaction of securities with the intention to attract anyone to make transactions at the KOSDAQ market, creating a misleading appearance of active trading or creating a change in the market price;

Defendant 4’s purpose is to artificially lower the third party’s allocation of shares with warrant and the issue price of the bonds with warrant and to attract the trading of the bonds with warrant in the process of △△ subscription;

On September 27, 2006, at around 13:05:44, Nonindicted 2, who was holding the shares of △△△△△ Group, ordered Nonindicted 2 to sell the shares at a lower price, and ordered Nonindicted 2 to sell the shares at a lower price of KRW 190 won than KRW 8,000,000, the immediately preceding conclusion of the crime, such as having Nonindicted 2 pay an order for sale at a lower price of KRW 500,00,00, as shown in the attached list of crimes (1). In addition, as shown in the attached list of crimes (i), a transaction was conducted to reduce the market price by inducing a lower price of the shares held by himself, Nonindicted 2, and 3 to a total of 328,05,000,00 won of the shares held by him

2. The fact that there is a conspiracy with Defendant 4 in trading;

No person may make a false representation in the transaction of securities listed on the KOSDAQ as if the transaction was booming or otherwise commit a conspiracy with another person for the purpose of leading another person to make a wrong judgment:

Defendant 4’s purpose is to mislead the misunderstanding of the investment of the global investment bank in the process of the acquisition of terms and conditions by transferring the shares held by Nonindicted 2 and 3 to ○○○○○ where Defendant 1’s account is opened in the course of the acquisition of terms and conditions, and thereby to mislead the misunderstanding of the investment of the global investment bank in the course of the acquisition of terms and conditions, or to enable ordinary investors to make a false judgment.

On September 27, 2006, around 15:24:25, an account opened in the name of ○○○○, in which Nonindicted Party 2 purchased KRW 7,300,00 of shares of 10,000 as a closing price on the day, and concluded a trading of 12,528 shares by ordering Nonindicted Party 2 to sell 13,463 shares at the same price, thereby having Nonindicted Party 2 sell 13,463 shares at the same price, and buying 2,936 shares owned by himself/herself, Nonindicted Party 2, and 3 as shown in the List of Crimes (2).

3. The defendant 1 and the 4's fraudulent and illegal transactions

A. False disclosure of the details, etc. of the acquisition fund by acquiring shares, etc. with Defendant 4

No person shall intentionally disseminate any false market price or false fact or other rumor or use a deceptive scheme in order to gain unjust profits in connection with the sale and purchase or other trading of securities, and no person shall commit any act to make money or other benefits which has property value by inducing misunderstanding of other persons, through false representation of material facts or making use of document in which any necessary fact is omitted, even though he has intended to gain money or other benefits which has property value,

피고인 4는 사실 ■■■로부터 250억 원을 차용하여 □□□의 인수자금으로 사용하였음에도 불구하고, 신주인수권부사채 및 구주인수에 관한 취득자금 내역에 관하여 2006. 10. 13.경 금융감독위원회 등에 ‘주식 등의 대량보유상황보고서’ 를 제출하면서 차입금이 없는 것처럼 ‘자기자금’이라고 기재하여 허위로 공시하고, 2006. 10. 20.경 금융감독위원회 등에 ‘취득자금 등의 조성경위 및 원천내용보완서’를 제출하면서 여전히 ‘배당소득으로 조성된 자기자금’이라고 기재하여 허위로 공시하고, 제3자 배정 유상증자 참여에 관하여 금융감독위원회 등에 ‘주식 등의 대량보유상황보고서’를 제출하면서 ‘배당소득과 이자소득으로 구성된 자기자금’이라고 기재하여 허위로 공시하였다.

B. The Defendants 1 and 4’s deceptive scheme and misunderstanding-causings using overseas pesters, and the distribution of false information in the process of acquiring bonds with warrants

No person shall intentionally disseminate any false market price or false fact or other rumor or use a deceptive scheme in order to gain unjust profits in connection with the sale and purchase or other trading of securities, and no person shall commit any act to make money or other benefits which has property value by inducing misunderstanding of other persons, through false representation of material facts or making use of document in which any necessary fact is omitted, even though he has intended to gain money or other benefits which has property value,

Defendant 4 asked Defendant 1 to use the overseas funds and overseas accounts and to participate in the capital increase in the name of the overseas Pacomer in the process of △△ underwriting, and Defendant 1 conspired to obtain the market price profits through the increase in stock price by having foreign investors prepare the same external amount as having made a normal investment in △ Doz, with the consent of Defendant 1.

피고인들은 2006. 9. 27.경 및 2006. 9. 28.경 피고인 1의 자금을 이용하여 ○○○ 명의로 □□□ 주식 29만 2,936주(발행주식 총 수의 9.52%)를 매수하고, 2006. 9. 28.경 제3자 배정 유상증자에 ▲▲▲, ◆◆◆, ◇◇◇ 3개 페이퍼컴퍼니 명의로 참여하여 □□□ 주식 50만주를 인수함으로써, 마치 해외기관투자자나 다수의 해외펀드 투자를 유치한 듯한 외양을 갖추는 위계를 쓰고,

피고인들은 2006. 9. 27.경부터 2007. 4. 3.경까지 별지 범죄일람표(3) 기재와 같이 ○○○ 명의로 □□□ 주식 합계 55만 5,587주를 매매하고, ▲▲▲, ◆◆◆, ◇◇◇ 명의로 □□□ 주식 합계 72만 3,812주를 매매하였음에도 대량보유보고 및 소유주식상황변동보고를 하지 않는 등으로 일반투자자들로 하여금 외국인들의 정상적인 투자나 지분변동이 있는 것과 같은 오해를 유발하고,

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendants recorded the upper limit on the continuous 12 transaction days from September 28, 2006, and sharply increased from 7,300 to 38,500 won per week, and on October 18, 2006, the Defendants used a deceptive scheme to attract foreign investment by acquiring KRW 90,000 per share of KRW 45,00 per share of 1.8 million with warrant acquired by Defendant 4 in the name of ○○○○ on October 18, 2006.

In this regard, the media, etc. revealed suspicions about the delay of ○○○○○○○○○○, and Defendant 4 spreaded false information that “foreign funds have been invested for the purpose of long-term possession by evaluating the value of △△△△△△△.”

4. Unjust gains;

As a result, the Defendants acquired unjust enrichment of KRW 17.19,1930,810, such as the list of crimes in attached Form 3(2).

5. Violation of each duty to report to Defendant 1 in bulk;

Any person shall report his holding status to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korea Securities Dealers Association within five days from the date on which the total number of stocks of an Association-registered corporation held in excess of 5% of the total number of stocks of the Association-registered corporation, and where the holding ratio is changed by more than 1% of the total number of stocks of the corporation, he shall report the changes to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korea Securities Dealers Association,

Defendant 1 did not make a report by October 12, 2006, even though ○○○ purchased 290,936 shares on October 2, 2006 on the part of ○○○○, by purchasing more than 5% of the total number of shares issued, Defendant 1 did not make a report by October 12, 2006, and even though the number of shares issued was changed above 1% by purchasing 90,00 shares with warrant in the name of ○○ around October 18, 2006, Defendant 1 violated the obligation to report possession of shares by not later than October 25, 2006, as shown in the attached list of crimes (5 Note 3).

[207Gohap 569] - The point of evasion of compulsory execution against Defendant 1

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Witness of Non-Indicted 20

1. Entry of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant 1 and 2 in each prosecutor's office;

1. Each statement made by each prosecutor on the defendant 2, non-indicted 21, and 20

1. A copy of Defendant 1’s entry or departure record, a copy of the Seoul Central District Court’s 2001Kadan5348 decision on provisional seizure of share certificates, a copy of the main paper prepared by Nonindicted 21 and Nonindicted 22, a certificate of acceptance of share certificates, a copy of the current status of delivery of share certificates, and a record of seizure

1. Each investigation report (a list of decisions on provisional seizure of stock certificates and consistent with the number of seized stock certificates and appending news report materials to the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation);

[207Gohap720] - Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Defendant 4

1. The defendant 4's partial statement

1. Each statement made by each prosecutor on Nonindicted 19, 23, and 8

1. Each copy of the protocol of examination of interrogation of Nonindicted 18 by prosecution

1. 2006. 9. 28.자 및 10. 4.자 이사회의사록 및 금전소비대차계약서, 2005년도 감사보고서 주석, 한국신용평가정보에서 입수한 주요재무제표 및 ■■■ 2006. 9. 가결산 재무제표, 전표, 자금일보, 대차대조표, 공소외 18에 대한 진술서 등본, 금융권 여신한도 자료, 하나은행 포괄한도거래 추가약정서 등(2006. 9. 28.자 할인어음 100억 5천만 원짜리 계산서 및 영수증 포함), 신한은행 여신거래약정서 등(2006. 10. 4.자 할인어음 100억원짜리 대출금 계산서 포함), 씨티은행 여신한도거래 약정서 등(2006. 10. 4.자 할인어음 50억 원짜리 및 37억 원짜리 각 실행계산서 포함), ■■■의 2006. 9. 28.자 및 2006. 10. 4.자의 자금수지 실적의 각 기재

[207Gohap720] - Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act against Defendant 1 and 4

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Witness of Non-Indicted 5

1. Each statement of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of each prosecutor's suspect against the Defendants (including the part of the non-indicted 5 confrontation)

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on Nonindicted 24, 5, 25, 8, 3, 2, 4, 26, and 27

1. Each copy of the statement and each copy of the statement prepared by Nonindicted 5, and each copy of the prosecutorial statement made by Nonindicted 5, respectively.

1. 2006. 9. 28. □□□ 주요경영사항(유상증자결정) 신고서, 위국인 투자등록신청서(HSBC), 위임장, 배당금수령 및 지급 등 주권위탁 관련 자료 사본, ▲▲▲ 명의 계좌 거래내역, 신주인수권증권 매매계약서(2006. 10. 18.자) 사본, 신주인수권증권 매매계약서 변경합의서(2006. 11. 15.자 및 2007. 2. 23.자), ○○○ 2004. 7. 1. - 2006. 11. 10. 주식 입출고 내역서, ◐◐◐ 제3자배정 유상증자관련 유가증권 신고서, ◆◆◆, ◇◇◇, ●●●, ○○○ 각 투자등록증 등 관련서류 사본, ◐◐◐ 주요 공시자료 목록 등, CS 구좌 □□□ 매매내역, 주식거래현황, ◐◐◐ 주식시세표 및 챠트, 주식매매대금 약정 사본, 피고인 4 관련 매매체결현황(2006. 9. 27.-28.), 공소외 2 관련 계좌의 거래내역, 공소외 2 관련 ◐◐◐ 매매현황, 2006. 10. 25. 주식 등의 대량보유상황보고서, □□□ 인수내용, CS구좌 □□□ 매매내역(2006. 9. 27. - 2007. 5. 31.), 2006. 9. 27. ◐◐◐ 종가결정내역, □□□ 주요경영상황 공시(2006. 10. 12.)자료, ◐◐◐ 보통주의 외국인 보유지분현황, 사기적 부정거래에 따른 부당이득액 등 수정보고, 2006. 9. 28.자 ◐◐◐ 이사회의사록, 2006. 9. 29.자 ◐◐◐ 이사회의사록, 2006. 12. 26.자 공소외 28 명의의 대금약정서 사본의 각 기재

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

A. Defendant 1

Article 327 (Evasion of Compulsory Execution, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 207-2 (1) 2, (2), and 1, Article 188-4 (4) 1 and 2, and Article 214 of the Securities and Exchange Act), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (generally, the point of fraudulent transactions, the choice of limited imprisonment and the imposition of fines), Article 210 (5-2, and Article 200-2 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act (Notice of Violation of Duty to Report in Bulk, and Selection of Imprisonment)

B. Defendant 4

Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355 (2) 5 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational breach of trust, the choice of limited imprisonment), Article 207-2 (1) 2, Article 207-2 (2) 1 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 188-4 (1) 1, 2, (2), 1, 1, (4) 1 and 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 214 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (generally, the fact of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, the selection of limited

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1

Article 37 (Aggravation of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment for Crimes of Violating Securities and Exchange Act due to Improper Fraudulent Transactions Whose Punishment is the largest)

B. Defendant 4

Article 37 (Aggravation of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes with Punishment and Offense)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Code

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1: Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[207Gohap 569] - The point of evasion of compulsory execution against Defendant 1

1. Determination as to whether the statute of limitations has expired

A. Summary of the argument

In this case, it is apparent that the statute of limitations (five years) had already been expired at the time of prosecution as of September 27, 2001. The prosecutor asserted that the statute of limitations had been suspended due to Defendant 1’s departure from the Republic of Korea for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment on January 25, 2003. However, Defendant 1 did not recognize Defendant 1 as a criminal offender at the time, and the possibility of criminal prosecution could not be expected at all due to the lack of the instant case as a criminal case, and thus, Defendant 1 cannot be said to have a purpose of escaping criminal punishment.

B. Determination

Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The statute of limitations shall be suspended in cases where a criminal is located abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.” The term “criminal punishment” means a person suspected of having committed a crime, and “a person suspected of having committed a crime” means not only the case which is currently subject to investigation but also the case where it is likely to be subject to investigation in the future. Therefore, in recognizing “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment”, it is sufficient to recognize the possibility that the criminal is likely to be subject to investigation in relation to the act in the future, and it is sufficient to recognize the possibility that the criminal may be subject to investigation in relation to the act in the future, and it does not interfere with the recognition thereof.

이 사건의 경우, 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 피고인 1은 공소외 6 공사가 2001. 9. 24.경 공소외 7 주식회사 주식에 대한 가압류를 신청하자 피고인 2에게 주권을 보관시킨 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 피고인 1이 범죄의 혐의가 있다고 의심될 만한 행위를 하였음은 명백하고, 여기에 앞서 든 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 피고인 1은 자신이 소유하는 해외법인 명의로 공소외 7 주식회사 주식을 인수하는 등으로 세간에 공소외 1의 해외재산관리인으로 각종 의혹을 받아오고 있었던 점, 검찰은 2000. 10.경부터 △△그룹에 대한 수사에 본격적으로 착수하여 2001. 2.경 관련자들을 기소하였고, 2001. 3. 6.경 공소외 1에 대한 체포영장이 발부되었던 점, 따라서 공소외 1이 체포된다면 피고인 1도 수사의 대상이 될 가능성이 충분히 있었던 점, 예금보험공사는 2001. 3.경부터 공소외 7 주식회사 주식을 공소외 1의 은닉재산으로 의심하면서 조사에 착수하였고 위 가압류 이후에는 주권의 행방을 찾고 있었던 점, 더욱이 한국자산관리공사는 2002. 9. 9.경 피고인 1 등을 상대로 공소외 7 주식회사 주식은 공소외 1의 은닉재산이니 이를 반환하라는 취지의 민사소송을 제기하기도 하였던 점, 한편 피고인 1은 1999년 17회, 2000년 16회, 2001년 11회에 걸쳐 수시로 입출국을 반복하다가 2003. 1. 25.경 출국한 이후 2008. 3. 8.경까지 입국하지 않았던 점, 이에 대해 피고인 1은 사업 때문에 바빠서 입국하지 못하였다고 주장하고 있으나, 피고인 1은 국내에 ♡♡빌딩을 소유하고 있고 공소외 7 주식회사의 대주주로서 회사의 경영권도 행사하고 있었는바, 그렇다면 국내에 입국할 만한 동기가 충분함에도 단순히 바쁘다는 이유로 입국하지 않았다는 것은 쉽사리 납득하기 어려운 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 피고인 1은 출국 당시인 2003. 1. 25.경 자신의 행위와 관련하여 수사의 대상이 될 수 있다는 가능성을 미필적이나마 인식하고 있었다고 봄이 상당하므로, 그 무렵부터 피고인 1의 입국 전일인 2008. 3. 7.경까지 이 사건 범행의 공소시효가 정지되었다고 할 것이니, 이를 다투는 피고인 1 및 변호인들의 주장을 받아들이지 아니한다.

2. Judgment on whether the crime of evading compulsory execution is established

A. Summary of the argument

Defendant 1 has kept the share certificates of Nonindicted Co. 7 and kept them in custody in the Republic of Korea. Defendant 1 had no right to Nonindicted Co. 6 with respect to Nonindicted Co. 1, and was unaware of whether the said share certificates were subject to compulsory execution. As such, Defendant 1’s act does not constitute the act of concealment in the form of a legal doctrine.

B. Determination

(1) According to the aforementioned evidence, around March 20, 201, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation discovered the circumstances where non-financial resources created by Non-Indicted 1 were used as funds for acquiring the shares of Non-Indicted 7 Co. 3 and started an investigation; the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation confirmed the substance of Non-Indicted 14 corporation from August 21, 2001 through account tracking, etc. The Non-Indicted 6 corporation filed an application for provisional attachment against Non-Indicted 1 with the Seoul District Court on September 24, 2001 as the preserved right, and received the decision around September 29, 201; on the other hand, Defendant 1 left the Republic of Korea on September 23, 2001; on September 24, 2001, Defendant 2 entered the Republic of Korea on September 27, 2001; and on September 27, 2001, Defendant 2 did not obtain the said share certificates again from the Republic of Korea on September 28, 2001.

The above facts and records revealed as follows, i.e., Defendant 1 found the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation upon commencement of an investigation into the substance of Nonindicted Co. 14, including the account tracking (Evidence No. 307 and testimony No. 20). Defendant 1 appears to have been aware of the fact that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation was investigating Nonindicted Co. 7’s non-indicted 1’s stock purchase process, etc. with respect to the non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s departure from the Republic of Korea on the following day after the provisional seizure application, and left the Republic of Korea on the following day. Defendant 1 did not have any explanation to the effect that the above situation of entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea was without any explanation to the effect that Defendant 1 attempted to be informed of the fact that “the whereabouts of Nonindicted Co. 7 was obtained from her whereabouts,” and that Defendant 1 had no relation to Defendant 1’s non-indicted 2’s stock certificates to be retained in Korea.

(2) As to this, Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted that Defendant 1 did not have a criminal intent of evading compulsory execution on the ground that Defendant 1 was not aware of the fact that Nonindicted 1 had guaranteed the obligation of △△△ by Nonindicted 1 at the time that he had guaranteed the obligation of △△.

The crime of evasion of compulsory execution is established when a creditor is harmed by concealing, destroying, falsely transferring property or bearing false debt under specific risk to be subject to compulsory execution. In this case, the actor must recognize the specific risk of being subject to compulsory execution and the subject of recognition shall include the existence of the claim. However, the existence of the claim should be ultimately determined through a court decision. Thus, the "Recognizing the existence of the claim" means recognizing the fact that there is a claim that can be the basis of compulsory execution, and it cannot be said that it means recognizing the specific cause and validity of the claim.

According to the above evidence, although it appears that Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that Non-Indicted 1's probation guarantee was made (Evidence No. 3048 of the record), even if the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation did not recognize the specific cause and validity of the claim at the time of home, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that there was a claim that can be the basis of compulsory execution at least, as long as the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation commenced an investigation for the recovery of the concealed property of Non-Indicted 1 and confirmed the substance of Non-Indicted 14 corporation and accordingly applied for provisional attachment against Non-Indicted 14 corporation.

(3) Next, Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted that Defendant 1 had no purpose of evading compulsory execution since they applied for provisional disposition of securities against the shares of Nonindicted Co. 29, which were known as Nonindicted Co. 7’s concealed property in addition to the shares of Nonindicted Co. 7, and received the decision from Sungwon District Court on October 4, 2001. If Defendant 1 had an objective of evading compulsory execution, the shares of the said Nonindicted Co. 29 should be delivered and stored in real property, but they should be deposited in Nonindicted Co. 30; Defendant 1 first applied for the order of provisional seizure against Nonindicted Co. 6 and lost in the lawsuit on the merits after it was rejected; thus, Defendant 1 had no purpose of evading compulsory execution. Thus, even if Defendant 1 deposited the shares of Nonindicted Co. 29 with Nonindicted Co. 30, the possibility that the delivery of the shares would be disclosed if they are concealed, it cannot be excluded from the possibility that Defendant 1’s application for compulsory execution after delivery.

(4) Lastly, according to the current Civil Execution Act, Defendant 1 and defense counsel asserted that, under the current Civil Execution Act, it cannot be actually executed on the share certificates held by Defendant 1 on the basis of the above provisional seizure that Nonindicted Co. 14 was the debtor, and thus, even if Defendant 1 kept the share certificates to Defendant 2, it cannot be deemed as a concealment act in light of the fact that there cannot be any infringement on compulsory execution.

The term "covering property" in the crime of evading compulsory execution means that a person who conducts compulsory execution is unable or difficult to discover property (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3387 Delivered on October 9, 2003). Even if the above provisional seizure alone cannot be actually executed, it can be possible for Nonindicted 6 to execute the execution by means of seizing the right to claim delivery of corporeal movables under the Civil Execution Act. As long as it is more difficult for Defendant 1 to find it by delivering a share certificate to a third party who is not related with Nonindicted 14, it cannot be considered as a concealment of the crime of evading compulsory execution. Thus, the above assertion is also rejected.

[207Gohap720] - Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Defendant 4, and violation of each of the Securities and Exchange Act against Defendant 1 and Defendant 4

1. Basic facts

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

가. 피고인 4는 ⊙⊙그룹 일가인 망 공소외 31의 아들로서 물류회사인 ■■■의 대주주이다. ■■■의 지분은 피고인 4의 모 공소외 8이 약 53.86%, 피고인 4가 약 46.14%를 소유하고 있는 것으로 알려져 있다. 한편 피고인 1은 공소외 31, 8과 이웃으로 지낸 인연으로 오래 전부터 친분이 있었고, 피고인 4와도 매우 가깝게 지내는 사이였다.

나. 피고인 4는 2006. 2.경부터 ■■■의 자회사인 ⊙⊙⊙을 우회상장하기로 마음먹고 적절한 인수대상 회사를 물색하기 시작하였다. 그러던 중 2006. 6.초순경 투자신탁회사에 근무하던 공소외 4로부터 □□□을 소개받고 대표이사이자 대주주인 공소외 25를 만나 협상을 시작하였으나 가격에 관한 의견차이로 협상이 이루어지지 않았다. 그런데 피고인 4는 2006. 9.초순경부터 공소외 25에게 수시로 연락하면서 ‘ □□□ 인수를 준비하고 있으니 다른 곳에 회사를 매각하지 말라’는 취지로 부탁하기 시작하였다.

C. Defendant 4, on September 2006, prepared a specific acquisition plan for the Periodical via Nonindicted 4, 2006. The content of the plan was to acquire approximately KRW 800,000 shares, to issue new shares with approximately KRW 1.5 million and KRW 1.8 million through the third party’s allocation of new shares, and to acquire part of them through the third party’s allocation of new shares, and to sell them to the other in the future, to collect the acquisition cost (the so-called “EXIT PLN”), and to combine three methods of acquiring bonds with 1.5 million or KRW 1.8 million through the issuance of bonds with warrants. The expenses incurred therein were estimated to be KRW 2.6 billion or KRW 3 billion. Meanwhile, Defendant 4 was classified as shares of Nonindicted 2 and 3, and planned to secure approximately KRW 400,000 of their shares before the acquisition.

라. 피고인 4는 2006. 9.중순경 홍콩에서 피고인 1 및 그의 재산관리인인 ○○○ 직원 공소외 5를 만나 ⊙⊙⊙의 우회상장 계획과 함께 위와 같은 인수방안을 설명하였다. 피고인들은 당시 피고인 1이 자금을 조달하기로 하고, 피고인 1의 계좌가 개설되어 있는 ○○○ 명의로 주식을 장내 매수하는 한편, 피고인 1의 해외법인 명의로 유상증자에 참여하고 피고인 4가 인수할 예정인 신주인수권부사채를 주당 4만 원 이상에 인수하기로 합의하였다. 피고인 1은 공소외 5에게 지시하여 피고인 4를 계좌의 서명권자로 추가시켜 주었다. 한편 피고인 4는 그 자리에서 ‘해외법인 명의를 이용하여 고가에 신주인수권부사채를 인수하고 이를 언론에 발표하면 주식시장에서 호재가 될 수 있다’는 취지로 이야기하였다.

(B) The Defendants and their defense counsels agree to acquire bonds with warrants in excess of KRW 40,00 per week under the circumstances where the acquisition company was not determined at the time. As such, in light of the empirical rule, the possibility that there was any possibility that Nonindicted 5’s statements were not reliable. Although Defendant 4 had already been unable to reach an agreement, the above acquisition plan was included in the method of collecting expenses incurred by issuing and selling bonds with warrants, Defendant 4 considered the sale price of bonds with warrants to recover expenses incurred in acquiring bonds, and it appears that Defendant 1 would have naturally explained the name of the company to Defendant 4 as a matter of course. Although Defendant 4 did not specifically mention the name of the company at that time, in light of the relationship with the Defendants, background leading up to only Hong Kong, etc., the Defendants could not be ruled out, and even if so, Defendant 4 could not have consistently stated that there was any other circumstance that there was any lack of credibility in Nonindicted 5’s statement in the name of Nonindicted 4, who did not have any legal effect in light of the aforementioned circumstances.

마. 또한 피고인 4는 2006. 9. 26.경 ■■■ 공소외 19 상무에게 약 250억 원 의 자금을 차용해줄 것을 요청함으로써 □□□ 인수를 위한 자금조달계획을 마무리 지었다.

(실제로 피고인 4는 ■■■로부터 2006. 9. 28.경 변제기는 2006. 12. 26.로 정하여 100억 원을, 2006. 10. 4.경 변제기는 2006. 12. 29.로 정하여 150억 원을 차용하였다)

F. Meanwhile, Defendant 4, on September 2006, proposed that Nonindicted 2 and 3 plan to acquire the shares of them in KRW 9,000 per share while suggesting that Defendant 4 would take over the shares of them in KRW 9,000 per share. After that time, Nonindicted 2 and 3 accepted this. However, around September 26, 2006, Defendant 4 instructed Nonindicted 2 and 3 to sell the shares of KRW 9,00 per share, which would reduce the difference between the actual selling price and KRW 9,00 per share.

G. From around 13:00 on September 27, 2006, Defendant 4 instructed Nonindicted 2 and 3 to pay a selling order by lowering the price. Nonindicted 2 and 3, the immediately preceding conclusion began to place a selling order at a lower price of KRW 190 won than KRW 8,190, and issued a selling order at a lower price of KRW 8,00. Defendant 4 also sent a selling order to Nonindicted 5 in Hong Kong, and the price drops to KRW 7,50,00, around 14:40, and KRW 7,50,00, up to KRW 97,00,000, KRW 20,000, KRW 97,000. However, Nonindicted 5 sent an order to purchase shares under the name of ○○○○○○’s 20,000, KRW 97,000,000, KRW 97,07,000,000.

아. 피고인 4 2006. 9. 27. 18:00경 공소외 32에게 연락하여 최종적으로 □□□을 인수하기로 하고, 2006. 9. 28. 오전경 □□□의 이사회에서 제3자 배정 유상증자 및 신주인수권부사채발행 결의가 이루어졌다. 제3자 배정 유상증자에는 피고인 4, 1 소유의 해외 페이퍼컴퍼니 3개사가 참여하여 피고인 4가 100만주, ▲▲▲, ◆◆◆이 각 20만주, ◇◇◇가 10만주를 주당 7,000원에 배정받았고, 신주인수권부사채는 피고인 4가 180만주 전부를 주당 8,390원에 인수하였다. 피고인 4는 2006. 10. 12.경 공소외 32가 보유한 45만주를 주당 19,500원에 인수함으로써 □□□ 인수를 마무리 지었다 주6) .

자. 이후 □□□의 주가는 2006. 9. 28.경부터 연일 상한가를 기록하면서 2006. 10. 18.경 주당 38,550원까지 급등하였다. 피고인 4는 2006. 10. 18.경 피고인 1과 합의한 대로 피고인 1의 해외 페이퍼컴퍼니인 ●●●에 신주인수권부증권(신주인수권부사채에서 사채 부분을 분리한 형태) 90만주를 주당 45,000원에 매도하였다. 피고인 4는 위 자금을 이용하여 당초 계획한 대로 ■■■로부터 차용한 250억 원을 상환하였다. 한편 그 무렵부터 주식시장에서 ●●●의 정체에 대해 의혹이 제기되기 시작하자, 피고인 4는 언론을 통해 ●●●는 장기투자를 목적으로 하는 홍콩계 투자회사라고 발표하였다.

차 2006. 9. 27.경부터 2007. 5. 2.경까지 ○○○, ▲▲▲, ◇◇◇, ◆◆◆ 명의의 주식에서 발생한 시세차익은 약 172억 원에 이른다.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Defendant 4

A. Summary of the argument

피고인 4가 □□□의 인수과정에서 ■■■로부터 250억 원을 차용한 것은 사실이다. 그러나 피고인 4는 ■■■ 경영진의 의사결정 과정에 관여하거나 지시하는 등으로 경영진의 배임행위를 교사하거나 이에 적극 가담한 사실이 없다, 피고인 4는 당시 차용금을 변제할 만한 충분한 자력이 있었기 때문에 ■■■에 손해발생의 위험성은 없었다고 보아야 하고, 이후 변제기에 차용금을 전부 변제함으로써 ■■■에 손해가 발생하지도 않았다.

B. Determination

위 각 사실 및 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 피고인 4는 2006. 9.초순경부터 □□□을 인수하기로 마음먹고 260억 원 내지 300억 원으로 추산되는 인수자금을 조달하는 계획을 세웠던 것으로 보이는 점, 그런데 피고인 4는 자금조달을 위해 별다른 노력을 하지 않다가 □□□ 인수 전날인 2006. 9. 26.경에 이르러서야 ■■■에 자금을 차용하여 줄 것을 요구하였던 점, 당시 피고인 4로서는 ■■■로부터 자금을 차용하지 못한다면 □□□의 인수가 불가능한 상황이었으므로, ■■■ 경영진들은 피고인 4의 요구를 사실상 거절하기 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, ■■■ 경영진들은 담보도 제공받지 않은 채회사어음을 할인하면서까지 자금을 대여해주었던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 대주주인 피고인 4가 회사 경영진들의 의사결정과정에 사실상 영향력을 행사하여 그들의 배임행위에 가담하거나 이를 교사하였다고 봄이 상당하고, 한편, 피고인 4는 처음부터 주가상승 후 신주인수권부사채를 매도하여 차용금을 변제하려고 계획하고 있었던 것으로 보이는바, 가사 피고인 4의 자력이 충분하였다고 하더라도, 차용금이 변제기에 제때 변제될 수 있는지 여부가 주가상승이라는 불확실한 요소에 좌우되고 있었던 이상, ■■■에 손해발생의 위험성이 없었다고 할 수 없으므로, 이를 다투는 피고인 4 및 변호인들의 주장을 받아들이지 아니한다.

나아가 피고인 4가 신주인수권부증권을 매도하여 변제기에 차용금을 변제함으로써 결과적으로 ■■■에 손해가 발생하지 않았다고 하더라도 이는 범죄성립 이후의 정황에 불과하므로 배임죄의 성립에 방해가 되지 아니한다.

3. Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act against the defendant 1 and 4

A. Summary of the argument

(1) The point of fraudulent illegal transactions against Defendant 1 and 4

(A) False disclosure of the details of the acquisition fund by acquiring shares, etc. with Defendant 4

■■■는 피고인 4와 모친인 공소외 8이 지분을 100% 소유하고 있는 회사로서 ■■■로부터 자금을 차용하였다고 하더라도 이는 사실상 자기자금으로 볼 수 있다. 피고인 4는 ⊙⊙그룹의 일가로서 충분한 자력이 있는 것으로 알려져 있었고, 실제로 ■■■로부터 매년 수십억 원에 이르는 배당금을 받는 등 충분한 자력이 있었는바, 피고인 4가 주식 및 신주인수권부사채의 취득자금을 ‘자기자금’으로 공시하였다고 하더라도, 이는 일반투자자들의 투자판단에 영향을 미치는 ‘중요한 사항’이 아니고, 일반투자자들로 하여금 오해를 유발하게 할 가능성도 없다.

(B) The Defendants 1 and 4’s deceptive schemes and misunderstanding-causings using overseas pages against the Defendant 1 and 4, and the distribution of false information in the process of acquiring bonds with warrants

Since both companies participating in the process of the acquisition of L/C are overseas corporations, and Defendant 1, the actual owners of the corporation, even if the Defendants acquired shares, etc. using the name of the overseas corporation, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants forged false appearance. Moreover, even if an overseas corporation purchases shares, it cannot be readily concluded that the price of shares increases, and there is no causation between deceptive scheme and profits. Furthermore, Dou-guu-guu is an overseas corporation with the purpose of long-term investment as expressed by Defendant 4.

(2) The defendant 4's inducement of price decline

피고인 4가 신주발행을 위한 이사회결의 전일 및 당일에 공소외 2, 3으로 하여금 □□□ 주식을 매도하게 하고 자신이 보유하던 주식도 아울러 매도한 것은 사실이다. 그런데 ⊙⊙⊙의 우회상장을 위해서는 비우호지분으로 분류되던 공소외 2, 3의 지분을 전부 매도하게 할 필요가 있었고 또한 불필요한 오해를 유발하지 않기 위해 자신의 지분도 유상증자 전 매도할 필요가 있었다. 그 과정에서 급격히 매도물량이 증가함으로써 자연스럽게 주가가 하락하였고 이에 불가피하게 가격을 낮추어 매도하게 된 것일 뿐, 신주의 발행가격을 낮추기 위해 시세를 하락시킬 의도가 있었던 것은 아니다.

(3) The point of conspiracy and trade with Defendant 4

피고인 4가 공소외 2, 3으로 하여금 □□□ 주식을 매도하게 하고 공소외 5로 하여금 이를 매수하도록 한 것은 사실이다. 그런데 이는 ⊙⊙⊙의 우회상장을 위해 공소외 2, 3의 지분을 사전에 확보하기 위한 것으로서 이는 정상적인 시간외 대량매매(소위 ‘블록트레이드’)와 다르지 아니하므로, 일반투자자들에게 그릇된 판단을 하게 할 의도가 있었다고 볼 수 없다. 또한 ○○○ 명의로 주식을 매수하였다고 하더라도 전산시스템에는 ○○○ 증권에 개설된 계좌를 통해 매수한 것으로 표시되고 일반투자자들 입장에서는 실제 누구의 명의로 매수를 하였는지 알 수 없기 때문에 ○○○가 직접 투자를 하였다고 오인할 가능성은 처음부터 없다고 보아야 한다.

(4) Violation of each of the duty to report to Defendant 1 in bulk

○○○ 명의로 매수한 주식은 ○○○가 그 매수주체이고 ▲▲▲ 등 명의로 매수한 주식도 ○○○가 그 주식의 자산운용회사로 등록되어 있으므로, 대량보유보고의무는 ○○○에 있다고 보아야 한다. 또한 이 사건 공소사실은 대량보유보고의무를 위반한 사실을 사기적 부정거래의 한 태양으로 보고 있으므로, 대량보유보고의무위반 및 사기적 부정거래로 인한 증권거래법위반의 점은 서로 법조경합 관계에 있다고 보아야 한다.

B. Determination

(1) Location of the issue

This part of the facts charged is premised on the fact that Defendant 4 borrowed funds from Defendant 1 as the person who calculates the funds, and therefore, it is necessary to first judge who is the person who calculates the funds, and to judge each argument.

(2) Judgment on the premise

위 각 사실 및 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 피고인 4는 피고인 1의 자금을 이용하여 ○○○ 명의로 주식을 매수하고 이후 ○○○, ▲▲▲, ◇◇◇, ◆◆◆ 명의의 주식에 대한 매매거래를 계속해 오기는 하였으나, 그 자금을 인출하거나 인출을 요구한 적은 없었던 점, 피고인 1은 공소외 5를 통하여 정기적으로 주식거래상황을 보고받았고, 일부 주식의 매도를 직접 지시하기도 하였던 점, 피고인 1은 주식매매거래가 종료한 후 공소외 5에게 지시하여 그 손익에 관하여 보고를 받았던 점, 또한 피고인 1은 신주인수권부사채를 인수한 후 주가가 하락하기 시작하자 공소외 5에게 불평을 하기도 하였고, 2006. 11. 20.로 예정된 인수대금 납입을 연기하면서 공소외 8로부터 손실보장 취지의 약정서를 작성받은 후 인수대금을 납입하였던 점, 만약 피고인 4가 자금의 계산주체라면 ○○○ 등 명의의 주식을 매도하여 ■■■에 대한 차용금을 변제할 수 있었을 것임에도 대주주의 지분매각으로 인한 주가하락의 위험을 감수하면서까지 신주인수권부사채를 매도하고 그 대금으로 위 차용금을 변제할 이유는 없었을 것으로 보이는 점, 비록 피고인들과 사이에 피고인 4가 자금을 차용한 것이라고 해석할 여지가 있는 2006. 12. 26.자 약정서가 작성된 바 있으나, 피고인 4가 자금을 투자받은 것이라고 해석되는 2006. 12. 22.자 약정서도 작성되었고, 이에 관하여 공소외 8은 검찰에서 ‘ 피고인 1의 처 공소외 33이 피고인 4의 사업에 투자를 하였다가 잘못하면 손해를 보게 생겼으니, 신주인수권부사채 인수대금을 납입해주는 조건으로 약정서를 작성해 달라고 하여 2006. 12. 22.자 약정서를 작성해 주었으나, 이후 공소외 33이 내용을 수정해달라고 요구하여 2006. 12. 26.자 약정서를 작성하게 되었다‘는 취지로 진술하고 있는바(증거기록 제3570정), 그렇다면 피고인 4가 처음에는 자금을 투자받았으나, 나중에 손실발생을 우려한 피고인 1의 요구로 2006. 12. 26.자 약정서의 내용대로 ’원금 + 160억 원‘을 보장해주기로 약속하였을 가능성을 배제할 수 없는 점, 또한 피고인 1은 검찰에서 ’자신은 돈만 빌려주었지 주식투자에는 관계치 않아 증권거래법위반이라 생각하지 않는다‘고 자필로 기재한 사실이 있기는 하나, 이는 피고인들 사이에 최종적으로 확정된 2006. 12. 26.자 약정서의 내용을 염두에 두고 그와 같이 기재하였거나 또는 자신이 피고인 4의 범행에 가담하지 않았음을 강조하기 위해 그와 같은 기재를 하였을 가능성을 배제할 수 없는 점 등을 종합적으로 고려해 보면, 자금의 계산주체는 피고인 1로 봄이 상당하다.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants, among the facts charged in the instant case, had ordinary investors mistake that there was a normal investment of investors by accepting the shares, etc. of Dogsung in the name of the foreign juristic person, the essence of the fraudulent transaction does not vary even if there is a difference in the premise of the facts charged, and thus, it is determined as follows.

(3) The point of fraudulent illegal transactions against Defendant 1 and 4

(A) False entry, such as the details of raising funds for acquiring shares against Defendant 4

위 각 사실 및 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 피고인 4는 주식 145만주, 신주인수권부사채 180만주를 인수하고, 피고인 1은 주식 약 80만주를 인수함으로써 피고인들은 발행주식 총수의 과반수를 넘는 대규모 물량을 확보하고 있었던 점, 따라서 시장에서 실제로 유통되는 주식물량이 많지 않았기 때문에 주가변동에 대한 불확실성이 크게 가중되었을 것으로 보이는 점, 이러한 상황에서 대주주가 주식 및 신주인수권부사채 취득자금을 ‘자기자금’이라고 공시하는 것은 시장에서 대규모 매도물량에 대한 공포심을 해소하고 향후 주가가 안정적으로 유지될 것이라는 기대를 불러옴으로써 일반투자자들의 투자판단에 영향을 미치게 된다는 것은 경험칙상 명백하고, 피고인 4가 자신이 대주주로 있는 ■■■로부터 자금을 차용하였다고 하더라도, ■■■에 대한 차용금 변제의무가 면제되는 것은 아니므로 이와 달리 볼 수 없는 점, 또한 피고인 4의 자력이 충분하다고 하더라도, 일반투자자들 입장에서 개인재산으로 차용금을 변제하려고 하는지, 주식을 처분하여 차용금을 변제하려고 하는지 알 수 없기 때문에, 위와 같은 공시가 그들의 투자판단에 영향을 미치지 않는다고 할 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 주식취득자금 조성내역 등에 관한 공시는 일반투자자들의 투자판단에 영향을 미치는 중요한 사항이고, 그럼에도 피고인 4가 이를 허위로 공시함으로써 그들로 하여금 오해를 유발시켰다고 봄이 상당하므로, 이를 다투는 피고인 4 및 그 변호인들의 주장을 받아들이지 아니한다.

(B) The Defendants 1 and 4’s deceptive schemes and misunderstanding-causings using overseas pages against the Defendant 1 and 4, and the distribution of false information in the process of acquiring bonds with warrants

위 각 사실 및 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 피고인 4가 □□□의 인수비용으로 조달한 약 308억 원 중 250억 원은 ■■■로부터 단기로 차용한 자금이었던 점, 그런데 피고인 4가 유상증자를 통해 인수한 신주는 보호예수 규정의 적용을 받아 1년간 처분할 수 없었고, 공소외 32로부터 인수한 구주도 경영권 확보차원에서 처분할 수 없었던 점, 따라서 피고인 4가 위 차용금을 상환하기 위해서는 신주인수권부사채를 고가에 매도하는 외에는 다른 방법이 없었고, 피고인 4도 처음부터 이를 계획하고 있었던 점, 피고인들 사이에서는 이미 일정한 수준으로 주가가 상승하면 신주인수권부사채를 4만 원 이상에 인수하기 합의되어 있었던 점, 이를 위해서 피고인 4는 피고인 1에게 상당한 규모의 이익을 보장하였던 것으로 보이고 이는 결국 주가상승을 통해서만 가능한 일이었던 점, 따라서 피고인 4는 최대한의 주가상승을 의욕하였을 것이고 피고인 1로부터 자금만을 조달할 수 있었음에도 계좌까지 함께 이용하여 ○○○ 명의로 주식을 매수한 것도 이와 무관하지 않다고 보이는 점, 피고인 4는 ○○○ 명의로 주식을 매수한 다음날 유상증자를 실시하면서 피고인 1 소유의 3개 해외 페이퍼컴퍼니를 참여시켰던 점, 따라서 일반투자자들로서는 ⊙⊙그룹과 관련된 피고인 4의 배경 등을 비추어 해외기관투자자 또는 다수의 외국인 투자자들이 정상적인 투자판단을 거쳐 투자를 한 것으로 오인할 가능성이 있다는 것은 경험칙상 명백한 점, 더욱이 피고인 4는 ‘운영자금조달 및 신규사업진출을 목적으로 회사 경영상 필요자금을 신속히 조달하기 위하여 개별투자자를 대상으로 납입능력을 고려하였다’는 취지로 공시하면서 위와 같은 오인을 한층 강화시켰던 점, 한편 피고인 4가 ○○○ 및 피고인 1의 해외 페이퍼컴퍼니 명의로 매수한 주식을 거래한 내역, 즉 2006. 10. 19.경 8,600주를 주당 33,416원에 매도하고, 같은 날 50,856주를 주당 33,584원에 매수하였으며, 2006. 10. 20.경 31,900주를 주당 38,396원에 매도하고, 같은 날 25,000주를 주당 38,589원에 매수하는 등을 살펴보면, 그 거래량 및 거래가격 등에 비추어 이는 정상적인 거래라기보다는 외국인 지분의 활발한 변동이 있는 것과 같은 외관을 갖추려는 의도적인 거래로 밖에 볼 수 없는 점, 한편 피고인 1은 거액의 자금을 조달하면서도 ⊙⊙⊙의 기업가치 등에 대하여 평가해 본 적이 없었던 점, 피고인 1은 피고인 4에게 자금만 조달해 줄 수 있었음에도 피고인 4에게 계좌까지 함께 이용할 수 있게 해주었던 점, 피고인 1은 ♡♡빌딩의 소유자로서 국내에서 자금조달이 가능하였음에도 국내자금을 홍콩 스몰록 계좌로 송금한 다음 ○○○ 및 여러 페이퍼컴퍼니 계좌로 나누어 다시 국내로 송금하였고, 외국인 투자등록이 되어 있는 자신 또는 스몰록 명의를 사용하는 대신, 외국인 투자등록도 되어 있지 않은 다른 페이퍼컴퍼니 명의를 사용하였던 점(그 과정에서 피고인 1은 공소외 5에게 국내에 자신의 회사로 알려진 스몰록이 나타나서는 안된다는 취지로 당부하기도 하였다), 또한 피고인 1은 다수의 해외컴퍼니를 이용함으로써 주식의 대량보유보고의무를 회피하려 하였던 점, 이후 주가가 38,550원까지 상승하자 피고인 1은 ●●● 명의로 신주인수권부사채를 주당 45,000원에 인수해주었고, 피고인 4는 이로써 ■■■에 대한 차용금을 변제할 수 있었던 점, 그런데 이는 처음부터 합의된 거래였고, 아울러 당시의 주가와 인수가격과의 차이 등에 비추어 이는 정상적인 투자판단을 거친 거래가 아니었던 것으로 보이는 점(처음에는 계약서도 작성되지 않았고 나중에 공시를 위해 국문계약서가 작성되었을 뿐이다), 이후 주가가 상승세를 멈추자 피고인 1은 인수대금 납입을 미루면서 손실보장을 요구하였고 피고인 4로부터 원금 및 160억 원을 받기로 하는 약정서를 작성받기도 하였는바, 피고인 1은 처음부터 시세차익만을 목적으로 자금을 조달하고 계좌를 이용하게 해 준 것일 뿐 장기보유를 목적으로 투자한 것은 아니었던 것으로 보이는 점, 그럼에도 불구하고 피고인 4는 언론에 ‘ ●●●가 □□□의 가치를 높이 평가하여 장기보유를 목적으로 투자한 것’이라는 취지의 허위사실을 유포하였고, 이마저 피고인 1과 사이에 사전에 논의된 내용이었던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인들이 해외투자자들의 정상적인 투자가 있는 것처럼 위계를 사용하고 허위사실을 유포함으로써 상당한 규모의 시세차익을 얻었다고 봄이 상당하므로, 이를 다투는 피고인들 및 변호인들의 주장을 받아들이지 아니한다.

(4) The defendant 4's inducement of price decline

(A) The term "purposes of inducing a trade" in Article 188-4 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act refers to a trade that may cause an artificial change in the market price due to artificial manipulation, and thus, to make investors mistake that the market price was formed by the principle of natural demand and supply on the securities market for the purpose of inducing the purchase and sale of securities, and it does not involve any question as to whether the market price exists for other purposes or its main purpose, and the degree of awareness of the purpose is sufficient to do so. Meanwhile, the term "trade that misleads the purchaser of securities or changes the market price" in subparagraph 1 of the same Article refers to a trade that may cause an artificial change in the market price and trading volume to be formed on the free competition market according to normal demand and supply without resorting to the market price factors, and where a series of acts have occurred, it is sufficiently possible to determine the market price as a whole due to such acts, but it is sufficient to determine the market price as a whole, such as whether the transaction price is the most likely factor before and after the market price being declared.

(B) In light of the above facts and evidence, Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 3 expressed their intent to sell their shares at KRW 9,00 per share of KRW 40,00,000 for KRW 60,000 for KRW 40,00,000 for KRW 7: 0,000 for KRW 6: 0,000 for KRW 7: 4:0,000 for KRW 6: 0,000 for KRW 7: 0,000 for KRW 6: 4:0,000 for KRW 6:3:0,000 for KRW 6:0,000 for KRW 7: 4:0,000 for KRW 6:0 for KRW 6:3:0,00 for KRW 6:3:0,000 for KRW 6:3:0,000 for KRW 6:30,00,000 for KRW 6.

(C) As to the above, Defendant 4 and his defense counsel agreed to compensate for the difference of KRW 9,00 per share to Nonindicted 3 and 2, and Defendant 4 agreed to compensate for the difference of KRW 9,00 per share, in light of the fact that the lower limit of the closing price was lower than KRW 6,630, and that the maximum discount rate of KRW 10% allowed under the law was applied, but in fact, the issue price of new shares was determined by applying the discount rate of KRW 4.1% as of KRW 7,300 on the preceding day, and that if Defendant 4 attempted to lower the issue price of new shares, it was more effective to sell shares continuously before the preceding day, and that Defendant 4 did not have any intention to reduce the market price in light of the fact that there was a loss to Defendant 4.

The above assertion is rejected in light of the fact that even if Defendant 4 intentionally sold shares at a low price because the discount rate has a big impact on the stock price at the time of issuance of new shares, so it cannot be ruled out that Defendant 4 intentionally lower discount rate for the increase of a large width, and that Defendant 4 incurred losses during the overall process of acquisition and merger, even if Defendant 4 sold shares at a low price and the difference to be compensated by Defendant 4 was increased, since Defendant 4 had Defendant 1 purchase shares at a low price so that Defendant 1 can obtain profits from the market price, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 4 sustained losses in the overall process of acquisition and merger.

(5) The point of conspiracy and trade with Defendant 4

(A) Article 188-4 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that "the purpose of the transaction is to mislead others to make a wrong judgment," or "the purpose of other persons to make a false judgment," is to mislead investors as if a natural transaction has occurred on the securities market, although the transaction was conducted through an artificial conspiracy trading (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1696 delivered on July 22, 2002). This purpose is not to question whether it exists for other purposes or its main purpose is not, but it is sufficient that the degree of awareness of the purpose is not a positive or conclusive recognition, and it is sufficient that there is a dolusent recognition, and whether there was a misunderstanding of investors or whether there was a loss to others (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1164 delivered on November 10, 205).

(나) 위 각 사실 및 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 피고인 4는 공소외 2, 3에게 매도주문을 낼 것을 지시하는 한편, 공소외 5에게는 매수주문을 내도록 하여 매매거래를 성사시켰던 점, 위 매매거래가 시간외 거래로 이루어졌다고는 하나, 피고인 4는 처음에 장내에서 매매거래를 성사시키려고 하였으나 공소외 5의 매수주문이 제대로 처리되지 않는 바람에 부득이하게 시간외 거래로 이루어 진 것이라는 점에 비추어, 이는 처음부터 주가에 충격을 주지 않으려는 의도하에 성사되는 시간외 대량매매와는 그 성격이 다르다고 보이는 점, 더구나 시간외 대량매매는 증권거래소에 신고한 경우에 한하여 예외적으로 허용되는 것으로서(코스닥상장업무규정 제21조), 그와 같은 신고를 거치지 않은 이 사건 매매를 시간외 대량매매와 같다고 할 수 없는 점, 또한 전산시스템에 ○○○ 증권계좌만 표시된다고 하더라도 ○○○ 증권계좌는 주로 해외투자자가 이용한다고 알려져 있으므로, 일반투자자들로서는 ○○○가 아니더라도 해외투자자가 투자를 한 것으로 오인할 가능성이 충분히 있다고 보이는 점, 더구나 ⊙⊙그룹의 일가인 피고인 4가 다음날 □□□의 유상증자에 참여하고 그 다음날 신주인수권부사채를 인수함으로써 일반투자자의 위와 같은 오인을 더욱더 강화시킨 측면도 있다고 보이는 점, 피고인 4는 ■■■로부터 자금을 조달하여 자신의 명의 또는 ■■■의 명의로 공소외 2, 3의 주식을 매수할 수 있었음에도 ○○○ 명의로 주식을 매수하였던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 4에게는 일반투자자들로 하여금 해외투자자들의 자연스러운 거래가 일어난 것처럼 그릇된 판단을 하게 할 목적이 있었다고 봄이 상당하고, 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 일반투자자들로 하여금 그릇된 판단을 하게 할 목적은 다른 목적과의 공존 여부나 어느 목적이 주된 것인지는 문제되지 아니하므로 피고인 4에게 공소외 2, 3의 지분을 확보할 목적이 있었다고 하더라도 위와 달리 판단할 수는 없다.

(6) Violation of each of the duty to report to Defendant 1 in bulk

(A) According to the Securities and Exchange Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, a person who holds 5% or more of the total number of stocks, etc. is obligated to report his holding status and purpose of holding, and where the holding ratio has changed above 1% of the total number of stocks, etc. of the corporation in question, the person is obligated to report details of the change (Article 200-2(1) of the Securities and Exchange Act). In this case, the term “holding” refers to cases where a person owns stocks, etc. on his own account regardless of whose name the person owns the stocks, etc. (Article 21(1) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Article 10-4(1)

(B) Even if shares purchased in the name of ○○○○ or shares held by ○○○○ are shares of an asset management company, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 is the subject of the calculation of funds. As such, it is clear that Defendant 1 is the subject of the ownership of profit and loss as a result of the disposal of the shares. Accordingly, Defendant 1 is the subject of the reporting on the shares held in this case. In addition, in addition to the purpose of prohibiting the unfair conduct of the market, the Securities and Exchange Act purports to have the existing managers take effective countermeasures against the shares held in bulk, which are likely to transfer the right to control the company under the Securities and Exchange Act, in addition to the purpose of prohibiting the transfer of the right to control the company, it is difficult to view that the two are in a legally competitive relationship. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and defense counsel’s arguments disputing this issue

1. Defendant 1

First of all, with respect to the evasion of compulsory execution, the crime of this case was committed by Defendant 1, who evaded the state’s compulsory execution and attempted to restrain the recovery of public funds raised in the national blood, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the circumstances and result of the crime. However, considering the fact that the above shares are currently seized at the investigative agency and will ultimately be attributed to the State.

Next, with respect to the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, Defendant 1 promised to receive considerable profits from the market price by Defendant 4, and the appearance of Defendant 1, such as inducing a large amount of investments by using the name of a large number of overseas corporations, thereby obtaining large profits from the market price in light of the circumstances and contents of the crime. Furthermore, this large amount of gains from the market price of this case reaches approximately KRW 17.2 billion, and this was reverted to Defendant 1. However, considering the fact that Defendant 1 did not lead the crime of this case, Defendant 1 did not take account of the fact that the gains from Defendant 1 acquired through the entire process of this case (7) and Defendant 1 did not lead the crime of this case.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances that Defendant 1 is currently aged, there is no particular criminal history, Defendant 1’s character and conduct, environment, and motive, means, and results of the instant crime, and the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentence as ordered shall be determined.

2. Defendant 4

First of all, as to the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, the crime of this case is not good, and the market price profit of this case is about 17.2 billion won. Defendant 4 appears to have planned and led the crime of this case. Although the market price profit resulting from the crime of this case did not belong to Defendant 4, the profits acquired by Defendant 4 through the whole process of this case seems to have been significant. However, considering the fact that Defendant 4 seems to have caused unreasonable desire to grow up to the company that was friendly by Defendant 4, and it appears that Defendant 4 did not stop the crime of this case to obtain only the market price profit.

다음으로 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)의 점에 관하여 보건대, 이 사건 범행은 피고인 4가 대주주로서의 지위를 이용하여 ■■■로부터 거액의 자금을 차용하여 사용한 것으로서 범행 경위 및 내용에 비추어 그 죄질이 좋지 아니하다. 이 사건 범행으로 인한 피해액이 250억 원에 이르는 등 그 규모도 상당하다. 다만, 위 자금이 모두 변제됨으로써 피해가 회복된 점을 고려한다.

In addition, Defendant 4’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, motive and means of the instant crime, and results thereof, the sentence as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc.

[207Gohap569] - Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Defendant 1, 2, and 3

1. Facts charged;

Defendant 1 is the actual owner of Nonindicted Co. 14, a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 7, who controls Nonindicted Co. 7; Defendant 2 was working as an auditor of Nonindicted Co. 7 from June 200 to Defendant 3; and Defendant 3 was working as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 7 from December 1, 2006 to March 2006.

In a civil lawsuit brought by the Korea Asset Management Corporation against Nonindicted Co. 14, the Defendants issued convertible bonds at a low price and converted them into stocks after acquiring the stocks in the name of an overseas corporation owned by Defendant 1, thereby attempting to move the control over Nonindicted Co. 7 and raising them as follows.

Defendant 1, around November 2005, appointed Defendant 3 as representative director and ordered Defendant 2 to issue convertible bonds at the same time, and Defendant 3 and Defendant 2 decided to issue convertible bonds at the board of directors around February 2006.

In such a case, under the resolution of the board of directors, Defendant 3 and Defendant 2 violated the following duties, while undergoing lawful procedures such as the resolution of the board of directors, on the other hand, examining the previous transaction examples, the cases where corporate shareholders have appraised the stock value, and the grounds for appraisal, etc., by requesting an objective corporate assessment institution such as a specialized accounting corporation and an appraisal institution to assess the real value of the stocks in consideration of the company’s asset value, inherent value, growth potential, etc., so that the reasonable conversion price can be calculated and the maximum possible funds can be paid to Nonindicted Co. 7. In addition, the issuance of convertible bonds at a remarkably low price, and even if there were duties to handle affairs for the interest of Nonindicted Co. 7, such as not transferring

First of all, around February 14, 2006, the minutes of the board of directors on March 3, 2006 were prepared retroactively as if the resolution was made by the board of directors on the issuance of the domestic privately placed convertible bonds, even though the issuance of the foreign privately placed convertible bonds was not subject to a resolution by the board of directors at all.

In addition, until March 10, 2006, the shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 7 traded the shares of Nonindicted Co. 7 with KRW 20,500 or KRW 45,00 per share, and around the end of the year of 2004, the EDR presented the price of KRW 20,50 per share to acquire Nonindicted Co. 7, and Defendant 1 accepted this price, but the Korea Asset Management Corporation and the Korea Asset Management Corporation did not take over it as a litigation issue. Meanwhile, considering the situation of Nonindicted Co. 7 at the time of March 10, 2006, considering the characteristics of the pertinent business, it is calculated as KRW 12,940 per share, which is one of the most remuneration methods, and according to the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it was calculated as KRW 16,778 per share.

Nevertheless, Defendant 3 and 2 did not review the above situation at all, and without going through any evaluation procedure to calculate a reasonable conversion price, set the conversion price of KRW 5,000 per share, which is remarkably lower than the actual value of the stocks, and issued the 10,400,000 dollars of the convertible bonds that do not fall substantially from the stocks, as a third party allocation method.

결국 피고인 1이 이를 인수한 다음 2007. 11. 13.경 자신의 페이퍼컴퍼니인 ▲▲▲ 명의로 주당 5,000원의 전환가격에 모두 주식으로 전환하여 발행주식 총수의 약 34.5%에 해당하는 합계 203만 1,536주를 취득하였다.·

이로써 피고인들은 ▲▲▲에게 위 주식 발행분에 대한 공소외 7 주식회사의 실제가치에 해당하는 416억 4,648만 8,000원(EDS가 실사 후 제시한 주당 20,500원 기준) 내지 340억 8,511만 1,008원(상속세 및 증여세법의 평가법에 의한 주당 16,779원 기준)과 피고인 1이 공소외 7 주식회사에 납입한 전환사채 인수대금 101억 5,768만 원과의 차액인 314억 8,880만 8,000원 내지 239억 2,743만 1,008원 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하게 하고 공소외 7 주식회사에 같은 금액 상당의 재산상 손해를 가하였다.

2. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

A. Nonindicted Co. 7 is a company that mainly runs the business of maintaining and repairing systems, system integration and development, etc., and is an unlisted company that has been growing in the course of △ Group’s computer work as an affiliate company.

B. Until May 30, 201, Nonindicted Co. 7 entered into a long-term service agreement with △△ Group affiliates to outsourcing electronic affairs, but the contract with Nonindicted Co. 34,35,36,37, and38 was rescinded due to the separation of major affiliates from the workshop of △△ Group. From around 2005, Nonindicted Co. 40, who acquired Nonindicted Co. 39, demanded the cancellation of the contract, etc., the sales of Nonindicted Co. 39, which led to the annual reduction of KRW 260 billion in 203,604, KRW 250 billion in 250 billion in 2005, and KRW 239.5 billion in 205 (the average sales of Nonindicted Co. 70 billion in 205 as of the year 2005, but the average sales of Nonindicted Co. 40 billion in 200 billion won in 205).

C. On January 2006, the Defendants ordered Nonindicted 41 and Nonindicted 42 team leader to take measures to raise funds in the amount of KRW 10 billion, and Nonindicted 42 reported on January 20, 2006: (a) around January 20, 2006, Nonindicted 42 ordered Nonindicted 42 to take measures to determine the conversion price; (b) Nonindicted 42 ordered Nonindicted 42 to issue an overseas convertible bond and to calculate the conversion price; and (c) Nonindicted 42 considered that the amount of KRW 5,00 per share can be calculated at the reasonable conversion price.

D. On February 14, 2006, Defendant 2 and 3 held the board of directors and passed a resolution on the conversion of the bonds with the total face value of 10 billion won, 5.5% of the surface interest rate, 100% of the conversion rate, 5,000 won with the maturity on March 10, 2009, 100% of the conversion rate, 5,000 won with the stocks to be issued, and 3 months after the date of issuance (the date when one year has elapsed from the date of issuance on March 3, 2006 was changed to the date when one year has elapsed from the date of issuance on March 3, 2006). The total face value of the bonds was modified to USD 10,400,00 in consideration of the exchange rate at the time, and the period of the request for conversion was changed to one year after the date when the issuance was made). The Samsung Securities was selected as the manager and issued overseas convertible bonds around March 10, 2006.

3. Summary of the assertion

At the time of the instant case, Nonindicted Co. 7 was placed in a situation where sales have been continuously decreased upon the termination of a service service contract with △△ Group affiliate affiliates, and thus, it was necessary to enter into a new business. Accordingly, the Defendants promoted the issuance of convertible bonds after reviewing various financing schemes, and conducted the lawful resolution by the board of directors in the process, as well as the procedures necessary to calculate a reasonable conversion price. Furthermore, the conversion price at the time of the instant case was in the over-the-counter market in light of the company’s share price, which was traded in the over-the-counter market at the time of the instant transaction, the issue of convertible bonds constitutes capital transaction, and thus, it cannot be said that there was damage to the company. Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendants conspired to commit the instant crime.

4. Determination

A. The issues of the instant case

The facts charged of the instant case reveal that the Defendants suffered damage to the company by issuing convertible bonds at a remarkably low price without undergoing adequate procedures for the purpose of transferring control, notwithstanding the absence of the necessity of raising funds. However, even if there are issues in the purpose and procedure of issuing convertible bonds, if convertible bonds are issued at an adequate price, it cannot be deemed that the crime of occupational breach of trust is not established. Accordingly, in this case, the issue is whether the convertible bonds have been issued at a remarkably low price.

B. Whether the convertible bonds of this case were issued at a significantly low price

(1) Criteria for determination

Even in cases of stocks issued by a corporation which is not listed on the Stock Exchange or is not registered on the Stock Exchange, where there is an example of normal transactions that properly reflects the objective exchange value thereof, the value of the stocks shall be appraised by considering the market value at the market price (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3191 Decided September 28, 2001).

(2) The existence of normal transaction practices

(A) Examples of transactions between Nonindicted 43 and Nonindicted 44

According to the records, Nonindicted Co. 43 purchased KRW 45,00 per share of Nonindicted Co. 7 around 200 and Nonindicted Co. 44 purchased KRW 100,00 per share of KRW 45,00 per share on or around 202. However, in light of the fact that the above transaction was conducted not only before 4-6 years but also most information and communication companies were at the time when so-called IT booming booming, it is difficult to view it as a normal transaction practice reflecting the objective exchange value of the company.

(B) transaction practice with the EDS

According to the records, ES, which is an information and communications company in the United States, can be acknowledged as having presented the price of KRW 20,500 per share on condition that it takes over Nonindicted Co. 7 corporation around 2004. However, the above price is the price offered after ES has gone through the first precise inspection (limited to the data provided by Nonindicted Co. 7 Co., Ltd.) and the second precise inspection (actual verification of objective validity of the above data) is the price that can be changed in the actual price negotiation process, and the above price was the price included in the management premium. In light of the fact that the above price was the price included in the management premium, it is difficult to view it as a normal transaction example reflecting the objective exchange value of the company.

(다) 인터넷 주식정보제공 사이트 ◈◈(www. ◈◈.com) 및 ▣▣(www. ▣▣.co.kr)에서의 각 거래 실례

According to the records, the share price changes as the shares of Nonindicted Co. 7 are continuously traded every day, and the flow of each share price shows a similar level, and the circumstances that appear to have been caused by specially conspired between the parties to the transaction or unreasonable manipulation of the transaction at each of the above sites do not seem to be a normal transaction example reflecting the objective exchange value of each of the above sites.

(3) The basis for calculating an appropriate conversion price;

(A) A financing due to the issuance of convertible bonds may be a factor for stock price increase due to the improvement of corporate value and profit structure, and as a company is expected to do so and issued convertible bonds, the reasonable conversion price is not necessarily to be excluded from the share price increase at that time. However, if the share price increase is not derived from the result of objective valuation of the company, but from the result of reflecting the intention to obtain profits from market price, it cannot be used as a basis for fair conversion price calculation. The distinction between the two should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the stock price trend before and after the date of the decision of issuance, the internal situation of the company, etc.

(나) 이 사건 경우 ◈◈과 ▣▣의 2005년에서 2006년까지의 주가추이에 관하여 보건대, 공소외 7 주식회사의 주당 가격은 2005. 6.경부터 2006. 1. 10.경까지 4,000원대에서 형성되다가 2006. 1. 11.경 5,000원대, 2006. 1. 20.경 6,000원대, 2006. 2. 초순경 7,000원대에서 유지되다가 2006. 2. 10.경 8,000원대로 상승하고, 전환사채 발행결정일인 2006. 2. 14.경 ◈◈은 8,940원, ▣▣에서는 8,300원, 전환사채 발행일인 2006. 3. 10.경 ◈◈은 8,190원, ▣▣에서는 8,500원으로 상승하였고, 이후 8,000원대에서 등락을 거듭하다가 2006. 5.중순경 7,000원대로, 2006. 6.중순에서 7.초순경 6,000원대로 하락하고 이후 2006.말경까지 6,000원대에서 등락을 거듭하고 있었다.

(다) 기록에 의하면, 공소외 7 주식회사 내에서는 2006. 1.초순경부터 100억 원 규모의 자금조달을 검토하고 있었던 것 외에는 별다른 주가상승 요인이 없었던 점, 그런데 그 이후 주가가 지속적으로 상승하다가 전환사채 발행결정일 무렵 주가가 급상승하여 최고가에 근접하였고( ◈◈의 최고가는 2006. 2. 15.경 주당 8,990원, ▣▣의 최고가는 2006. 2. 28.경부터 2006. 3. 13.경까지 주당 8,500원) 전환사채 발행 이후 주가가 하락추세를 보이다가 결국 주당 6,000원대에서 안정적으로 형성되었던 점, 특히 ◈◈의 주가는 전환사채 발행결정일 무렵을 제외하고는 전일대비 평균 1% 이내의 변동율을 보이다가 2006. 1. 19.경 6.15%, 2006. 1. 20.경 6.30%, 특히 전환사채발행을 위한 보고서가 작성된 2006. 2. 10.경에는 16.67%나 폭등하였던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 전환사채 발행결정일 및 발행일 무렵의 주가는 회사의 객관적 가치를 반영한 시가라고 볼 수 없고, 오히려 공소외 7 주식회사 내에서 자금조달을 검토하기 시작한 2006. 1.경 이전 약 6개월 동안 주가가 주당 4,000원 대에서 형성되었고, 급등세를 보인 후 하락하다가 2006. 6.중순에서 7.초순경부터 약 6개월 동안 주당 6,000원대에서 형성된 점에 비추어, 회사의 객관적 가치를 반영한 시가는 주당 5,000원에서 6,000원 사이라고 봄이 상당하므로 이를 공정한 전환가격 산정의 기초로 삼기로 한다.

(4) Whether the conversion price per share is 5,000 substantially low

(A) Convertible bonds are convertible rights and bonds representing a reasonable conversion price, so no consideration shall be given to the general bond value, such as surface interest rate, maturity, market interest rate, and common bond value at the time of issuance, the price at the time of issuance, the period for request for convertible rights, and the fluctuation of stock price.

(B) The surface interest rate of the convertible bonds of this case was set at 5.5%, and the maturity was set at March 10, 2009. This was lower than the market interest rate at that time (an average interest rate of 5.94% to 5.99% per annum, average household loan interest rate from 5.68% per annum, 5.71% to 5.71% per annum), and the maturity was set at 3 years from the date of issuance, and the period of conversion was set at 4,00 won per week after the maturity. The six months prior to the financing plan was set at 00 won per week. In light of the various circumstances surrounding the service service contract with the former △△ Group, it was difficult to deem that the subscription price was lower than 50% per share, and it was difficult to deem that the subscription price was lower than 00 won per share to have been set at 0,000 won per share.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the issuance of the instant convertible bonds causes damage to Nonindicted Co. 7, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 32

[207Gohap720]

1. The point of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the false public disclosure of the details, etc. of raising funds for stock acquisition among the fraudulent illegal transactions against Defendant 1;

A. Facts charged

피고인 1은 피고인 4와 공모하여, 누구든지 유가증권의 매매 기타 거래와 관련하여 부당한 이득을 얻기 위하여 고의로 허위의 시세 또는 허위의 사실 기타 풍설을 유포하거나 위계를 쓰는 행위를 하여서는 아니되고, 중요한 사항에 관하여 허위의 표시를 하거나 필요한 사실의 표시가 누락된 문서를 이용하여 타인에게 오해를 유발하게 함으로써 금전 기타 재산상의 이익을 얻고자 하는 행위를 하여서는 아니됨에도 불구하고, 피고인 4는 사실 ■■■로부터 250억 원을 차용하여 □□□의 인수자금으로 사용하였음에도 불구하고, 신주인수권부사채 및 구주인수에 관한 취득자금 내역에 관하여 2006. 10. 13.경 금융감독위원회 등에 ‘주식 등의 대량보유상황보고서’를 제출하면서 차입금이 없는 것처럼 ‘자기자금’이라고 기재하여 허위로 공시하고, 2006. 10. 20.경 금융감독위원회 등에 ‘취득자금 등의 조성경위 및 원천내용보완서’를 제출하면서 여전히 ‘배당소득으로 조성된 자기자금’이라고 기재하여 허위로 공시하고, 제3자배정 유상증자 참여에 관하여 금융감독위원회 등에 ‘주식 등의 대량보유상황보고서’를 제출하면서 ‘배당소득과 이자소득으로 구성된 자기자금’이라고 기재하여 허위로 공시하였다.

B. Determination

피고인 1이 피고인 4에게 자금과 계좌를 이용할 수 있도록 해주고, 피고인 4는 피고인 1의 자금 및 계좌를 이용하여 □□□을 인수한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같으나, 피고인 4가 공시한 부분은 ■■■의 자금을 이용한 것일 뿐 피고인 1의 자금을 이용한 것이 아니라는 점에 비추어, 위와 같은 사실만으로 이 부분 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하기에 부족하다.

결국 이 부분 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하기 위해서는 적어도 피고인 1이 피고인 4가 □□□의 인수과정에서 ■■■로부터 250억 원을 차용하였음에도 이를 자기자금인 것처럼 허위로 공시할 것을 인식하거나 예상하였고, 그럼에도 불구하고 자신의 자금과 계좌를 이용할 수 있게 해줌으로써 □□□의 인수를 가능하게 해주었다는 사실이 인정되어야 할 것인 바, 검사가 제출한 증거들을 면밀히 살펴보아도 위와 같은 사실을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of the crime of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the remaining fraudulent transaction in which the crime

2. The fact that Defendant 1 violated the Securities and Exchange Act due to inducement of price decline and a conspiracy and trading with other parties;

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 in collusion with Defendant 4:

(1) The purpose of anyone is to artificially lower the third party’s allocation of shares issued and the issue price of bonds with warrants and induce the sale and purchase transaction of securities with the intention of inducing the sale and purchase transaction at the KOSDAQ market, despite the fact that he or she is not involved in the sale and purchase transaction at the same time as the sale and purchase transaction at the KOSDAQ market is likely to mislead him or to change the market price.

On September 27, 2006, at around 13:05:44, Non-Indicted 2, who held the shares of YU and ordered Non-Indicted 2 to sell the shares at a lower price, and ordered Non-Indicted 2 to sell the shares at a lower price of KRW 190 won than KRW 8,00,000, the immediately preceding conclusion of the 500 shares, and made a transaction to change the market price by inducing Non-Indicted 2, 3, and Defendant 4 to lower the market price for the total shares held or managed by Non-Indicted 2, and 328,058 shares, as shown in the attached list of crimes (1).

(2) The purpose of any person is to mislead others as to the transaction of securities listed on KOSDAQ, or to mislead ordinary investors into believing that the transaction was booming, by transferring the stocks held or managed by Nonindicted 2 and 3 in the name of ○○○, which is the account used by Defendant 1, and thus, by inducing them to mislead others as if the investment of global investment banks was induced in the process of △ merger and acquisition, even though he did not know that the transaction was booming, or cause others to make a wrong judgment;

On September 27, 2006: (a) around 15:24:25, 200 won of shares 100,000 per closing day through an account in the name of ○○○○○○, and (b) purchased shares 13,463 shares at the same price, and (c) purchased shares 2,52,936 shares, which were held or managed by Nonindicted 2, 3, and Defendant 4, in total, six times as shown in the list of crimes in attached Table (2) of the crime committed by having Nonindicted 2, 3, and Defendant 4 sell shares 13,463 shares at the same price.

B. Determination

Defendant 1 made it possible for Defendant 4 to use funds and accounts; Defendant 4 had induced the fluctuation of market price by using Defendant 1’s funds and accounts; Defendant 1 had conspired with each other; however, it is insufficient to acknowledge Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged solely on the basis of the above facts, in light of the fact that the inducement of market price and the conspiracy to trade are not necessarily accompanied in the process of acquisition by the company.

In conclusion, in order to find Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged, it should be recognized that Defendant 1 knew or predicted the above acts of Defendant 4, but allowed Defendant 1 to use funds and accounts, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize the above facts after closely examining the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of a crime of violating the Securities and Exchange Act due to fraudulent illegal transactions related to the comprehensive crime

3. Violation of each of the Securities and Exchange Act due to Defendant 1’s violation of the duty to report possession of stocks held in bulk on February 22, 2007, March 9, 2007, and April 9, 2007

A. Facts charged

Any person shall report his holding status to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korea Securities Dealers Association within five days from the date on which the total number of stocks of an Association-registered corporation held in excess of 5% of the total number of stocks of the Association-registered corporation, and where the holding ratio is changed by more than 1% of the total number of stocks of the corporation, he shall report the changes to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korea Securities Dealers Association,

Defendant 1, around February 14, 2007, purchased at least 11,00 shares of ○○ in the name of ○○○, and thereby there was a change of 1% or more of the total number of issued shares, Defendant 1 violated the obligation to report possession of shares on three occasions in total on or around March 9, 2007 and around April 9, 207, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form (4), including that of not reporting to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korea Securities Dealers Association by February 22, 2007.

B. Determination

In order to find a guilty of this part of the facts charged, the fact that changes have occurred in at least 1% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares within five days before the date of each report as of February 22, 2007, March 9, 2007, and April 9, 2007, should be recognized. Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is closely examined, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

4. Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report possession in bulk against Defendant 4;

A. Facts charged

Any person shall report his holding status to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korea Securities Dealers Association within five days from the date on which the total number of stocks of an Association-registered corporation held in excess of 5% of the total number of stocks of the Association-registered corporation, and where the holding ratio is changed by more than 1% of the total number of stocks of the corporation, he shall report the changes to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korea Securities Dealers Association,

Defendant 4, in collusion with Defendant 1 on September 28, 2006, did not report to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korea Securities Dealers Association by October 12, 2006, even though he/she held 290,936 shares of ○○○○ in the name of ○○○○ by purchasing more than 5% of the total number of outstanding shares, and violated his/her duty to report eight times in total as shown in the attached list of crimes (4).

B. Determination

As seen earlier, Defendant 1 is a holder of shares as the main body of calculating the funds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Ma720, Mar. 2, 200). Defendant 1 has the duty to report in bulk to Defendant 1 during the determination of the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Ma720, Mar. 2, 200). Therefore, in order to be found guilty of this part of the facts charged, Defendant 4 should also be recognized as a joint holder of shares.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, is found not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act (the prosecutor argues that the defendant 4 may be deemed joint holders of stocks by the provision of the Act or by a money trust contract, security contract, or any other contract, where he/she has a right to acquire or dispose of the relevant stocks, etc., or voting right. However, the term "right to dispose of stocks" of the above provision refers not to the right to engage in a factual act such as the purchase and sale of stocks, but to the authority to contribute the legal effect arising from the purchase and sale of stocks to himself/herself. Thus, even according to the above provision, the defendant 4

[207Gohap721] - Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) against Defendant 1

1. Facts charged;

The relationship between Defendant 1 and the Chairperson of the △△ Group on July 1.

Defendant 1 was a second-year post-high school of the Chairperson of △△△ Group 1, and there was no particular exchange with Nonindicted Party 1 even after the withdrawal of the society, as well as in the high school.

Since the IMF crisis in 1997, △△ Group suffered liquidity crisis due to debts excessively borrowed from domestic and foreign sources. Since around 1998, the strong restructuring pressure from the government was put into a serious crisis to the extent that the name will depend on the government policy direction.

From the end of 1998, Nonindicted Party 1 became aware of the fact that Defendant 1 was on the part of the former president of Nonindicted Party 10 and was on the part of the former president of Nonindicted Party 10, and Defendant 1 became aware of the fact that Defendant 1 was on the part of Defendant 1.

공소외 1은 위 시기경 자신의 집무실로 사용하던 ▼▼호텔 펜트하우스 등지에서 피고인 1을 만나 피고인 1에게 △△그룹의 어려운 사정을 설명하고, 당시 △△회생을 위하여 노력하는 △△구조조정 본부장 공소외 11, 계열사 사장 공소외 12 등을 피고인 1에게 소개하여 주고, 공소외 1을 비롯한 △△ 임원들은 피고인 1에게 공소외 10 전 대통령 및 정부정책에 영향을 미치는 고위공무원 등에게 △△그룹의 회생을 위해 도와달라고 부탁하였다.

<1> Efforts for the progress of △△ and Rehabilitation

Around July 1998, the Government pressured the so-called 5 groups such as △△ Group to conduct restructuring. On July 25, 1998, the Financial Supervisory Commission held the limit of holding corporate debentures of financial institutions (CPs) on July 25, 1998, and on October 27, 1998, the fund circulation of the △△ Group, which had been in excess of the limit of possession of corporate debentures of financial institutions (CPs) on October 27, 1998, was rapidly changed.

On October 29, 199, the report on the liquidity crisis of △△ Group was announced in the Japanese Labor Service Securities on October 29, 199, and the crisis of △△ Group was opened, and on December 7, 199, Nonindicted 1 announced a restructuring plan to reduce Nonindicted 45 and Nonindicted 13 Stock Companies from 41 to 9 companies, but did not obtain external trust.

On June 30, 1999, Nonindicted Co. 45 and Nonindicted Co. 13 were influenced discussions on the workshop of △△ Group because the Biga of Nonindicted Co. 45 and Nonindicted Co. 13 selected legal management. On July 19, 1999, Nonindicted Co. 1 provided a security equivalent to 10 trillion won to the creditors of financial institutions, etc., and received benefits such as 4 trillion won for new loans and 6-month maturity extension from the Government and the Bonds Group, but the decision on commencing the workout was finally declared on August 26, 199 for the affiliates of △△ Group.

On the other hand, in order to escape from the liquidity crisis of the above △△ Group, Nonindicted Party 1 requested on three occasions on November 29, 1998, including January 3, 1998, to the effect that the former president of Nonindicted Party 10 directly complain of the difficulties of Nonindicted Party 10 and help the rehabilitation. On July 21, 1999, Nonindicted Party 1 made efforts for the rehabilitation of the △△ Group to the extent that it appears that it would be possible to request the President of △△ Group to provide financial support in accordance with the restructuring plan announced by the △△ Group.

On December 198, Non-Indicted 1 and △△△ Restructuring Headquarters concluded an agreement to improve the financial structure with the claims group, and reported the restructuring performance to the principal creditor bank and the exclusive bank for each company affiliated with △△△ Group by the fifth day of each following month, and the restructuring coordination center reported the restructuring performance performance to the Cheong Dae-dae Economic Secretary, the principal creditor bank, the department in charge of △△△△△△△ Bank, the principal creditor bank, and the credit supervisory office of the Financial Supervisory Service.

피고인 1은 그 이전에는 별다른 교류가 없던 공소외 1을 위와 같이 ▼▼호텔에서 만난 것을 계기로 이후 계속하여 공소외 1을 만났으며, 1999. 4. ~ 5.경 공소외 1은 구조조정본부장 공소외 11, △△ 사장 공소외 12 등 △△ 임원에게 피고인 1을 ‘우리 회사를 위해 애쓰고 있는 분이니 앞으로 이분과 △△의 어려운 문제를 상의하라’면서 소개하였다.“

공소외 1 및 공소외 11, 12는 ▼▼호텔 펜트하우스, 커피숍 등지에서 수회 피고인 1을 만나 △△그룹의 유동성 문제를 해결하기 위하여 기업어음(CP) 만기연장, 회사채 발행 허용, D/A (Document against acceptance, 외상수출어음)할인 허용 등이 필요하다는 취지의 의사를 표시하면서 위 사항들을 공소외 10 전 대통령을 비롯한 고위공무원 등에게 전달해 줄 것을 부탁하였다.

In response to the above solicitation for the rehabilitation of △△ Group, Nonindicted Party 1 had expressed his mind in favor of Defendant 1 in return for the solicitation.

On the other hand, most main companies, including Nonindicted 35, 13, and 9, in △△ Group, were in crisis due to window dressing accounting and loans from financial institutions using the window dressing accounting, and Nonindicted 7, which have most stocks of Nonindicted 35, 13, and 9, generated profits without debt, and △ Group, concluded a statement of understanding (MU) around June 199 by promoting sale to the U.S. page system and reported the results of attracting foreign capital to the government.

In addition, Nonindicted Co. 9’s electronic exchange business (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 9”) was a business division with very promising business prospects and with economic benefits to be sold approximately KRW 40 billion to the U.S. Newbro branch around December 1998.

However, around June 199, the sales negotiations of Nonindicted Co. 7 and Nonindicted Co. 9 did not properly have a negative impact on the liquidity crisis of △△△△, and Nonindicted Co. 1 had to report to the Government as if he succeeded in attracting foreign capital through a foreign corporation other than the above page system or Newbox branch in order to maintain the performance of corporate restructuring through attracting foreign capital already reported to the Government. As above, Nonindicted Co. 1 was placed in a situation where Nonindicted Co. 1 should report to the Government the performance of corporate restructuring through attracting foreign capital while he was willing to deliver the liquidity support problem, etc. of △△△ to Nonindicted Co. 10 and to the senior public officials of the government, and made a request for the payment at the intervals of solicitation, and there was a change in the shape of attracting foreign capital in the name of a foreign corporation owned by Defendant 1, who provided funds to Defendant 1.

① To ensure that Nonindicted Co. 7’s shares held by Nonindicted Co. 13, etc. can be granted in the form of selling them to Defendant 1, thereby exercising management rights;

② It is proposed that Nonindicted Co. 9 may participate in the project by means of investing part of the funds he remitted to Defendant 1 and joint ventures in the name of a foreign corporation owned by Defendant 1;

In the future, when the profits occur due to the increase of the stock price of Nonindicted Co. 7 or joint venture company, part of the principal and profits provided are refunded, and Defendant 1 accepted this.

Nonindicted 1, as promised to Defendant 1, remitted USD 44,30,000 ($52,60,000 at the exchange rate) to the account of Nonindicted Company 14,000,000 in total, including USD 24,330,00,000 on June 24, 1999 and USD 20,000,00 on June 25, 199, to the account of Nonindicted Company 1, a foreign financial organization of △△ Group, as a document managed by Defendant 1, a foreign financial organization of △△ Group.

On June 30, 1999, Defendant 1, in accordance with the promise with Nonindicted 1, remitted USD 24.3 million out of the above money to the Republic of Korea, purchased shares of Nonindicted 7 Co. 7 held by 3 △△△ Group, including Nonindicted 35 Co. 14 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 14, and owned the said Nonindicted Co. 14 Co. 7’s shares 2580,000 shares of Nonindicted Co. 7 Co. 14 (total issued shares 71.59%) so Defendant 1 became substantially one shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 7;

1999. 6. 29. 위 돈 중 2,000만 달러를 공소외 14 주식회사 계좌에서 피고인 1이 설립한 미국법인 공소외 15 주식회사 계좌로 송금한 다음 1999. 6. 30. 위 공소외 15 주식회사와 공소외 9 주식회사가 합작하여 설립한 통신네트웍 계좌로 송금하여 위 자금으로 통신네트웍과 공소외 9 주식회사가 체결한 공소외 9 주식회사 TDX 사업에 대한 영업양수도 계약의 계약금으로 사용하게 하였다.

Defendant 1, upon receiving a solicitation from Nonindicted 1 to assist in the rehabilitation of △△ Group with respect to corporate restructuring and financial assistance, etc., which are matters belonging to the duties of the President and the public officials of the financial authorities, in return for such solicitation:

① At the time of June 30, 1999, the value per share of Nonindicted Co. 7 was low, and the corporate management interest was received from Nonindicted Co. 7 Co. 2580,000 shares purchased in the name of Nonindicted Co. 14 in USD 24,30,00 and its major shareholders; ② USD 20,000 used as the acquisition fund of Nonindicted Co. 9’s TX business; and ② the opportunity to participate in the said business.

2. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

(a) Progress of so-called △△ incident;

(1) As the IMF relief financial system began around the end of October 1997, △ Group was faced with the situation where high interest rate, the increase in won currency value, and the management environment such as raising awareness, etc. has deteriorated, and the Financial Supervisory Commission, which had been trying to raise funds through the expansion of the issuance of commercial papers (CP) and corporate bonds, which are relatively easy to issue and the commercial papers (CP) around July 25, 1998, had the Financial Supervisory Commission take measures of restricting the holding of corporate bonds by financial institutions around October 27, 1998, the raising of △△ Group was rapidly large.

(2) Around December 7, 1998, △△ Group announced a restructuring plan to the effect that Nonindicted 45 Co. 45’s big data and △△ Group affiliates will be reduced from 41 to 9, and began to report the performance results of restructuring to the creditors and the government from that time to the 5th day of every next month. As part of attracting foreign capital, △△ Group attempted to sell affiliates such as Nonindicted Co. 7, etc. overseas, and continued to make a self-help efforts on April 199, including the announcement of the second restructuring plan to sell 10 affiliates of △△ Group around April 199. However, around June 11, 199, Nonindicted Co. 45 notified the Financial Supervisory Commission of the legal management, and the legal management announcement of Nonindicted Co. 45 around June 30, 199, which led to the final debilization of Nonindicted Co. 45 and the government of △△ Group.

(3) Around July 19, 199, Non-Indicted 1 announced a plan to accelerate restructuring of the contents that contributed to private disposal and provide security equivalent to 10 trillion won to the credit group of financial institutions, etc. The government and the credit group made a new loan of 4 trillion won and take measures such as extending the maturity of CPs for six months, but eventually, around July 27, 1999, the credit group declared the exercise of the leading right to the restructuring of △△ Group and made a decision to commence the workout program for 12 affiliates of △△ Group on August 23, 199.

(4) Since then on October 4, 199, the government separated 7 affiliate companies, including Nonindicted 13 and 35, from △△ Group through the second-stage financial market stabilization measures, and issued a plan to divide △△△ into trade, construction, and management sectors on January 22, 2000 and then announced the plan to divide △△△△ into trade, construction, and management sectors on March 15, 200. The government finally finalized the plan to establish the workout program for △△ Group 12 affiliate companies.

(5) Meanwhile, around December 9, 1999, the Financial Supervisory Service organized a special investigation team and announced the results of the special investigation into △△ Group from January 6, 2000 to September 15, 200, and filed an accusation against 52 persons, etc. related to the window dressing accounting, etc. with the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor commenced an investigation into △△ Group around October 2000, and published the investigation results and prosecuted 34 relevant persons. On the other hand, around March 6, 2001, the arrest warrant against Nonindicted 1 was issued.

B. Mannam between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1

Defendant 1, as a second-year course of Nonindicted 1’s Seoul High School, had no particular exchange with Nonindicted 1 in the U.S. LA around December 1998, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1 met with Nonindicted 1 at the request of Nonindicted 1 on or around April 5, 199, and around that time, Nonindicted 1 introduced Defendant 1, the head of the restructuring headquarters, Nonindicted 11 and the head of the △△△△△△△△.

C. The process of sales of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 7 and the TPPX business

(1) Around June 17, 1999, Nonindicted 1 instructed the head of △△ corporation, the head of △△△ corporation, Nonindicted 46, to prepare USD 44.3 million from the △△ corporation to the account of Nonindicted 14 corporation. Nonindicted 46, around June 23, 1999, transferred USD 24.3 million to the account of △△△ corporation, around June 24, 199, and around June 24, 199, KRW 20 million to the account of Gendale Lt., and transferred USD 24.3 million to the account of Nonindicted 14 corporation on June 24, 199, and USD 24.3 million from the above money to the account of Nonindicted 14 corporation on June 25, 2000 on June 24, 199, and transferred KRW 24.3 million from the above money to the account of Nonindicted 14 corporation on June 9, 199.

(2) Meanwhile, while the △△ Group had been making efforts to sell Nonindicted Co. 7 to a foreign country from the end of June 1998, around June 199, it was proceeding with the U.S. Pesta system and the sales negotiation of Nonindicted Co. 7. However, on June 30, 199, Nonindicted Co. 1 decided to sell Nonindicted Co. 7 to Nonindicted Co. 14 and ordered Nonindicted Co. 47 of the Restructuring Headquarters to sell the shares to Nonindicted Co. 35, 13, and 9, respectively, by directly setting the price of KRW 11,00 per share to Nonindicted Co. 7’s shareholders, and Defendant 1 signed the contract prepared by Nonindicted Co. 14 as an agent of Nonindicted Co. 14 to acquire the shares of Nonindicted Co. 14 and additionally acquire the shares of KRW 860,000 from June 30, 199 to July 2095.

(3) 또한 △△그룹은 1998.말경부터 공소외 48과 공소외 9 주식회사의 TDX 사업 매각협상을 진행하였으나 1999. 5.경 위 협상이 무산되었다. 그러자 공소외 1은 1999. 6.초순경 피고인 1에게 위 사업인수를 제의하고 피고인 1은 공소외 9 주식회사 대표이사 공소외 49를 만나 협상을 진행하였다. 피고인 1과 공소외 9 주식회사은 1999. 6. 30.경 공소외 15 주식회사와 공소외 9 주식회사가 60:40 비율로 자본참여를 하는 통신네트웍을 설립하기로 하고, 통신네트웍이 위 사업을 총 5,508억 6,100만 원에 인수하되 그 중 우선 1,500억 원만을 우선 지급하고 나머지는 공소외 9 주식회사의 채무를 인수하기로 하는 내용의 매각계약을 체결하였다. 위 1,500억 원 중 600억 원은 공소외 9 주식회사가, 900억 원은 공소외 15 주식회사가 책임지고 조달하기로 하였고, 이에 따라 공소외 15 주식회사는 1999. 7. 1.경 약 226억 원을 계약금으로 지급하였다.

D. Partial disposal of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 7 and the sale of Nonindicted Co. 9’s TX business

(1) Defendant 1 delegated the sale of shares of Nonindicted Co. 7 to Nonindicted Co. 50. Accordingly, Nonindicted Co. 50, from February 200 to April 200, Defendant 1 sold 950,000 shares to Nonindicted Co. 14 to transfer KRW 29,000 ($ 26,6060,00) to Nonindicted Co. 14. Defendant 1, around April 13, 200, remitted USD 25,000 out of USD 26,660,00 to Nonindicted Co. 51 account, which was Nonindicted Co. 1’s second name, but at Nonindicted Co. 1’s request on September 27, 200, transferred USD 25,000 again to Nonindicted Co. 14’s account and transferred the remaining shares to Nonindicted Co. 1631, Oct. 12, 200.

(2) 한편 공소외 9 주식회사 TDX 사업 인수계약이 체결된 후 공소외 9 주식회사의 수익성 악화를 우려하는 주주들의 매각반대 움직임이 일게 되었다. 이에 공소외 9 주식회사은 여러 차례 주주총회를 연기하면서 주주들을 설득하고자 하였으나 결국 1999. 8. 31.경 임시주주총회에서 위 계약승인이 부결되기에 이르렀다. 공소외 1은 공소외 9 주식회사에 계약금 반환을 지시하여 1999. 9. 7.경 공소외 9 주식회사가 통신네트웍에 1999. 11. 30.경까지 계약금 및 가산금을 반환하기로 하는 합의서가 작성되었다. 그러나 공소외 9 주식회사가 위 합의대로 이행하지 못하자, 통신네트웍은 공소외 9 주식회사을 상대로 소를 제기하였고 2000. 3. 21.경 공소외 9 주식회사가 통신네트웍에 2000. 7. 7.경까지 현금 94억 5,940만 8,397원 및 공소외 29 주식회사 주식 58만주 지급하기로 하는 재판상 화해가 성립되었다. 피고인 1은 2000. 7.경 소송대리인 변호사 공소외 52로부터 약 94억 원 및 주식을 지급받아 위 94억 원은 ♡♡빌딩 인수자금으로 사용하고, 위 주식 중 56만 2,000주는 2000. 7.경에서 11.경 사이에 공소외 30 주식회사 계좌에 입고한 후 지인들을 통해 처분하려 하였으나, 2001. 10. 14.경 공소외 6 공사의 신청에 의하여 처분금지가처분결정이 내려졌다.

3. Determination as to whether the statute of limitations has expired

A. Summary of the argument

In this case, it is evident that the statute of limitations had already been expired at the time of prosecution as of June 30, 199, and it was apparent that the statute of limitations had already been expired. Since Defendant 1 left Korea with the aim of escaping criminal punishment around January 25, 2003, Defendant 1 asserted that the statute of limitations had been suspended around that time. However, Defendant 1 did not recognize himself as a criminal at the time, and Defendant 1 could not at all anticipate the possibility of criminal prosecution because the instant case did not appear to be a criminal case, and therefore, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have a purpose of escaping criminal punishment.

B. Determination

(1) Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The statute of limitations shall be suspended in cases where a criminal is located abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.” In this context, the term “criminal person” means a person suspected of having committed a crime, and the term “criminal punishment” means not only the case subject to investigation but also the case where there is a possibility of being subject to criminal investigation in the future. Therefore, in recognizing “the purpose of escaping criminal punishment”, it is sufficient to recognize the possibility that the criminal is suspected of having committed an act that is likely to be suspected of having committed a crime, and that he/she could be subject to investigation in relation to the act in the future, and the circumstance that he/she was found not guilty or could not expect the possibility of criminal prosecution because he/she did not appear to be accused of having committed a criminal prosecution in his/her own name or it does not interfere with its recognition. In addition, the determination on whether the statute of limitations has expired shall not be found as a result of the investigation in terms of the issue prior to the substantive judgment, and it does not have been found that it was not interfere with recognition through legal judgment.

(2) 이 사건의 경우 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 피고인 1은 공소외 1로부터 △△그룹 구명로비와 관련한 청탁을 받은 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 피고인 1이 범죄의 혐의가 있다고 의심될 만한 행위를 하였음은 명백하고, 여기에 기록상 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 피고인 1은 자신이 소유하는 해외법인 명의로 공소외 7 주식회사 주식을 인수하는 등으로 세간에 공소외 1의 해외재산관리인으로 각종 의혹을 받아오고 있었던 점, 검찰은 2000. 10.경부터 △△그룹에 대한 수사에 본격적으로 착수하여 2001. 2.경 관련자들을 기소하였고, 2001. 3. 6.경 공소외 1에 대한 체포영장이 발부되었던 점, 따라서 공소외 1이 체포된다면 피고인 1도 수사의 대상이 될 가능성이 충분히 있었던 점, 더욱이 한국자산관리공사는 2002. 9. 9.경 피고인 1 등을 상대로 공소외 7 주식회사 주식은 공소외 1의 은닉재산이니 이를 반환하라는 취지의 민사소송을 제기하기도 하였던 점, 한편 피고인 1은 1999년 17회, 2000년 16회, 2001년 11회에 걸쳐 수시로 입출국을 반복하다가 2003. 1. 25.경 출국한 이후 2008. 3. 8.경까지 입국하지 않았던 점, 이에 대해 피고인 1은 사업 때문에 바빠서 입국하지 못하였다고 주장하고 있으나, 피고인 1은 국내에 ♡♡빌딩을 소유하고 있고 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 공소외 7 주식회사의 대주주로서 회사의 경영권도 행사하고 있었는바, 그렇다면 국내에 입국할 만한 동기가 충분함에도 단순히 바쁘다는 이유로 입국하지 않았다는 것은 쉽사리 납득하기 어려운 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 피고인 1은 출국 당시인 2003. 1. 25.경 장차 자신의 행위와 관련하여 수사의 대상이 될 수 있다는 가능성을 미필적이나마 인식하고 있었다고 봄이 상당하므로, 위 무렵부터 피고인 1의 입국 전일인 2008. 3. 7.경까지 이 사건 범행의 공소시효가 정지되었다고 할 것이니, 이를 다투는 피고인 1 및 변호인들의 주장을 받아들이지 아니한다.

4. Determination as to whether the offense of acceptance of good offices is established

A. Summary of the argument

Defendant 1 was under strong restructuring pressure from the government at △△ Group. It is true that Defendant 1 met Nonindicted 1 at the time when Nonindicted 1 was under strong restructuring pressure from the government. In examining the relationship between Defendant 1 and the former president and the government-related persons, Defendant 1 did not refer to the name of △ Group as to whether Defendant 1 was a person suitable for the name of △△ Group, but it was determined that Defendant 1 was not an adequate person. On the other hand, Nonindicted 1 requested that Nonindicted 7 Company and Nonindicted 9 Company be lent the name of the overseas corporation that can take over Nonindicted 9 Company TX business, and requested that Nonindicted 9 Company make investments in the △△ Group. Accordingly, Defendant 1 lent the name of the overseas corporation, especially Nonindicted 1 was determined to have been a person suitable for the name of △△ Group, and that Nonindicted 1 was not a person suitable for the name of △△ Group’s investment in the △△ Group, and that Nonindicted 1 did not receive any solicitation related to Nonindicted 1 Company 7D and its investment in the business.

B. Whether there was a solicitation related to the old-age care expenses of △△ Group

(1) Location of the issue

Since the testimony of Non-Indicted 1 and 11 is true as evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, it depends on whether to recognize the above facts according to the credibility of the statement.

(2) The credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s statement

(A) Prosecution’s statements

According to the records, Nonindicted Party 1 appears to have been investigated by the prosecution on six occasions. Nonindicted Party 1, at the time of the investigation on April 9, 2008 and June 1, 2008, set forth in the investigation on June 1, 2008, voluntarily denied Defendant 1’s solicitation. However, Nonindicted Party 1 acknowledged the solicitation in the investigation on June 12, 2008, June 16, 2008, and July 1, 2008.

(B) Legal statements

On the other hand, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement as a witness two times from this court to this court, and the contents of the statement are as follows.

▷ 제1회 증인신문 진술내용

(1) In the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's question is whether Defendant 1 made a statement to the effect that he had requested the government-related persons to deliver the difficult circumstances of △△ Group to the government to help him to reach it. The prosecutor's question is whether there is such an opinion at that time. The defendant 1's ability is limited, and the defendant 1 did not know about how much the situation of the Republic of Korea is, and how much he would have done it to believe (or how the government-related persons come up with it). However, the prosecutor's office did not know about how he did it at that time and how he did it know about it, and how it would be difficult to say that he did not know about it in the △△ Group's position (Article 7 of the witness examination protocol). However, it can be explained that it would be difficult to reach the 12 stories and to cooperate with △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which is in front of it (Article 8).

▷ 제2회 증인신문 진술내용

Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 1 was close to the President and for a long time, and that he could help him, and that Defendant 1 was able to help him,” and “(Defendant 11 and Nonindicted 12) was so talk that there was such a talk, so it is impossible for Defendant 1 to explain the content of the daily, and it is difficult for Defendant 1 to explain the fact that Defendant 1 was able to easily explain our circumstances (Articles 2 and 8 of the Protocol of Examination of Witnesses).

(C) Determination

Nonindicted 1 reversed his statement at the time of investigation by the prosecution; Nonindicted 1 was dependent on the prosecutor’s protocol in the first examination of the witness; the first examination of the witness avoided a clear answer to the solicitation; and the second examination of the witness clearly recognizes the solicitation and so there is an ambiguous part; however, it is difficult to readily dismiss the credibility of his statement in light of the following circumstances recognized in the record:

1) Non-Indicted 1’s request from the branch on April 199 or around 5, 199 to meet Defendant 1. At the time, △△ Group continued to make self-help efforts, such as publishing the second restructuring plan, while having experienced difficulties in raising funds due to the government’s holding limit on corporate bonds and measures to restrict the holding of corporate bonds. The officers of △ Group including Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 1 were trying to deliver their positions to the government through various channels. However, it was known that Defendant 1 was in a special relationship with the president and his children, and it is consistent with the rule of experience that Defendant 1 only explained Defendant 1 and it is consistent with the rule of experience.

2) In the prosecutorial office and this court, Nonindicted 1 introduced Nonindicted 11 and 12 to Defendant 1, and made consistent and explicit statements with respect to the facts that were given to Defendant 1. If Nonindicted 1 determined that Defendant 1 was inappropriate for △△ Group’s old-age care expenses, as alleged by Defendant 1, it seems that there is no reason to introduce Nonindicted 11 and 12. Furthermore, Nonindicted 11 was in a position to explain the position of △△ Group as the head of the Restructuring Headquarters at the time, and Nonindicted 12, as the head of the △△△ Group, as the head of the △△

3) 공소외 1은 검찰 및 이 법정에서 ‘ 공소외 11, 12에게 △△그룹의 어려운 사정을 설명해주라고 지시하였다’는 취지로 진술하고 있고, 공소외 11, 12도 검찰 및 이 법정에서 ‘ 공소외 1의 지시를 받고 피고인 1에게 △△그룹의 어려운 사정을 설명하였다’며 이와 일치하는 진술을 하고 있다. 그런데 당시 △△그룹의 어려운 사정은 정부의 기업어음 보유한도제, 회사채 보유제한 조치 등에 기인한 것으로서, 그 지시의 취지는 ‘정부에 위와 같은 조치 등을 완화해 달라는 △△그룹의 입장을 전해달라’는 취지로 해석된다. 실제로 공소외 11, 12는 ▼▼호텔에서 피고인 1을 여러 차례 만났는바, △△그룹이 점차 어려운 상황에 처하는 급박한 시점에서 정부에 위와 같은 △△그룹의 입장을 설명해달라고 부탁하는 이유 외에는 피고인 1을 만날 이유가 없다고 보인다.

(3) The credibility of Non-Indicted 11’s statement

(A) Prosecution and court statements

According to the records, in the prosecutorial office and the court of law, Nonindicted 11 stated to the effect that “it was ordered by Defendant 1 to explain the difficult circumstances of △△ Group because it could be helpful from Nonindicted 1, and Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 to communicate the position of △△ Group to the Blue House well in accordance with the purport of the direction, and Defendant 1 also presented the same attitude to resolve the problem of △△ Group, including that Defendant 1 took advantage of the relationship with the former president of 10 and took place with the former president of △△ Group.”

(B) Determination

Non-Indicted 11's statement is deemed to be reliable in light of the following circumstances recognized in the record:

1) In the prosecutor’s office and this court, Nonindicted 11 refers to “Cheongdae, Nonindicted 10, and the Chief Economic Director,” etc., and made a very specific and consistent statement about the solicitation facts, and the content of the statement is not found to lack of rationality. Moreover, as seen earlier, in the part where Nonindicted 1 received instructions from Nonindicted 1, it is consistent with Nonindicted 1 and 12.

2) While Nonindicted 12 made a statement to the effect that “Nonindicted 12 made an explanation of the position of △△ Group with a vague expectation and explained it to Defendant 1, in detail, it does not make any solicitation specifically,” as seen earlier, the position of △△ Group is to mitigate the government’s limit on holding corporate bills and measures to restrict holding corporate bonds. As such, there is room to interpret that the above statement itself is also included in the purport of requesting implied or horse expenses, it is determined that it is not significantly different from Nonindicted 11’s statement. Furthermore, as Nonindicted 12 also recognized, as Nonindicted 12 did not call Defendant 1 together with Nonindicted 11, as well, as Nonindicted 11 was the head of the headquarters at the time, the head of the △△ Group was in charge of the general manager of the △△ Group’s rehabilitation, and thus, it is reasonable to reject the credibility of Nonindicted 11’s statement on such sole basis.

3) 이에 대하여 피고인 1 및 변호인들은, 공소외 11이 △△그룹의 로비를 청탁할 만한 지위에 있지 않았고, 청탁이라고 하는 것은 은밀하게 이루어지는 것이 통상적인데 공개된 장소인 ▼▼호텔 라운지 등에서 청탁을 하였다는 것은 경험칙에 부합하지 않으므로, 공소외 11의 진술은 신빙성이 없다는 취지로 주장하므로 살피건대, 앞서 본 바와 같이 공소외 11은 △△그룹 구조조정본부장으로서 △△그룹의 어려운 사정에 대해 누구보다도 잘 알고 있는 지위에 있었던 점, 더욱이 자신이 독자적으로 판단하여 청탁을 한 것이 아니라 공소외 1의 지시를 받고 그 취지에 따라 청탁을 한 것으로 보이는 점, ▼▼호텔 라운지 등이라 하더라도 반드시 공개된 장소라고 단정할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라, 당시 피고인 1은 △△그룹 소유의 ▼▼호텔에 체류하고 있었으므로 ▼▼호텔이 아닌 제3의 장소에서 만난다는 것이 오히려 부자연스러운 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위 주장을 선뜻 받아들이기 어렵다.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the statement made by Nonindicted Party 1 and 11 on this part is judged to be reliable, and it can be acknowledged that Defendant 1 received a solicitation in relation to the old-age care expenses from Nonindicted Party 1 directly or through Nonindicted Party 11 and 12 by each of the above statements.

(c) Whether or not any benefit has been received or promised in return for good offices;

(1) Location of the issue

(A) The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are that Defendant 1 received benefits in return for the solicitation related to △△ Group’s old-age care expenses, but also includes the content that Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1 promised to acquire the remainder, excluding USD 4.3 million and the profits, in return for the solicitation. Therefore, even if determining the part of the promise to receive benefits, it is deemed that there is no risk of actual disadvantage to Defendant 1’s right of defense. Accordingly, the contents of the promise to receive benefits and the contents of the promise to receive benefits are also determined together.

(B) Inasmuch as Nonindicted 1’s statement is true as evidence consistent with the above facts, it depends on whether to recognize the above facts depending on the credibility of the statement.

(2) Nonindicted 1’s statement

(A) Prosecution’s statements

According to the records, Nonindicted Party 1 appears to have been investigated by the prosecution on a total of six occasions. Nonindicted Party 1 stated in the investigation on April 29, 2008, April 25, 2008, and June 1, 2008 that “it is only the management of the money to repay the foreign investor’s investment and to have the appearance of attracting foreign capital,” but it does not provide any benefit as a consideration for good offices. However, Nonindicted Party 1 stated in the investigation on June 12, 2008, June 16, 2008, and July 1, 2008 as follows.

▷ 2008. 6. 12.자 진술내용

‘사실은 피고인 1에게 △△그룹의 어려운 사정을 이야기하고 도움을 요청한 사실이 있으며, 그 대가도 준 사실이 있습니다‘(증거기록 제5038정), ( 공소외 14 주식회사로 4,430만 달러를 송금하여 공소외 7 주식회사 주식을 구입하게 하고, 통신네트웍을 설립하여 공소외 9 주식회사 TDX사업 인수를 위한 계약금을 지급할 당시 피고인 1에게 △△ 구명을 위한 도움을 요청한 것은 사실이지만, 구체적인 대가는 논의되지 않았다는 말인가라는 검사의 질문에) ’예, 그렇습니다‘(증거기록 제5043정), (처음에 외자유치의 모양을 갖추고 채무를 변제할 의사로 4,430만 달러를 송금하였는데, 피고인 1이 얼마 후 회사의 어려움을 해결하기 위하여 공소외 16에게 공소외 7 주식회사 주식 30%를 주자고 제안하였다는 말인가라는 검사의 질문에) ’예 그렇습니다‘(증거기록 제5043정), ( 공소외 9 주식회사 TDX 사업 인수를 위한 2,000만 달러는 대가와는 상관이 없는 것인가라는 검사의 질문에) ‘예, 그것은 대가와 관련이 없습니다’(증거기록 제5044정)

▷ 2008. 6. 16.자 진술내용

The shares of Nonindicted Co. 7 decided to sell the shares at the time of the share price and redeem the principal and settle the remainder in the future, and at the same time, I agreed to manage rights. The Nonindicted Co. 9’s TDX project paid USD 20 million to Defendant 1 as a down payment, and agreed to establish a joint venture and operate the business together with Defendant 1 (Evidence No. 5138), and “No. 5138,000 to send USD 44,30,00 to Defendant 1, and later to acquire the company with such money, and later, it would be desirable to give investors the principal and 4,30,000 dollars and the rest of the company’s shares at the request of the public prosecutor, and to explain to Defendant 1 the amount of the principal and 4,30,000 dollars at the time of the request of the public prosecutor to pay to Defendant 1 for the principal and 5,000,000 dollars, and the company itself should have the opportunity to pay to Defendant 1’s 14,014,01,00,00.

▷ 2008. 7. 1.자 진술내용

I have the honor to hold Defendant 1 in the shape of attracting foreign capital and to pass over the company called Nonindicted Incorporated 7. In other words, USD 24,300,000 itself is not the price, but the principal which was first offered by the Government by selling part of the shares shall be repaid, the remainder of the shares shall continue to be owned by Defendant 1, and there was an agreement that would settle profits if I would benefit from the disposal of the shares of the Company, etc. (Evidence No. 5466 of the record), "I would like to give 1 the principal amount of USD 20,000 in connection with Nonindicted Incorporated 9 TDX business, and that Defendant 1 would establish and take over the business with the above money (Evidence No. 5468 of the record), "No. 5468 of the record of evidence," "No. 5400,000,000 won," and "No. 964 of the record of the settlement of profits would have been sufficiently different from the original evidence."

(B) Legal statements

Nonindicted 1 made a statement as a witness two times from this Court to this Court, and the contents of the statement are as follows.

▷ 제1회 증인신문 진술내용

I first see that it can be managed in purely, and I am used in the protocol. I see that I would like to say that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to do so. I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to know that I would like.

▷ 제2회 증인신문 진술내용

The reasons why I remitted USD 430,00.0 is important. If I would like to manage the money through foreign lawyers, I would like to receive a lot of money, and there is no reason to do so, the full bench's question whether I would like to return USD 430,000 to Defendant 1 and give the remainder to Defendant 1) "e.g. (No. 4,430,000,000,000)" and (430,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00.

(3) Determination

(A) The statement that Defendant 1 provided a benefit

1) USD 2580,000 for shares of Nonindicted Co. 7 and USD 20 million

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, Nonindicted 1’s statement consistent with the above facts is considered not to be reliable.

① In the prosecutorial investigation conducted on June 16, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 stated to the effect that “in return for solicitation, Nonindicted Party 1 gave two companies an opportunity for joint venture by giving USD 20 million.” In the prosecutorial investigation conducted on July 1, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that “In the prosecutorial investigation conducted on July 1, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 gave USD 2580,000 and USD 20 million.” The previous statement was more concrete.

② However, the document stating that Nonindicted Party 1’s submission of Nonindicted Party 1’s investigation to the prosecution on June 16, 2008 stated that “the Defendant 1’s share was to talk about the settlement money after the stock sale.” The document stating that “(i) the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 purchased in the name of another person was known to any other person,” and (ii) Nonindicted Party 1 stated that “the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 purchased in the name of another person was known to any other person,” and (iii) Nonindicted Party 1 stated that “the corporate ownership should not be made by Defendant 1,” or that “the profits that Nonindicted Party 1 offered to Defendant 1 are profits after the management right of Nonindicted Company 7 and Nonindicted Company 9 TX business joint venture and stock disposal.” This is inconsistent with the above prosecutor’s statement.

③ Meanwhile, in the previous prosecutorial investigation, Nonindicted 1 mentioned only the shares of Nonindicted Co. 7 with Nonindicted Co. 5 as Nonindicted Co. 16, and did not mention the above interests. The same day as the documents submitted by the Korea Asset Management Corporation on June 16, 2008 are inconsistent, and thereafter the statements were reversed in this court. In relation to the shares of Nonindicted Co. 7, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, as the shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 were partially sold to Nonindicted Co. 7, 200, Nonindicted Co. 1 reported the details of the share disposal to Nonindicted Co. 50, and, around 2004, it appears that Nonindicted Co. 5 was trying to sell the shares to Nonindicted Co. 1, 204, and it appears that Nonindicted Co. 5’s statement was made to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 1’s order to sell the shares to Nonindicted Co. 5’s office and that Nonindicted Co. 2’s order to return the shares to Nonindicted Co. 1, 2008.

④ 특히 2,000만 달러와 관련하여, 검사는 공소외 9 주식회사 TDX 사업이 무산된 후 반환받은 94억 원을 피고인 1이 개인적으로 사용하였다는 점을 근거로 피고인 1이 처음부터 공소외 1로부터 2,000만 달러를 수수한 것이라고 주장한다. 이에 대해 피고인 1은 공소외 1로부터 ♥♥골프장을 매수하기로 하고 계약금을 지급하였으나 위 계약이 무산된 후 반환받지 못한 계약금 및 위약금, 공소외 9 주식회사 TDX사업 인수가 무산되면서 발생한 손해 및 비용과 위 94억 원을 상계처리 하였을 뿐이라고 주장한다.

기록에 의하면, 피고인 1은 1999. 9. 13.경 공소외 1과 사이에 ♥♥골프장을 104억 9,600만 원에 매수하기로 하는 계약을 체결하고 49억 원을 계약금으로 지급하였으나 공소외 1의 처 공소외 54의 반대로 계약이 무산된 사실, 공소외 1은 1999.말경 공소외 52에게 49억 원이 입금되어 있는 통장을 건네주면서 ‘ 피고인 1에게 반환해야 할 돈이지만 우선 △△그룹 관련 소송비용으로 사용하라’는 취지로 지시하였고, 공소외 52는 위 돈을 관리하면서 소송비용 등으로 사용해 온 사실, 공소외 1은 2001.말경 공소외 52에게 ♥♥골프장 계약금을 정산하였으니 피고인 1로부터 영수증을 받아오라고 지시하였고, 공소외 52는 2001. 12.경 미국으로 건너가 피고인 1로부터 영수증을 받아 온 사실, 공소외 1은 2002. 11. 19.경 피고인 1에게 200만 달러를 송금해 준 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

위 각 사실 및 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 공소외 1은 공소외 9 주식회사 TDX 사업 인수가 무산되자 공소외 9 주식회사에 계약금 반환을 지시하고 공소외 52에게는 계약금 반환소송을 의뢰하였던 점, 공소외 52는 공소외 1에게 위 소송결과를 보고하였던 것으로 보이고(변호인 제출 증가 제68호증 제718정), 공소외 1도 피고인 1이 공소외 52로부터 현금 94억 원 및 공소외 29 주식회사 주식을 건네받은 사실을 알고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점{ 공소외 1은 위 사실을 전혀 몰랐고 검찰 조사를 받으면서 알게 되었다고 주장하고 있으나(증거기록 제5159, 5489정), 해외투자자들로부터 원금상환 압박을 받고 있었다면서도 2,000만 달러의 반환과 관련된 사실을 알지 못하고 있었다는 것은 쉽사리 납득하기 어렵고, 적어도 2002년경까지는 피고인 1과 해외에서 만나 골프를 치는 등 원만한 관계를 유지해왔으므로 피고인 1을 통해서라도 이를 확인해 보았을 것이 경험칙상 명백하며, 더구나 공소외 1은 제1회 증인신문에서 ‘ 피고인 1이 2,500만 달러를 송금하겠다고 했는데 무슨 돈으로 송금하는지 몰랐다. 공소외 9 주식회사에서 현금 100억 원을 받고 주식으로 받았는데 그것을 팔았는지 ( 공소외 7 주식회사 주식을) 팔았는지 알 수 없었다’(증인신문조서 제31정), 제2회 증인신문에서 ‘당시에는 위 사실을 알지 못하였고 나중에 알게 되었지만 언제 알게 되었는지는 정확히 기억은 나지 않는다’(증인신문조서 제6정)라고 하면서 위 주장과는 다른 취지로 진술하였던 점 등에 비추어, 위 주장을 믿지 아니한다}, 그럼에도 공소외 1은 피고인 1에게 위 94억 원의 반환을 요구하지 않았던 것으로 보이고, 오히려 추후에 200만 달러를 송금하기까지 하였던 점( 공소외 1은 위 200만 달러로 ♥♥골프장과 관련한 정산관계를 끝냈다고 주장하나, 공소외 1이 피고인 1로부터 영수증을 작성받은 시점과 돈을 송금한 시점 사이에 상당한 시간적 간격이 있는 점, 피고인 1이 반환받아야 할 돈은 원금만 따져도 49억 원에 이르는데도 200만 달러(당시 환율로 약 25억 원)만 반환받고 정산관계를 끝냈다는 것도 쉽사리 납득하기 어려운 점 등에 비추어, 위 주장 역시 믿지 아니한다}, 한편 피고인 1이 공소외 9 주식회사 TDX 사업 인수자금으로 조달하기로 한 돈이 약 670억 원에 이르므로 위 사업이 무산되면서 발생하였을 손해 및 비용도 상당하였을 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 1의 주장을 쉽사리 배척하기 어렵다.

설령 피고인 1이 ♥♥골프장과 관련한 정산관계와는 무관하게 94억 원을 사용하였다고 하더라도, 공소외 1의 주장과 같이 피고인 1이 공소외 1에게 반환해야 할 돈을 사후에 횡령하였을 가능성도 배제할 수 없으므로, 그와 같은 사정만으로 피고인 1이 처음부터 2,000만 달러를 수수하였다고 단정할 수 없다.

2) Management profits of Nonindicted Co. 7

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, Nonindicted 1’s statement that conforms to the above facts cannot be reliable.

① In the prosecutorial investigation of June 16, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 stated to the effect that “Defendant 1 agreed to provide the management right of Nonindicted Company 7.”

② However, in the documents submitted by Nonindicted Party 1 to the prosecutor’s office on June 16, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 stated, “The reason why Nonindicted Party 1 was not involved in the management of the company was stated to the effect that Nonindicted Party 50, who was appointed by him, thought that he did not bear any risk because he would be able to manage the company well (Defendant 1).” (Evidence No. 5158) and Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the same effect as the above documents in this court (Evidence No. 34 and No. 16 of the First Protocol of Examination of Witness). In particular, in the second examination of witness, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that “The reason why Nonindicted Party 1 was unable to reach an agreement on the right to manage, and as a result, exercised the right to manage.” This is inconsistent with the above prosecutor’s statement.

③ On the other hand, Nonindicted Party 1 did not mention the right of management in the previous prosecutor’s investigation, and the same date as the document of June 16, 2008 is inconsistent with the contents examined by the previous prosecutor’s office, and then reversed his statement in the court thereafter, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record are as follows. In other words, Defendant 1 did not specify the appointment of Defendant 2 as an auditor on or around June 2000, but did not have any specific task. Around January 2, 2000, he did not participate in the company’s management until he participated in the personnel rights of Nonindicted Party 50’s representative director. In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe the above prosecutor’s statement by the prosecutor’s office.

④ Even if Defendant 1 had actually exercised the right of management after December 2000, it cannot be ruled out that: (a) it was approved by Nonindicted 1 after the fact; (b) or (c) it is possible that Defendant 1 had unilaterally exercised the right of management without the approval of Nonindicted 1, even if it was approved after the work of △△ Group became final and conclusive; and (d) it cannot be said that Defendant 1 had received the right of management of Nonindicted 7 Stock Company from the beginning on the sole basis of such circumstance.

3) Part of the opportunity for Nonindicted Co. 9 to participate in the TRX business

According to the records, it can be recognized that Defendant 1 received an opportunity to participate in the TPPX business from Nonindicted 1, and Defendant 1 also does not dispute this. However, it is only a matter of whether the above opportunity has been provided in return for good offices, and it is also examined in the following (C).

(B) The statement that Defendant 1 promised to benefit

1) In the prosecutorial investigation of June 16, 2008 and July 1, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 stated to the effect that “it was not determined in detail as to the principal and profit by disposing of the stocks of Nonindicted Party 7 and Nonindicted Party 9 Company 300,000 from the beginning after acquiring the stocks of Nonindicted Party 1 with USD 4,430,00 among Defendant 1, and by disposing of them later, and by promising to settle the principal and profit.”

2) Meanwhile, in the first witness examination, Nonindicted Party 1 stated in the first witness examination that “it was considered from the beginning that there was no such promise and there was only an attempt to make profits from the beginning.” In the second witness examination, Nonindicted Party 1 stated to the effect that “it was not an accurate but implicitly intended to do so, even though there was such promise from the beginning.”

3) Examination as to whether there was such a promise as above, Nonindicted Party 1 did not mention such promise in the previous prosecutor's investigation, and it appears that there was an implied promise in the second witness examination. As as Nonindicted Party 1 stated, it is difficult to easily understand that Nonindicted Party 1 made an implied promise in the request of △△ Group for the expenses for the name of the △△ Group which is the most important purpose. Moreover, it is difficult to readily understand that the benefit would be the greatest number of foreign creditors if there are remaining profits by disposing of the shares, etc., and it is difficult to easily understand that the content of the promise was not specified. Defendant 1 would have been expected to have been 0 billion won by gaining an opportunity to participate in the business of TX Group (the benefit arising from USD 200,000 and KRW 6700,000,000,000). However, it is difficult to conclude that Nonindicted Party 1’s promise was made from the beginning to the point of sale of shares to the point of △△△ Group’s first promise to the above.

(C) The statement that there is a quid pro quo

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, Nonindicted 1’s statement consistent with the above facts is considered not to be reliable.

① In the prosecutorial investigation of June 12, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 stated that “only 30% of the shares of Nonindicted Party 7 Co. 16 in consideration of good offices” was to make a true statement from the date of the prosecutorial investigation of June 12, 2008. However, the prosecutorial investigation of June 16, 2008 reversed it, and that the prosecutorial investigation of July 1, 2008 made more concrete contents of profits that were given in consideration of good offices. Meanwhile, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement that “for the purpose of good offices, only the management of money was entrusted, and did not give a benefit as a consideration for good offices,” and at the second examination of witness, the witness reversed his statement that “in return for good offices, he promised to give a balance other than the principal and profits.”

② The statement made by Nonindicted Party 1 is inconsistent with each other with the changes in the contents of the benefit that was given as consideration for good offices, and the second examination of the witness, such as changes in the form of such act, are reversed.

③ 공소외 1은 검찰에서의 진술 번복 경위에 관하여 ‘곰곰이 생각해보니 청탁하고 대가로 준 것이 맞아서 그와 같이 진술하는 것’이라는 취지로 설명하고 있으나(증거기록 제5145정), 거액의 이익, 당시에 진술한 내용에 따르면 큰 수익이 예상되는 회사 2개 주기로 하였다면서 그것이 어떤 명목인지 기억하지 못하고 있었다는 것은 쉽사리 납득하기 어렵고, 이전에 여러 차례 검찰에서 이 부분에 관하여 조사 받았음에도 그제야 기억해 냈다는 것 또한 쉽사리 납득하기 어렵다(이전에는 해외투자자의 투자금 상환 및 외자유치의 형식을 갖추기 위한 명목이었다면서 피고인 1의 주장과 일치하는 진술을 하여 왔다).

④ In addition, as to the background leading up to the reversal of the statement in the second witness examination, Nonindicted Party 1 did not clearly explain that “(at the time of the first witness examination) △△△ problem is an important issue (at the time of the first witness examination)” (at the counsel’s inquiry that did not make a statement to the effect that it is not an amount of consideration in the preceding witness examination), it is difficult to easily understand that Nonindicted Party 1 expressed that the first witness examination was made a concentrated examination over a long time because the amount of consideration becomes a key issue, and that Nonindicted Party 1 did not make a statement to the effect that it is difficult to understand the fact relevance in the first witness examination, and that Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that it would not be able to say that the prosecutor’s inquiry is excessive.” (Article 10 of the witness examination report) and how Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that it would not be able to answer the first witness examination in the first witness examination without making a statement to the effect that it would not be able to answer it (Article 3).

⑤ Meanwhile, Nonindicted Party 1 stated in the second witness examination that “No reason exists to charge considerable money to Defendant 1 who was known of the fact that it was not the good offices,” but the second witness examination that “Non-Indicted Party 1 did not have any reason to do so.” However, around May 1999, the negotiations with Non-Indicted Party 9 regarding the sale of TPPX business with Non-Indicted Party 48 on the sale of △△ Group and Non-Indicted Party 45 on June 11, 1999 were in place, and it seems practically impossible to find another foreign corporation in the circumstances where it is necessary to report the foreign capital inducement by July 5, 199 to the Government and the credit group. In particular, it appears that there was sufficient reason to charge Nonindicted Party 1 with money at the time of Nonindicted Party 1’s first witness examination in light of the fact that Non-Indicted Party 5’s statement to the effect that it was difficult to find any person other than Defendant 1’s first witness examination statement to the effect that it was not possible to find any other person.

⑥ 더욱이 기록에 의하면, 공소외 1은 1999. 8. 23.경 △△그룹에 대한 워크아웃 개시결정이 이루어진 후에도 1999. 9. 13.경 피고인 1에게 ♥♥골프장을 매각하고, 2002.경까지 태국 등지에서 피고인 1을 만나 극진히 접대하면서 골프를 치기도 하였는바, 공소외 1이 진술하듯 가장 중요한 목적이라는 △△그룹 구명로비가 실패로 돌아갔음에도 피고인 1과 위와 같이 원만한 관계를 유지하였다는 것 또한 쉽사리 납득하기 어렵다.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, there is no credibility in Non-Indicted 1’s statement consistent with this part of the facts charged, so it cannot be acknowledged that Defendant 1 received benefits or received a promise in return for the good offices, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

D. Conclusion

The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it cannot be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006, etc.).

In the instant case, there are doubts as to whether Defendant 1 received, or did not receive, any benefit in any form in return for a solicitation related to △△ Group’s old-age expenses from Nonindicted 1. However, at the time, Nonindicted 1 had the external appearance of attracting foreign capital, and there was a clear need for redemption of the invested money of the overseas investors, and there is no possibility that Defendant 1 could have aided Nonindicted 1, regardless of the consideration for mediation. As seen earlier, there is lack consistency as seen earlier, and there is considerable doubt about the details of the statement, this part of the facts charged cannot be said to have been proven without reasonable deliberation without any reasonable doubt.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

[Attachment I through V] of the crime sight table :

Judges Man-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)

1) The facts charged in this part state that “Defendant 4 issued an order to attract a price decline of 119,013 share over 25 times in total, and issued a false order to sell 83,353 share at 4 times.” However, as seen below, since the four-time sale orders intended to purchase Nonindicted 2 and 3 share in the name of ○○○○○, and failed to purchase it due to the circumstances on the ○○○○ side, it is difficult to view it as a false selling order without an intention of sale. However, since the above sale orders are recognized as an order to induce a price decline, it is recognized that the above sale orders are combined (this is limited to a legal assessment within the scope recognized as identical to the facts charged, and it is recognized without following the amendment procedure to the indictment. However, since the above 119,013 share is deemed as 24,705 share correction and combined).

주2) 검사의 2008. 10. 24.자 공소장 변경에 의하여, 범죄일람표(3) 중 2006. 10. 27.자 ○○명의의 거래 중 2,300주 매수부분의 매수금액을 ‘76,898,820원’에서 ‘76,896,820원’으로, 2007. 4. 27.자 ▲▲▲ 명의의 거래의 매도금액을 ‘5,970,000,000원’에서 ‘5,934,180,000원’으로, 매수금액 합계를 ‘21,369,030,760원’에서 ‘21,369,028,760원’으로, 매도금액 합계를 ‘38,596,782,570원’에서 ‘38,560,962,570’원으로, 총 부당이득액을 ‘17,227,751,810원’에서 ‘17,191,933,810원’으로 각 변경한다. 이하 같다.

주3) 검사는 피고인 4 명의의 주식 뿐만 아니라, ○○○, ▲▲▲, ◆◆◆, ◇◇◇ 명의로 주식에 관하여도 피고인 4가 계산주체라로서 위 주식거래에 관한 대량보유보고의무가 있다는 사실을 전제로 범죄일람표(4)와 같이 기소하였으나, 아래에서 보는 바와 같이, ○○○, ▲▲▲, ◆◆◆, ◇◇◇ 명의의 주식에 관하여는 피고인 1이 계산주체이므로 이를 전제로 새로이 범죄일람표(5)를 작성한다.

4) Although Article 214 of the Securities and Exchange Act is not stated in the indictment, even if the court imposes a fine without going through the amendment of indictment, it cannot be deemed that there is any substantial disadvantage to the accused’s defense, and thus, it shall be treated as simple omission of applicable provisions of law and added to the indictment. The same shall also apply to Defendant 4.

Note 5) The indictment does not contain Article 355(2) of the Criminal Code, but must be treated as simple omission of applicable provisions of law and added.

주6) □□□의 인수에 사용된 자금은 피고인 4가 308억 7,700만 원(250억 원은 ■■■로부터 차용한 자금), 피고인 1이 56억 3,843만 2,800원을 조달한 셈이다.

7) Defendant 4’s acquisition of KRW 900,00 from the bonds with warrants in KRW 40.5 billion and it seems to have been held up to now, and thereafter, △△△△ (hereinafter “Woo”) continued to decline.

주8) 피고인 4가 □□□을 인수하는 과정에서 조달한 자금은 약 308억 7,700만 원{취득주식수 325만주(구주 45만주 + 유상신주 100만주 + 신주인수권부사채 180만주)}인바, 그 중 58억 7,700만 원은 개인 자금, 250억 원은 ■■■로부터 차용한 자금이다. 피고인 4는 신주인수권부사채 90만주를 피고인 1에게 405억 원에 매도하여 ■■■에 대한 차용금 250억 원을 변제하고, 나머지 155억 원은 자신이 취득하였다.

9) The facts charged and the list of crimes (iv) stated that the duty to report on February 22, 2007 was caused by the transaction of 764 share shares as of October 24, 2006, but this was caused by the transaction of 11,000 share shares as of February 14, 2007. Thus, the above statement is deemed to be a clerical error.

주10) 앞에서 본바와 같이 ○○○, ▲▲▲, ◆◆◆, ◇◇◇ 명의의 주식에 관하여는 피고인 1이 계산주체이므로 이를 전제로 하면 범죄일람표(4) 중 위 각 일자에 대량보유보고의무가 인정되지 아니한다.

11) The prosecutor sent to Nonindicted 1 a document stating the materials for sending the prosecutor’s position to Nonindicted 1, which was written by the prosecutor, and Nonindicted 1 submitted to the prosecutor and was examined after writing the above documents in writing.