(a) If there is any defect corresponding to the reason for revocation in the entries in the original of a notarial deed, the crime of false entry in the original of the notarial deed;

(b) Validity of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders convened by a director other than the representative director;

A. Even if the facts stated in the original of a notarial deed exist in appearance, if there is any defect corresponding to the invalidation or absence thereof, such entry constitutes a false entry, but if it is objectively existing and there is only a defect corresponding to the cause of revocation, the statement does not constitute a crime of false entry in the original of a notarial deed, unless the contents of the resolution are stated in the original of the notarial deed.

B. If a director who is not the representative director convened a general meeting of shareholders in accordance with the convocation resolution of the board of directors, the defect in the convocation procedure is merely a cause for revocation of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and it cannot be deemed that the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders is null

A. Article 228 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 77Do3950 delivered on June 13, 1978 (Gong1978, 19985) 79Do884 delivered on December 28, 1979 (Gong1980, 12505). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4642 delivered on February 9, 1990 (Gong190,661)

A and 3 others

Defendants

Attorney B

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No2948 delivered on February 17, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found Defendant A et al. guilty of the crime of this case on the ground that: (a) based on its macroficial evidence, Non-Indicted D, Non-Indicted E, Defendant A, Defendant A, F (each 24%), G, Non-Indicted H, I, and J (each 1%); (b) Defendant A et al. prepared the original anti-stock payment form in the manner that the exercise of shareholders' rights is reserved only by holding stocks to K; and (c) Defendant A et al. is in a position to exercise shareholders' rights at any time; (d) although the provisional shareholders' meeting on August 10, 191 at the original date was not convened by K, a legitimate representative director at the time; and (e) the above H, I, and J did not attend without a notice to hold the above general shareholders' meeting; (c) the registration is inconsistent with the substantive relation that was made in accordance with the above shareholders' general meeting and the board of directors' resolution at this time; and (e) the defendants knew with the aforementioned intent.

However, even if the facts stated in the original of a notarial deed exist in appearance, if there is any defect corresponding to the nullity or absence thereof, such entry shall constitute a false entry. However, if it is objectively existing and there is only a defect corresponding to the reason for revocation, and if the contents of the resolution are stated in the original of the notarial deed, such entry does not constitute a crime of false entry in the original of the notarial deed.

In light of the records, Nonindicted Co. C shall be entitled to convene a general meeting of shareholders from time to time on the convocation of the general meeting of shareholders under Article 17 of the articles of incorporation, and there is no special provision on the method of convening the general meeting of shareholders. Thus, according to the evidence of the court below, although the general meeting of shareholders on August 10, 191 was not convened from time to time by K, the representative director of the above C, the general meeting of shareholders was not convened from time to August 10, 1991, but the shareholders of E, A, F (each 24%) and G (1%) were present by the resolution of the board of directors for the convocation of the general meeting of shareholders, and the F, who is a director, was notified of the convocation of the general meeting of shareholders from time to time (However, the notice of convening the general meeting of shareholders was omitted by H, I, and J, who is the shareholder of each 1%). Thus, the court below should have no evidence to acknowledge the absence of the authority to convene the general meeting of shareholders from time to time.

On the premise that the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on August 10, 1991 at the original time is null and void or non-existence, the court below acknowledged the defendants' criminal facts of this case, but did not make any incomplete deliberation, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)