Defendant 1 and three others

Substations

Law Firm Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for two years and six months, by imprisonment for three years and by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for one year, and by imprisonment for four months, respectively.

The number of detention days prior to the rendering of this judgment shall be calculated by including one day in the above sentence against the defendant 1 and 2.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for four years from the date of the final judgment of this case, for three years for defendant 2, for three years for defendant 3, and for two years for defendant 4.

Of the facts charged in this case, the violation of the Depositor Protection Act due to the refusal to submit data against Defendant 1, the comprehensive financial company against the victim, the Hanmi Bank, and the Gyeongnam Bank on December 31, 1998, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) due to the loan to Nonindicted Co. 4, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the refusal to submit data to Defendant 2, the violation of the Depositor Protection Act due to the refusal to submit data to the victim comprehensive financial company against the victim, and each violation of the Act on

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the prosecution against the victim non-indicted 37 corporation in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is dismissed.

Defendant 1 is the chairperson of the (group omitted) group composed of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2, 30, 11, 8, 38, 38 and 39 affiliates, and has been in charge of finally determining and executing major business affairs related to the overall management of affairs, such as personnel affairs and finance, of each of the above companies, and was in charge of managing the group (group omitted), Defendant 2 was sentenced to one year imprisonment with labor at the Seoul District Court on October 30, 202 due to a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, two years of suspended execution, and the above judgment was finalized on February 11, 2003, and was in charge of re-election of Nonindicted Co. 1, 203, with the managing director in charge of raising, operating, and executing funds of Nonindicted Co. 1, 2, and 2, and Defendant 3 was in charge of selecting the subcontractor and material supplier as the head of the Construction Support Headquarters of Nonindicted Co. 1, 4, 222, and the chairman of the Trade Union.

1. 【Refusal of Investigation by Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation】

As of October 28, 1999, Non-Indicted 1 Co. 2 and Non-Indicted 2 Co. 2 did not perform a large amount of debt due to the final default on April 13, 199 and did not perform it to a financial institution. As of February 28, 2003, Non-Indicted 1 Co. 1 and Non-Indicted 2 Co. 2 are liable for the total amount of KRW 108.8 billion to creditor financial institutions. Non-Indicted 1 Co. 2 and their former and incumbent officers and employees are in the situation where the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation receives a claim for damages from Non-Indicted 1, 2 Co. 2 and the special investigation team of Non-Indicted 2 Co. 3 and their former and incumbent officers and employees are subject to account books, documents or other investigations concerning the business and property status of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation and are thus refusing, interfering with, or evading investigation in such cases.

A. Defendant 1

around 10:00 on February 20, 200, the Chairperson Office of Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 1 located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 348, Feb. 24, 2003) was unable to conduct an investigation on the officers and employees of Nonindicted Co. 1 and 2 Co. 1, and as a result of the obstruction of investigation due to the force of employees of Nonindicted Co. 1 on February 19, 2003, the investigation on the said company was conducted. In the situation where it was impossible to conduct an investigation on the said company’s employees and employees, the special investigation team of the insolvent Co. 1 was requested from Nonindicted Co. 19 of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation to attend the special investigation team of the insolvent Co. 1, Ltd. on February 24, 2003.

B. Defendant 4

In collusion with Nonindicted 1 Co. 40, the Vice-Chairperson of the Trade Union and Nonindicted 41, the Secretary General;

(1) On February 19, 2003, at around 14:10, at the office of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation established in the third floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Group Name omitted) Group Building, there were about 10 members of the company's office of the special investigation team for insolvent debt companies established in the third floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Group Name omitted), leaving the entrance door to the above investigation room, and Nonindicted 43 of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Nonindicted 42") in an interview with Nonindicted 42 of the company's director treatment Nonindicted 42, the Korean Deposit Insurance Corporation, who called the head of the investigation team, demanded the non-indicted 1 corporation to suspend the investigation, and was asked to stop the investigation from Nonindicted 43 and Nonindicted 42 to the effect of force, such as demanding that the investigator of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation stop the investigation, and interfere with the affairs and property investigation of the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2 corporation.

(2) On February 24, 2003, the title "an instruction on the execution of the main office co-operation" in the front office bulletin board and elevator "on February 24, 2003, the meeting of the members of the headquarters was decided at the meeting of the members of the headquarters to give strong refusal to the investigation of the unfair Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation for February 25 (U.S.)-26 (26). Non-members were attached a public notice in the name of the trade union stating "I.S. Co.,, Ltd. actively participate in the investigation," and during the same period as of February 25, 2003, the public notice was made in the name of the non-indicted 1, 2, and 152 employees of the head office of the headquarters of the non-indicted 1, 2, and 100 non-indicted 1,00 members, among the non-indicted 1, 24 members of the non-indicted 2, 200 members of the above special trade union and the non-indicted 2, etc.

2. Loan fraud by means of accounting distribution;

A. Defendant 1 in collusion with Nonindicted 3, the vice-chairperson of Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted 36, the director in charge of accounting, and Nonindicted 31, the person in charge of accounting.

In preparing the financial statements for the 19th period of Nonindicted Co. 1, 195 (from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 195), as a result of closing the settlement of accounts, the deficit of KRW 1,250,000,000 for the net loss of the current year occurred, and when accounting and public disclosure are made in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, it is apprehended that if the external credit falls considerably, it would cause a significant decline in the external credit delivery to receive new loans from financial institutions or to increase pressure on collecting existing loans and company bonds, and on this basis, it is intended to prepare and public announcement of false financial statements as if the financial situation and the management performance of the company are good, such as the occurrence of net income by overappropriating assets, and on this basis, to use them as operating funds of the company, such as credit loans, repayment of company bonds with maturity and new business funds

around February 196, by 11.1 billion won in financial expenses for general loans in the office of Nonindicted Co. 1, 1996 after allocating them to capital expenditure, and then appropriating assets equivalent to the same amount as inventory assets in excess of the net income amount, thereby increasing the net income amount corresponding to 9.772 billion won, and making a false statement of balance sheet and statement of profits and losses as if the net income was realizing the black net income amount of 9.7 billion won, and making a false statement of financial statements such as balance sheet and statement of profits and losses at around March 10, 1996, the office of the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Guarantee Insurance”) in Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “Korea Guarantee Insurance”) received instructions from the Defendant, etc. 1, 700 billion won in total from 1995 financial statements and audit report of the above Korea Guarantee Insurance Co. 1, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Korea Guarantee Insurance Co. 4, 196. 96 billion won in total amount of loan and 94. 196 billion won.

B. Defendant 1 and 2 in collusion with Nonindicted 3 and 31:

In preparing the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1, 197 and December 31, 1997, as a result of closing the settlement of accounts, Nonindicted Co. 1, as well as the previous year, is likely to cause a deficit of KRW 10.59 billion in the net loss of the current year as in the previous year, and when accounting and public disclosure are made in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, it would cause a significant decline in external credit delivery to obtain new loans from financial institutions or to increase pressure to recover existing loans and corporate bonds. On the other hand, as if the financial situation and business performance are good, such as the generation of net profits by excessively appropriating assets, it prepares and publicly announces false financial statements as if there are good financial conditions and business performance such as lending, issuance of corporate bonds, etc., and to use them for the repayment of corporate bonds with maturity and new business funds, etc.

Around February 198, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 1, 1997, requested the Korea National Housing Corporation, the ordering authority, to pay the cost incurred in excess of the contract amount of the completed contract amount of the Corporation (the first section), but the Korea National Housing Corporation refused to do so, filed a lawsuit against the Korea National Housing Corporation, and then the Korea National Housing Corporation refused to do so. The amount of KRW 15,478,623,700, which is a part of the litigation price, was over-paid with the construction profit on December 31, 1997, was over-paid to increase the net income amount of KRW 4.919,90,00 won, and the net income was over-paid with the net income amount of KRW 4.919,000,000,000,000,000 won, made a false financial statement, such as the balance sheet and profit and loss statement, made public around March 21, 1998.

C. Defendant 1 and 2 in collusion with Nonindicted 3, etc.:

In preparing the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 2, the closing of the settlement of accounts, and the occurrence of the deficit of KRW 1.5775 million in the net loss of the current year, which occurred, according to the corporate accounting standards, the settlement of accounts is likely to lead to a significant decline in the external credit delivery to receive new loans from financial institutions or to increase pressure on the collection of existing loans and debentures, and as such, the preparation and public announcement of false financial statements as if the financial situation and the management performance have good quality such as the occurrence of net income by over-appropriating assets, and based on these false financial statements, to use them as operating funds of the company, such as credit loans, the repayment of corporate bonds with maturity through the issuance of corporate bonds, and new business funds, etc.

Around February 196, the office of Nonindicted Co. 2 made an excessive appropriation of inventory assets equivalent to 1.7772 million won as capital expenditure by allocating financial expenses for general loans at the office of Nonindicted Co. 2 to capital expenditure, and thereby made a false financial statement, such as balance sheet and profit and loss statement, as if the net income was presented, and then made a false financial statement, such as balance sheet and profit and loss statement, and publicly announced in the daily newspapers around March 1996 at the office of Dongnam Bank (hereinafter “Dongnam Bank”) located in Seoul (hereinafter “Dongnam Bank”) as ordered by the Defendant, etc., around November 1996, the office of the defendant, etc. submitted financial statements of 1995 accounting year and audit report prepared and announced falsely to the loan manager of the above Southern Bank, and its affiliated financial statements shall obtain from the victim Co. 1, 27, 1996 and obtain the profit of 196 billion won from the victim Co. 1, 360,5600,000 won,00 won of the principal and interest.

3. Breach of trust in purchasing private stocks;

Defendant 1 and 2

In the event that Nonindicted Co. 11 and 30 Co. 2 purchased the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 owned by Defendant 1 in the presence of the affiliate company, the business duties of Nonindicted Co. 11 and the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 30 to examine the necessity, volume, purchase price, timing of purchase, etc. of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 11 and the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 30 Co. , Ltd. should not purchase the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 at reasonable prices and methods and prevent any damage to the company. The facts are that (group name omitted) Nonindicted Co. 2 Co., Ltd., the affiliate company of the Group, at the time of management performance. As of December 19, 198, the net asset value and net profit per share calculated under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act are low in assets to the extent that they can be evaluated as math,518 won per share, and thus, even though the value of shares per share falls short of 4,518 won per share, Nonindicted Co. 11 and 30 Co.

A. (Name omitted) In collusion with Nonindicted 13 and Nonindicted 35, the representative director of the Group, who is the chief restructuring officer of the Group, who is the representative director of the Group;

At the office of Nonindicted Co. 11 around December 1998, although the share value of Nonindicted Co. 2 was considerably less than 4,518 won per week as above, it violates its occupational duty and without proper review or assessment of the justifiable value of the above shares, thereby allowing Nonindicted Co. 11 to purchase KRW 3,975,510,186 of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 1 owned by Defendant 1 in total of KRW 3,979,927,518 won per share, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the difference between the reasonable transaction value of the above shares and the appropriate transaction value of the shares, and causing pecuniary damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim Nonindicted Co. 11;

B. In collusion with Nonindicted 44, the representative director of Nonindicted 13 or 30 corporation

In the office of Nonindicted Co. 30 around December 19, 198, although the share value of Nonindicted Co. 2 was considerably less than 4,518 won per week as above, it violates its occupational duty and without proper review or assessment as to the legitimate value of the above shares, thereby allowing Nonindicted Co. 30 to purchase KRW 3,975,505,668 of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 1 owned by Defendant 1 in total of KRW 3,979,926 per share and KRW 4,518 won per share, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to the difference between the reasonable transaction value of the above shares and the appropriate transaction value of the shares; causing financial damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim Nonindicted Co. 30;

4. Embezzlements of corporate funds, such as land sales proceeds;

Defendant 1

On April 9, 1999, when (group name omitted) affiliates of the Group including Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, etc. were able to make the last default on April 13, 1999 after the first default on payment, in collusion with Nonindicted Co. 3, 1, and 2 in charge of accounting of Nonindicted Co. 3, 1, and 2;

On April 13, 1999, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 1, 199, KRW 575 million in the name of the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 5 for the purchase and sale of 42 parcels of land, such as the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-gu (Seng-si omitted), owned by Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 5, and KRW 2 billion in the name of the loan (including the number of days of advance payment for the apartment project site located in the Gyeonggi-gu Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si), which was received KRW 2.5 billion in the aggregate, and deposited KRW 1.375 billion in the company among them, and deposited KRW 1.2 billion in the company, and kept the remainder of KRW 1.2 billion in the office from Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 2, or Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 1, 200, from Seoul, etc. to March 202, 200 to his private property embezzlement, his private property 3.

5. The evasion of performance and compulsory execution;

A. Defendant 1

On July 28, 2000, the bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt non-indicted 10 corporation filed a lawsuit for damages amounting to 3 billion won, and on April 19, 200, the payment order was served on July 31, 200 upon the application of the payment order demanding the non-indicted 45 billion won transfer of the 18 billion won. On December 2000, the payment order was served on the bankrupt non-indicted 46 corporation's joint and several liability amounting to 9,579,703,628 won as the right to be preserved by the bankruptcy trustee of the non-indicted 46 corporation on December 2, 200 as the right to the joint and several liability amounting to 9,579,703,628 won, such as filing an application for provisional seizure of the claims against the defendant 1 with the financial institutions such as the non-indicted 10 corporation, the creditor, such as the transfer, debt, joint and several liability amount, etc., and thus, various preservative measures and lawsuit are filed for compulsory execution.

On November 7, 2000, at the Seoul District Court located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City on November 7, 200, the creditor is concealed property owned by the Defendant by concealing the auction price of KRW 1.31 billion on April 24, 2001 and completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Non-Indicted 14 by being awarded a bid in the name of Non-Indicted 14 with a 307 square meters at the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (detailed omitted) 1435 square meters and the road (number omitted) 307 square meters at the same (number omitted),

B. Defendant 1 and 3

As above, when there is a concern for compulsory execution on the property owned by Defendant 1 by the obligees, in collusion with the intent to conceal property by completing registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Non-Indicted 14 for the purpose of evading this.

From September 201 to June 2003, 165.51 square meters, 165.51 square meters, 179.91 square meters, 2nd floor 179.87 square meters, and 2nd floor 147.87 square meters on the ground of reinforced concrete structure (refinite concrete system), detached houses, cultural and assembly facilities (art galleries) structures, 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2001, and then, on June 3, 2003, the registration of ownership is made in the name of Non-Indicted 14 in relation to the building, thereby damaging the creditor by concealing the property owned by Defendant 1.

6. Sheet title trust

No person, even though the real right to real estate was not registered under the name of the title trustee under the title trust agreement, shall do so:

A. Defendant 1

As described in paragraph (a) above 6-A, the ownership of real estate shall be registered in the name of the title trustee by completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of non-indicted 14, the title trustee, on the road of Seongbuk-gu Seoul (detailed number omitted), 1435 square meters, and 307 square meters on the road.

B. Defendant 1 or 3 conspired

The ownership of real estate shall be registered in the name of the title trustee, by completing registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Non-Indicted 14, the title trustee for the building constructed on Seongbuk-gu Seoul (detailed number omitted), as described in the above 6-b.

7. 【Creation and Embezzlement of Funds by Subcontractors for Additional Payment of Contract Price】

Defendant 1 and 3

In collusion with Nonindicted Co. 1 to make up for an excessive appropriation of the cost for the production of windows, the production of balcony aluminium, and the subcontract price for the installation and construction of balcony with Nonindicted Co. 16, the 15 representative director, who is the subcontractor of the installation and installation work, among the construction works of the apartment located in Tae-ri, Tae-ri, Gwangju, which are constructed and sold by the Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation, and to make up for an excessive appropriation of the difference and to use it individually.

On December 29, 199, the non-indicted 15 representative director and the non-indicted 16 representative director in the office of the non-indicted 1 corporation located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (Seong District omitted), enter into the subcontract for the production and installation of balcony Aluminium in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-do. Despite the fact that the subcontract for the production and installation of balcony Aluminium, which is to be paid to the non-indicted 15, is KRW 2,131,074,00,000 in total, and the subcontract for the above construction cost is appropriated with KRW 12,251,074,000 in total and KRW 2,000,000 in total and KRW 12,00,000,000 in total and KRW 16,000,000,000 in total and KRW 2,71,000,000,000,000,000 won in Seoul, which was appropriated for the construction cost.

8. Payment of wages and bonuses to the wife of Defendant 1;

Defendant 1’s wife, who had continued to perform his duties as the auditor of Nonindicted Co. 2 and as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8 since 1995, had been mind that Defendant 1 shall pay for the company’s funds the amount of money for the execution of his duties or for the provision of labor, and for the bonus.

A. In collusion with executives and employees of Nonindicted Co. 2’s representative director, Nonindicted Co. 33, etc.

On April 25, 1997, at the office of the non-indicted 2 corporation located in Gangnam-gu Seoul (detailed omitted), that the non-indicted 9, who did not perform his duties as an auditor of the non-indicted 2 corporation as above, shall be paid KRW 5,60,000 for the benefit of April 1997 and the bonus payment statement as shown in the attached Form 2 and the statement of unfair bonus payment, as shown in the attached Table 2, from that time until April 25, 1999, paid the non-indicted 9,6960,000 won in total as company funds for 25 times from that time to April 25, 199, thereby obtaining property gains equivalent to the same amount, and inflict damage on the above company equivalent to the same amount;

B. In collusion with executives and employees such as Nonindicted 8’s representative director, Nonindicted 34, etc.:

around April 25, 1997, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 8 located in the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, the office of the former Special Self-Governing Party 8 located in the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province (detailed omitted), that Nonindicted Co. 9, who did not perform his duties as the representative director of the Nonindicted Co. 8, paid a sum of KRW 2 million for the benefit of April 1997, as stated in the attached Table 9 and the detailed statement of unfair payment of bonuses, from that time to January 25, 1998, paid a total of KRW 27 million for the company fund from that time to January 25, 1998, to obtain property benefits equivalent to the same amount as the salary and bonus, and paid a total of KRW 10 million to Nonindicted Co. 9.

Facts No. 1 in the Judgment

1. Each statement made in compliance with the facts described in the judgment of Defendants 1 and 4 in the first and second trial records;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor as to Defendant 1, 4, and Nonindicted 40, and 41, which is part of the facts indicated in the protocol of examination of the suspect;

1. Each statement made in Nonindicted 47’s written statement that meets the facts contained in the judgment

1. A copy of the official announcement of conducting investigations into insolvent debt companies, one copy of the public announcement announced by the joint cooperation, the current status of obligations against insolvent financial institutions, etc. (non-indicted 1 corporation), the current status of the reduction of loans handled by each non-indicted 1 corporation and non-indicted 2 corporation, the current status of obligations against insolvent financial institutions, etc. (non-indicted 2 corporation), copies of reports on the impossibility of conducting investigations into insolvent financial institutions, guidance on joint performance of the head office, investigation reports, copies of reports on joint performance of the head office, copies of the documents requesting the receipt of reports on the joint use of the cooperative members of the head office, copies of the documents requesting the receipt of reports on the fact of the

Comprehensively,

Facts No. 2 of the Judgment

1. Each statement made in compliance with the facts described in the judgment of Defendants 1 and 2 in the first and second trial records;

1. Each statement made by the witness, Nonindicted 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52, consistent with the facts set forth in this Court

1. Each statement made in accordance with the facts stated in the judgment of Non-Indicted 36, 31, and 32 of the 10, 11th and 13th trial records, and each statement made in line with the facts stated in the judgment of the witness Non-Indicted 53, 25, 50, and 54 of the 14, 15th trial records;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on the accused 1 and 2 of the protocol of examination of suspect as to each of the facts contained in the judgment;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on Nonindicted 48, 55, 31, 32, and 36, which conforms to the facts contained in the judgment;

1. 수사보고( 공소외 48 진술서 첨부보고), 수사보고( 공소외 1 주식회사가 허위 재무제표를 작성하였다는 조사보고서 첨부보고), 수사보고( 공소외 1 주식회사가 재고자산을 분식하였다는 조사서 첨부보고), 수사보고( 공소외 1 주식회사가 공사수익 및 공사미수금을 과대계상하는 방법으로 분식한 조사서 첨부보고), 수사보고(대차대조표 공고문 첨부보고), 96. 3. 10. 공고문, 97. 3. 15. 공고문, 98. 3. 21. 공고문, 99. 3. 20. 공고문, 수사보고(감사보고서 첨부보고), 95～98년 각 감사보고서, 수사보고( 공소외 2 주식회사가 허위 재무제표를 작성하였다는 조사보고서 첨부), 수사보고( 공소외 48 진술서 첨부보고, 11권 4640쪽), 수사보고( 공소외 2 주식회사가 재고자산을 과대계상하는 방법으로 분식을 하였다는 조사서 첨부), 공소외 2 주식회사 제40, 41기 각 감사보고서, 수사보고(95년에서 99년까지 금융권으로부터 대출받은 내역), 조사보고서, 수사보고(감사보고서 첨부보고, 11권 4902쪽), 수사보고(대차대조표 공고문 첨부보고, 11권 4937쪽), 수사보고( (명칭 생략)회계법인 해산에 관한 재정경제부 공문 첨부보고), 99. 4. 30.자 재정경제부 회계법인 해산승인 공문 1부, 99. 3. 22.자 부실감사인에 대한 조치 공문 1부, 감사인 업무정지 및 공인회계사 직무정지 건의 1부, 공소외 1 주식회사 및 공소외 2 주식회사 신규대출현황(96～98), 이자비용자본화로 인한 재고자산 과대계상 건에 대한 검토내용, 수사보고(농협의 공소외 1 주식회사 발행 제50회 회사채 지급보증에 관한 서류 일체 첨부보고), 공소외 1 주식회사 채권현황, 공소외 1 주식회사관련 제출서류, 수사보고(서울보증보험의 공소외 1 주식회사 발행 제49회 회사채 지급보증에 관한 서류 일체), 사채보증보험청약서, 사채보증보험약정서, 이사회 회의록, 연대보증입보 각서, 수사보고(서울보증보험의 공소외 1 주식회사 발행 제67회 회사채 지급보증에 관한 서류 일체), 사채보증보험청약서, 사채보증보험증권, 보증계약심사위원회 회의록, 사채보증보험약정서, 97년도 공소외 1 주식회사 대출관련자료 제공요구에 대한 회신, 수사보고( 공소외 1 주식회사 발행 제49회 회사채 지급보증 관련자료), 사채보증보험계약심사서, 재무제표, 업체현황, 회사 전체 계약자 유효계약현황 사본 4부, 연대보증인 중요사항 조회, 그룹별한도 및 유효현황, 보험계약규제자 조회, 1996. 4. 17. 현재 공소외 1 주식회사 유효계약 현황, 계약자( 공소외 2 주식회사)별 출재 유효현황, 공소외 1 주식회사 재무현황, 공소외 2 주식회사 재무현황, 회사채 발행계획서, 공소외 1 주식회사 회사채 지급보증 검토, 검토의견, 공소외 1 주식회사 담보내역(96. 4. 17. 현재), 사채보증보험 청약심사서, 수사보고(부동산등기부등본), 부동산등기부등본 2부, 폐쇄등기부등본 4부, 수사보고(대한보증보험 작성 공소외 1 주식회사 차환 검토내용 첨부), 공소외 1 주식회사 차환 검토내용, 여신승인신청서, 공소외 1 주식회사 여신 및 담보내용, 각 심사의견, 각 여신승인신청서, 각 공소외 1 주식회사 여신 및 담보내용표, 심사의견, 공소외 1 주식회사 재무현황, 각 영업점장의견, 심사규정, 신용상태동향보고, 수사보고(한미은행 및 대한생명작성 심사보고서 첨부), 기업심사서, 사모사채 인수개요, 사채발행요건 검토표, 사채인수의뢰 내역서, 종합평정표, 심사의견서, 신용조사서, 적정거래 한도금액 산출, 차입신청 품의서, 여신거래약정서, 수사보고(대한보증보험 작성 사업주택채권카드 등 첨부), 사업주택 채권카드(평화은행 서초지점), 각 계약건별 증권발급내용 조회 사본, 사업주택 채권카드(하나은행 서초지점), 수사보고(대한보증보험작성 보증보험 계약심사서 등 첨부), 보증보험계약내용변경심사서, 각 사업자주택보증보험청약심사서, 재무제표( 공소외 1 주식회사 1994～1996), 제97～30차 보험계약심사위원회 회의록(1997. 7.), 공소외 1 주식회사 검토내용, 공소외 1 주식회사그룹 담보내역, 업체별 여신변동 상황( 공소외 1 주식회사), 사업자주택 보증보험 청약심사서(1996. 7.), 공소외 1 주식회사그룹 담보내역(1996. 4.), (그룹명 생략)그룹 담보관련 현황(1997. 5.), 계약건별 증권발급 내용 상세조회, 계약자별 유효조회( 공소외 1 주식회사), 할부유효계약 및 연대입보 조회, 계약자별 유효조회( 공소외 2 주식회사), 계열기업현황 조회, 보증한도 및 담보가액 조회, 그룹합산 재무제표 조회, 계약자별 유효조회( 공소외 1 주식회사), 할부유효계약 및 연대입보 조회, 업체개요, 성원 사업자주택자금 96-1(담보현황), 남양주시 주택건설사업계획 승인 공문, 보증보험계약 심사서, 재무제표( 공소외 1 주식회사 1993-1995), 업체현황, 회사전체계약자 유효계약 현황, 계약건별 증권발급 내용, 연대보증인 총 입보명세 조회, 사업자주택보증보험 청약심사서, 재무제표(1993～1995), 업체개요, 감정평가서(용인 수지읍 (상세지번 생략) 외 2필지), 부동산등기부등본, 청약심사, 공소외 1 주식회사 사업자주택자금 지급보증 검토, 담보물 내역, 공소외 1 주식회사 그룹 담보내역 중 판시사실에 들어맞는 각 기재

Comprehensively,

Facts No. 3 of the Judgment

1. Each statement made in compliance with the facts described in the judgment of Defendants 1 and 2 in the first and second trial records;

1. A statement that Nonindicted 13’s witness partially meets the facts set forth in this Court

1. A statement made in the 10th trial record that is partially consistent with the facts set forth by the witness Nonindicted 31;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on Nonindicted 56, 57, 18, 58, 31, 59, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 13, 22, 60, 61, 62, and 63, which is part of the facts contained in the judgment, of the written statement prepared by the prosecutor

1. Investigation Report (Sale of Assets and Transfer of Stocks) 1. Investigation Report (Attachment of Agreement Following Transfer of Stocks, Transfer Agreement and Payment of Discount), 4, 1 report (Attachment of Receipts, etc. related to Trading of Stocks by Defendant 1), 4, 2 copy of passbook, 12 investigation report (Attachment of Request) request for permission for discount payment to Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, 1, 1 copy of investigation report (Attachment of Report on Assessment of Assets Value, etc.), 1 copy of investigation report (Attachment of Report on Assessment of Assets Value, etc.), 20 copy of investigation report on Real Estate 9, 1 copy of Non-Indicted Co. 1, 3, 1, 200, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 9, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 98, 1, 1, 2, and 9, 1, 2, and 3, 1, 198

Comprehensively,

The facts of the judgment No. 4—

1. Each statement made by Defendant 1 or 2, which contains part of the facts contained in this Court;

1. Each statement made in compliance with the facts described in the judgment of Defendants 1 and 2 in the first and second trial records;

1. Each statement written by the witness, Nonindicted 5, 14, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 32 in the protocol of the 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 times, which is partially consistent with the facts set forth in the ruling

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on the accused 3 of the protocol of examination of suspect as to each of the facts contained therein;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on Nonindicted 5, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 32, 14, 65, 9, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, Defendant 3, Nonindicted 72, and 73, which are part of the facts contained in the judgment,

1. An investigation report (the filing of a copy of the real estate sales contract concluded between Nonindicted Co. 4 and the housing construction on January 2, 99), the real estate sales contract, the certificate of right to registration, the approval of the project plan, the copy of promissory note, the investigation report (the confirmation of the source of the land purchase fund for the housing construction), the investigation report (the filing of confirmation of facts and evidential documents), the tracking of notes deposited into the Nonindicted Co. 74, the confirmation report on the source of the land purchase price of Seongbuk-dong housing (the date of April 24, 2001), Nonindicted Co. 2, the confirmation report on the purchase price of the housing (the date of Nonindicted Co. 4 and the housing construction), Nonindicted Co. 7, the confirmation report on the source of the land purchase price of the housing (the date of Nonindicted Co. 4, the statement on the purchase price of the housing in Seongbuk-dong, Nonindicted Co. 1, 207, the report on the purchase price of the housing in Seongbuk-dong, the report on Nonindicted Co. 1, the investigation report on deposit sale document (the list). 6.

Comprehensively

The facts of the judgment Nos. 5 and 6

1. Each statement made in compliance with the facts described in the judgment of Defendants 1 and 3 in the first and second trial records;

1. Each statement made in compliance with the facts contained in the judgment of the witness, Nonindicted 76, 77, 14, and 9 among the trial records of 5, 7, and 111;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on the accused 3 of the protocol of suspect examination prepared by the prosecutor, which conforms to the facts indicated in the ruling;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on Nonindicted 77, 78, 79, 76, 80, 9, and Defendant 3, which is part of the facts contained in the judgment;

1. Investigation report (to be attached to the tax data and income tax payment data on non-indicted 14), current status of acquisition and transfer of real estate, investigation report (to be attached to Seongbuk-gu (Seoul Metropolitan lot number omitted), application for building permit, application for building permit, copy of the register of land, two copies of the register of land, investigation report (to be attached to the statement hearing and lease agreement and other related documents on real estate deemed to be concealed by defendant 1, who is the chairperson of non-indicted 1 corporation), lease contract, certificate of registration, contract for establishment of mortgage, copy of non-indicted 14 bank deposit account, copy of non-indicted 14, copy of non-indicted 14, copy of non-indicted 14, copy of non-indicted 200, copy of non-indicted 1, copy of non-indicted 14, copy of non-indicted 2, copy of non-indicted 14, copy of non-indicted 14, copy of non-indicted 14, copy of non-indicted 14, report on the source of the house deposit, etc.

Comprehensively,

The facts of judgment No. 7

1. Each statement made in compliance with the facts described in the judgment of Defendants 1 and 3 in the first and second trial records;

1. Each statement made in the sixth trial record that is consistent with the facts set forth in the ruling of Nonindicted 16 and 83 by the witness;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 16 and Defendant 3, which is consistent with the facts indicated in the judgment;

1. Comprehensively taking into account the facts contained in the judgment among the reports on the source of the successful bid bond at Seongbuk-dong Housing on November 7, 2000:

Facts No. 8 of the Judgment

1. Statements made in compliance with part of the facts contained in the judgment of Defendant 1 in the first and second trial records;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 31, 84, 9, and 34 in his/her written statement prepared by the prosecutor, which is partially consistent with the facts contained in the judgment;

Comprehensively,

Facts of the previous convictions

1. Records of criminal records pertaining to Defendant 2;

Since each fact can be recognized by taking full account of the facts, all of the judgments are proven.

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant 1

Article 41 subparagraph 2 of the Depositor Protection Act, Article 21-2 (7) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1), Article 30 (2), Article 30 (2) of the Criminal Act), Article 356, Article 355 (2), Article 30 (3) of the Criminal Act, Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355 (1), and Article 30 (4) of the Criminal Act, Article 327 (5) of the Criminal Act, Article 5 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act, Article 5 of the Criminal Act, Article 327 (1) of the Act, Article 327 and 30 (5) of the Criminal Act, Article 60 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 7 (1) of the Act, Article 6) of the Act.

B. Defendant 2

Each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fraud in respect of guarantee insurance for the person on June 15, 1998 among the facts of the second crime in the market, and fraud in the south Bank), Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of each Criminal Act (the misappropriation in respect of each occupational breach of trust of the third in the market, and

C. Defendant 3

Articles 327, 30 (the point of evading compulsory execution at the time of sale, the choice of imprisonment), 7(1)1, 3(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of title trust and the choice of imprisonment), Articles 356, 35(1), 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of 6-2(b) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the point of 7th of occupational embezzlement and the choice of imprisonment)

D. Defendant 4

Article 41 subparagraph 2 of each Depositor Protection Act, Article 21-2 (7) of each Depositor Protection Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with Investigation by each Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation), Articles 314 (1) and 30 of each Criminal Act (a point of interference with duties)

1. Formal concurrence (Defendant 4);

Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act (Punishment each of the offenses of violating the Depositor Protection Act, interference with business, and each of the offenses of interference with business with business with heavier punishment, and choice of imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant 2);

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (Mutually between the crimes and the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act in which judgment has become final and conclusive)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) and 2, and 50 (with respect to Defendant 1, the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes to the Korean Federation of Victims, which is the largest sentence of punishment and punishment; the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes to the Korean Bank of Victims, which is the largest sentence of punishment and punishment against Defendant 2; the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes to the Korean Bank of Victims, which is the largest sentence of punishment and punishment; the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes to Defendant 3; and the punishment

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant 1, 2);

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Code (The conditions in favor of the reasons for sentencing are as follows)

1. To include days of pre-trial detention (defendant 1, 2);

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (the defendants);

Article 62 (1) of each Criminal Code (Consideration of the Reasons for Sentencing)

1. As to the refusal of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation investigation

A. Defense Counsel's assertion

(1) Article 21-2(7) of the Depositor Protection Act, which is a basis provision for investigation of persons related to insolvency under the Depositor Protection Act, provides Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation with more strong authority than search and seizure of investigative agencies, and is unconstitutional in violation of constitutional equality, warrant principle, and guarantee of property rights.

(2) In order for the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation to investigate the business and financial status of Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 pursuant to Article 21-2(7) of the above Act, it shall be deemed that Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 constitute “debtor who has failed to perform his obligation to insolvent financial institutions, etc.” as prescribed in the above provision. However, with respect to Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, the composition procedure commenced, and the current Non-Indicted. 1 and Non-Indicted. 2 are paying their obligation in good faith in accordance with the composition conditions, and they do not constitute “debtor who has not performed their obligation to insolvent financial institutions, etc.” and according to the decision of approval of composition, it cannot be claimed against Nonindicted Co. 1 and Non-Indicted. 2 on behalf of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation as the investigation of this case does not meet the requirements for implementation in terms of the object and necessity of the investigation.

(3) The instant investigation by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation is not necessary to achieve the purpose of recovery of public funds and is not reasonable, and its scope is broad regardless of the purpose of the investigation, and is proceeding without specifying the scope and reason of the investigation, and is contrary to Article 12-4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Depositor Protection Act.

(4) The facts charged in the instant case in collusion between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 without any justifiable reason and Defendant 1’s refusal to submit the materials required by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation. It is difficult to see that the person related to insolvency under the Depositor Protection Act has a duty to submit materials and a duty to attend. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the act of refusing to submit materials or refusing to attend or evading investigation with only

B. The judgment of this Court

(1) As to the assertion that Article 21-2(7) of the Depositor Protection Act is unconstitutional

Article 21-2 (1) of the Depositor Protection Act provides that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation may request an insolvent financial institution or an insolvent financial institution likely to be responsible for the insolvency or insolvency to file a claim for damages against the former and incumbent officers and employees of the insolvent financial institution, etc., the debtor who has failed to repay his/her debts (in cases where the debtor is a corporation, including the former and incumbent officers and employees of the corporation concerned) and other third parties, and Article 21-2 (7) of the same Act provides that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation may investigate the duties and property status of the insolvent financial institution, etc. when it is necessary for the request for compensation for damages, the vicarious exercise of the right to claim damages or participation in the lawsuit under paragraphs (1) through (4). Article 41-2 (2) of the same Act provides that the person who refuses, interferes with, or evades an investigation in violation of Article 21-2 (7) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won, and thus, the above provision provides that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation shall not be construed to grant the right to request for appearance or investigation.

(2) As to the assertion that the instant investigation failed to meet the requirements for conducting an investigation under the Depositor Protection Act

The purport of Article 21-2(1) of the Depositor Protection Act provides that the scope of persons related to insolvency shall include a debtor who has failed to perform his/her obligation to the insolvent financial institution, etc.; where the debtor who has failed to perform his/her obligation to the insolvent financial institution is a corporation, the former and incumbent executives and employees of the corporation, the persons provided for in the subparagraphs of Article 401-2(1) of the Commercial Act, and major shareholders prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be included herein; and where the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation intends to collect the public funds invested in the insolvent financial institution for the deposit payment, etc., to the maximum extent possible, the scope of the "debtor who has failed to perform his/her obligation to the insolvent financial institution" provided for in the above Act does not include a debtor who has been exempted from part of his/her obligation through bankruptcy procedures or whose repayment period has been postponed; in light of the fact that the purport of the above provision in order to collect the public funds invested in the insolvent financial institution is unknown, it shall be interpreted that the debtor shall not be held liable for damages to the insolvent financial institution, etc.

In this case, the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2 corporation did not perform their obligations to the non-indicted 10 corporation before the commencement of composition. Thus, the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2 corporation constitute the "debtor who did not perform his obligations to the non-indicted 1 corporation" as the object of the claim for damages under Article 21-2 (1) of the Depositor Protection Act. The Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation or the non-indicted 10 corporation, upon the confirmation of the composition approval decision, was unable to file a claim for damages other than the amount prescribed in the composition condition against the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2 corporation, the former and present officers and employees of the non-indicted 2 corporation, and the major shareholders prescribed in Article 401-2 (1) of the Commercial Act can still be separate from the claim for damages against the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2 corporation, and the former and present officers and employees' liability for damages against the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2 corporation's former and incumbent employees's liability for damages.

(3) As to the assertion that the principle of excessive prohibition is a violation of Article 12-4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Depositor Protection Act

In light of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 received loans from Nonindicted Co. 10 and did not repay or exempted loans in excess of KRW KRW 10 million and that considerable public funds have been invested therefrom, it is difficult to view the instant investigation as unlawful as a whole against the excessive prohibition principle on the ground that the scope of the investigation sought by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation was broad (in addition to the existence of legitimacy of partial refusal and evasion of the excessive investigation), and in particular, according to the public notice of the investigation into insolvent Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation may recognize the fact that according to the above evidence, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation sent to Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, prior to the commencement of the investigation, the purpose, grounds for the investigation, scope of the investigation, and the list of materials to be submitted, etc., of which the investigation into this case is contrary to Article 12-4

Ultimately, the above argument is not accepted.

(4) As to the assertion that the refusal to submit data or failure to attend alone does not constitute an investigation refusal or evasion.

On the other hand, it is difficult to view that there is a duty to submit data to persons related to insolvency under the Depositor Protection Act as seen in the reasons for innocence, and on the other hand, the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and the Act on the Establishment, etc. of Financial Institutions have a separate regulation on the right to request attendance and the sanctions against non-compliance with attendance, while the Depositor Protection Act does not have a regulation on sanctions against the right to request attendance and non-compliance with attendance of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, it is difficult

However, according to the evidence revealed in the judgment of the court below, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation established and operated the office of a special investigation committee for insolvent debt companies in the third floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Group name omitted) Group 3 Group Building. However, around February 20, 2003, the investigator demanded the defendant 1 to attend the investigation, and the defendant 4, etc., who is the cause of the non-indicted 1 corporation, demanded the defendant 1 to interfere with the investigation and to suspend the investigation at the above investigation office by multiple force, and it is actually impossible to conduct the investigation at the above investigation office. In such a circumstance, it appears that the non-indicted 19 requested the defendant 1 to attend the office of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation as the head office of the above investigation office was an inevitable measure to clarify that the defendant 1 would not undergo the investigation without any reasonable reason, and thus, the defense counsel's assertion that this part of the non-guilty part is also rejected.

2. A loan fraud by accounting window dressing;

A. The window dressing accounting portion

(1) The part of the window dressing accounting for the fiscal year 1995 for Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 (the part of the window dressing accounting due to the inclusion of the acquisition cost of financial expenses in the inventory assets)

(A) Defense Counsel's assertion

The defense counsel argues that the revised corporate accounting standards regarding the capitalization of financial costs, which the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 corporation, are applied in advance at the time of settlement of accounts for the fiscal year 1995 and 1996. However, the defense counsel argued that the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 corporation cannot be viewed as the revised accounting standards for financial costs, as the result of questioning whether it is possible for the securities supervisor to include the financial costs from 1995 to the acquisition cost of inventory assets through the certified public accountant belonging to the (name omitted) accounting corporation, who is an external auditor. At the time of settlement of accounts for the fiscal year 1995, many companies were included in the cost of acquisition of inventory assets from the date of settlement of accounts for the fiscal year 1996 and accounting cost of the securities supervisor for the fiscal year of the non-indicted 196 corporation did not receive any cadastral map at the time of supervision of the securities supervisor for the fiscal year of the non-indicted 1 corporation.

(B) The judgment of this Court

In light of the above corporate accounting standards revised on March 30, 1996 (amended by the Securities Supervisory Board with the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy), the provisions recognized as inventory assets acquisition cost is identical to the assertion of defense counsel. However, Article 65 (2) of the above Act provides that the loans used to manufacture or construct inventory assets shall be included in the cost of acquisition of the relevant assets until the date of manufacture or acquisition of inventory assets and other similar financial expenses shall be included in the cost of acquisition of the relevant assets and the amount and contents thereof shall be subtracted from interest cost to be included in the cost of acquisition of the relevant assets: Provided, That the above revised accounting standards shall be applied from 90 fiscal years to 6 fiscal years prior to the commencement of the revised corporate accounting standards, and the new accounting standards shall be applied from 90 fiscal years to 9 fiscal years to 90 fiscal years to 9 fiscal years to 6 fiscal years to 9 fiscal years to 6 fiscal years to the effect that the new financial accounting standards can be applied to the new financial accounting corporation's new financial assets acquisition and construction charges.

(2) The part on accounting for the fiscal year 1997 for Nonindicted Co. 1 corporation

(A) As to the over-paid portion of the contract earnings

1) Defense Counsel's assertion

In this part of the facts charged, 15.5 billion won is not the amount of processing, but the difference between the cost actually invested in the construction work of the Silcheon apartment site contracted by the Korea National Housing Corporation and the cost actually invested in the construction work of the housing construction contract amounting to 57.7 billion won, and the non-indicted 1 corporation appropriates the above difference in the 1997 fiscal year completed by the construction work in accordance with the principle of profit and expense response, and it is argued that the above difference in the 1997 fiscal year is calculated as the construction profit in accordance with the corporate accounting standards (all profits and expenses must be properly distributed during the period during which they occur) and paragraph 2 of Article 35 (2) of the same Article of the corporate accounting standards. However, in the application of the progress standards, where it is impossible to reasonably estimate the profits, cost or progress rate, etc. related to the construction work, manufacturing and service provision, or where it is not possible to recover the revenue amount, the amount recoverable within the cost shall be counted as the total cost generated cost)

2) The judgment of this Court

On the other hand, Article 6 (1) of the Construction Business Accounting Standards provides that "in principle, the appropriation of construction profit shall be based on the total amount of contract amount." In accordance with the above provision, it seems reasonable to account the construction profit as the final confirmed construction contract amount regardless of the large and small amount of money invested in the construction work. The accounting of this part is already pointed out as an window dressing accounting by the Financial Supervisory Service, and it is difficult to regard the construction cost in the lawsuit as an "resumable amount" under Article 35 (2) of the above Business Accounting Standards (Article 6 (1) of the above Article 6 (1) of the Construction Business Accounting Standards (In practice, Nonindicted Co. 1 filed a civil lawsuit against the Korea National Housing Corporation for the payment of 2.7 billion won including 1.5 billion won appropriated for the above over 1.5 billion won against the Korea National Housing Corporation, but loss in the second instance).

(B) As to the excessive appropriation of foreign currency converted profit

1) Defense Counsel's assertion

On January 14, 1998, based on the Korean Economic Newspapers published on January 12, 1998, when preparing financial statements at the time of settlement of accounts in 97, the Accounting Standards Deliberative Committee of the Securities Supervisory Board decided to the effect that one of the exchange rates publicly notified on December 31, 1997 or the exchange rates publicly notified on January 3, 1998 can be selected, and the non-indicted 1 corporation asserts that the above decision is that the foreign currency deposit and the foreign currency amount can not be regarded as a separate accounting account because the foreign currency amount was appropriated by applying the exchange rate ($ 1,695.8 won per USD 1,695.8 won) publicly notified on January 31, 1998 and the foreign currency deposit and the foreign currency amount announced on January 31, 1998.

2) The judgment of this Court

According to the records, even if the Korea Institute of Securities and Exchange applied foreign currency assets on the balance sheet 197 fiscal year to the foreign currency assets, it is difficult to view the pertinent accounting rate of 197 fiscal year as the base exchange rate of January 5, 1998 (1.3.) (1.05 won per$1,695.8), which is the market average exchange rate of 1998 (1.3.00), and whether the accounting base of the Korea Institute of Certified Public Accountants on December 31, 1997 should be deemed as the base exchange rate of 1,415.2 won (1,415.2 won per $1,00), and it is difficult to conclude that the Korea Institute of Securities and Exchange prepared the basic exchange rate of 197 fiscal year to the effect that it can not be deemed that the Korea Institute of Securities and Exchange prepared the basic exchange rate of 197 fiscal year as the reference exchange rate of 100 million won or more (12,000 won per month).

(3) As to the financial statements for the fiscal year 1998 of Nonindicted Co. 2

The defense counsel asserts that the financial statements for the fiscal year 1998 of the non-indicted 2 corporation are not subdivided. The above financial statements are submitted only for the original bill loan of 1 billion won of the non-indicted 10 corporation on March 30, 1999 in attached Form (2) of the indictment (8). As seen later, as the part of the above bill loan is not acquitted since there is no proximate causal relation between the window dressing account and the loan, it is not determined whether the financial statements for the fiscal year 1998 of the non-indicted 2 corporation.

B. Individual loans and payment guarantee parts

(1) Corporate bond payment guarantee and loan guarantee portion of the Korea Guarantee Insurance (No. 1, 13, 28, 49 section in attached Form 1 of the indictment)

(A) Defense Counsel's assertion

1) Nonindicted Co. 1 was selected as a preferentially assessed A company for the performance of the Korea Guarantee Insurance, and, in the case of the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., a preferentially assessed A company under the business guidelines, it may be mitigated without applying the deliberation criteria (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4229 Decided July 22, 2004). Thus, even if Nonindicted Co. 1 knew of the fact that the enemy had expressed the enemy in the immediately preceding year, it is possible to guarantee the payment in accordance with the above business guidelines, so there is no proximate causal relation between each of the above guarantees and the window dressing accounts.

2) The payment guarantee amounting to KRW 5.2 billion for the corporate bonds of the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. of April 23, 1996, KRW 7.0 billion loan guarantee on July 20, 1996, and KRW 67 on June 15, 1998 for the payment guarantee of corporate bonds is established between investors of the corporate bonds as the exchange guarantee, but only the application documents for the payment guarantee of corporate bonds between Nonindicted Co. 1 and the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. for the payment guarantee institution are submitted formally, and in substance, the Korea Guarantee Insurance extended the risk acceptance period for the payment guarantee of corporate bonds of Nonindicted Co. 1, which is identical to the extension of the maturity period of the general financial institution, and thus it is difficult to deem that the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. has suffered substantial damage to the principal and interest of the corporate bonds.

3) In the case of a payment guarantee of KRW 5.2 billion on April 23, 1996, when an ordinary financial institution guarantees the debentures issued by an enterprise, it shall undergo procedures such as an extension agreement prior to the maturity of the company, collection of data, weekly decision, reporting of reduction of the company amount, approval, etc., and the above procedure begins more than two months prior to the maturity of the company, and the decision-making on whether to guarantee the payment guarantee within the financial institution will be made at the stage of the combination of data, so the financial statements submitted at the time of the above guarantee insurance are likely to be the financial statements for the fiscal year of 1994, not the financial statements for the fiscal year of Nonindicted Co. 195, not for the fiscal year of 195.

4) Since the market price of the real estate offered as security for the loan guarantee of 7 billion won on February 6, 1997 exceeds the above payment guarantee amount, the above guarantee has no proximate causal relation with the window dressing accounting.

(B) The judgment of this Court

1) The determination as to the assertion that there is no proximate causal relation between Non-Indicted 1 Company and each guarantee of this case since the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. is the preferentially guaranteed A company

In light of the business guidelines related to the preferential service company of Non-Indicted 50's legal statement and guarantee insurance (as of January 1, 1997), it is true that Non-Indicted 1 is the preferential service company of guarantee insurance against the guarantee insurance against the non-Indicted 50. However, in the case of the preferential service company A, it seems that the limit of examination is higher or the premium is discounted, and it is merely a preferential service company A, and the criteria for examination of loan or guarantee of payment are not mitigated. Even if there is a business guidelines to mitigate it without applying deliberation criteria to the preferential service company at the time of the above payment guarantee as alleged by the defense counsel, it is difficult to view that the existence of the above guidelines affects the establishment of fraud if there is a problem of window dressing accounting of the applicant company like this case. (The case cited by the defense counsel is also related to the crime of occupational breach of trust, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case).

Meanwhile, according to the evidence mentioned above, if Nonindicted Co. 1 applied for each guarantee or loan guarantee on the Korea Guarantee Insurance for the fiscal year 195, 196, and 197 by dividing the financial statements of the 195, 196, and 197, the most important material was the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1 and the audit report thereof at the time of each of the above guarantees, and the persons in charge of lending the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. trusted that the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1 were falsely prepared at the time of each of the above guarantees, thereby making a mistake about the financial statements of the said Nonindicted Co. 1, and the fact that such mistake had considerable impact on the approval of each of the above guarantees of the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co. 1. Thus, if the above facts were known in this court that the financial statements of the said Nonindicted Co. 1, including Nonindicted Co. 50, etc., stated that the guarantee limit was reduced or more demanded for each of the above guarantees, and it is reasonable to deem the reasonable causal relation between each of the above guarantees.

2) The judgment on the assertion that the payment guarantee of corporate bonds of Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. of April 23, 1996, KRW 5.2 billion, loan guarantee of KRW 7 billion on July 20, 1996, and the payment guarantee of corporate bonds of KRW 67 on June 15, 1998 is an exchange guarantee

A substitute repayment refers to the repayment of an existing debt by providing a new loan only formally without actually receiving funds, and barring any special circumstance, it constitutes a separate loan, but in substance, it is merely an extension of the maturity of an existing debt. Therefore, it cannot be deemed a substitute exchange which is merely an extension of the maturity of an existing loan to allow a financial institution bearing a guaranteed obligation to repay the principal debt by making a new loan to a debtor, and to have the debtor pay the principal debt, or to guarantee the new company bonds issued by a financial institution which has guaranteed an already issued company bonds to secure the payment fund (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7262, Apr. 29, 2005, etc.).

According to the above evidence, each of the above guarantees guarantees when issuing new corporate bonds or receiving loans after the repayment of the previous corporate bonds or loans by non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd., and it cannot be viewed as a substitution which is merely an extension of the due date for repayment due to the difference between the previous and previous guarantees and the substantial transfer of funds between the holders of corporate bonds and the previous guarantees. Therefore, this part of the assertion is rejected.

3) The judgment on the assertion that the financial statements for the fiscal year 1994 have been submitted for the payment guarantee of KRW 5.2 billion on April 23, 1996

According to the above evidence’s legal statement and the investigation report compiled into the trial records (the materials related to the payment guarantee of the corporate bonds issued by Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 49) among the above evidence, it can be recognized that the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 1 were submitted for the fiscal year 1995 at the time of the payment guarantee. Thus, this part of

4) On February 6, 1997, the market price of the real estate offered as security for a loan guarantee of 7 billion won on the basis of the above payment guarantee amount exceeds the above payment guarantee amount, and on the assertion that there is no proximate causal relation between the window dressing accounting and the above payment guarantee amount

However, according to the above evidence's statement and the statement of the review of the payment guarantee of the Housing Fund of Non-Indicted 1 Co., Ltd. which was bound in the trial records and Non-Indicted 51's statement, etc., the above loan guarantee is offered as security, and the appraisal price of the above land does not reach the above guarantee amount of KRW 5,351,730,000 per square year. Meanwhile, the security attached to the above payment guarantee review document can be acknowledged as follows: "this security object is the appraisal price per square year, and the current market price is one million won (the two-party sales team)". Since the financial institution trusted the appraisal price calculated by requesting the appraisal corporation in examining the loan or guarantee, it is common to determine whether to lend or guarantee the above loan, not the market price and appraisal price, and the market price of the above land is not the market price, and it seems that there was a reasonable causal relation between the above payment guarantee institution and the above insurance company at the time of the payment guarantee.

(2) As to the payment guarantee of KRW 15.6 billion by the National Agricultural Cooperatives of April 26, 1996

(A) Defense Counsel's assertion

Since the above payment guarantee was made by taking into account not only the financial status of Nonindicted Co. 1 but also the overall circumstances such as construction business outlook, there is no proximate causal relation between window dressing accounting and payment guarantee.

(B) The judgment of this Court

In light of the above examination documents, among the above examination documents, etc., the non-indicted 53's legal statement and prosecutor's statement of the non-indicted 53 and the statement of the comprehensive evaluation table of the agricultural company in charge of the non-indicted 1 corporation were submitted at the time of the above payment guarantee, and at the time the non-indicted 1 corporation's loan manager trusted the above financial statements and audit report, thereby analyzing the financial status of the non-indicted 1 corporation and leading it to the payment guarantee (the non-indicted 53 also stated that it is difficult to give the guarantee if it is believed that the non-indicted 53 was not audit report). In accordance with the above recognition facts, it is difficult to view that the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation provided the payment guarantee even with knowledge of the window dressing

(3) On April 30, 1996, as to non-guaranteed private equity bonds of 7 billion won for life as of April 30, 1996

(A) Defense Counsel's assertion

This case is a kind of hub theory that is made on the condition that executives and employees of Nonindicted Co. 1 subscribe to the retirement benefit insurance for life, and there is no proximate causal relationship between the window dressing and the loan.

(B) The judgment of this Court

However, according to the above evidence's legal statement and prosecutor's statement, and the statement of Korea Life Insurance Act No. 51 time-long Non-Indicted 49's non-Indicted 51 of the Korea Life Insurance Act, the above payment guarantee can be acknowledged as being attracting employee retirement insurance equivalent to KRW 2 billion from the Korea Life Insurance Co. 1, but the above payment guarantee was also submitted the window dressing financial statements of Non-Indicted 1, and Non-Indicted 49 stated that it was accepted the above bonds by trust in the financial statements of Non-Indicted 1, and that it was not possible to lend the above financial situation to the company with the purchase of the above bonds, and that the above subscription amount of the retirement insurance does not exceed 1/3 of the above bonds acquisition amount, the above assertion cannot be viewed as having been accepted even if Korea Life Insurance knew the window dressing accounting of Non-Indicted 1's company (and in this case, it is not seen as not falling under Brazil theory).

(4) As to the payment guarantee amounting to KRW 6.3 billion against the corporate bonds of Gyeongnam Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gyeongnam Bank”) dated July 4, 1996

(A) Defense Counsel's assertion

As to the payment guarantee of this case, 1,122,780 shares of Nonindicted Co. 10 were offered as security. As of July 4, 1996, the share price of Nonindicted Co. 10 as of July 4, 1996 was 16,00 won and the value of the shares was 17.9 billion won in total, and it is sufficient to secure the amount of the payment guarantee.

(B) The judgment of this Court

However, according to the above evidence, the above evidence is not offered as security for the above payment guarantee of non-indicted 10,00,000 shares of non-indicted 10,000,000, which were additionally provided for the above payment guarantee, but as joint security for 26.6 billion won of shares of non-indicted 10,000, which were provided for the above payment guarantee, based on the statement of non-indicted 25 in court and the statement of documents related to the above payment guarantee of corporate bonds of Gyeongnam Bank, which were bound to the trial records

(5) As to the payment guarantee of KRW 6650 million against Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2, 1996, Dec. 6, 1996

(A) Defense Counsel's assertion

This payment guarantee also cannot be deemed to have suffered loss equivalent to the principal and interest of the bonds by Dongnam Bank as a repayment guarantee.

(B) The judgment of this Court

According to the above evidence, the above guarantee is not a substitute which is merely an extension of the payment period, since the above guarantee is guaranteed by the Dongnam Bank when it redeems the previous company bonds first and then issues new company bonds thereafter, it cannot be viewed as a substitute which is merely an extension of the payment period, since the previous and previous guarantee is different from the holders of the company bonds and the substantial transfer of funds is not possible. Therefore, this part of the assertion

3. As to the breach of trust in selling private shares at a high price

A. Defense Counsel's assertion

The sales price per share of Nonindicted Co. 2 is KRW 4,518,00 for Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares and KRW 4,530 for December 1, 1998, taking account of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1’s arithmetic average of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 was about KRW 4,530 and the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 were non-listed shares, and at the time of the sale of the shares, Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 were recognized as the same corporation, so it is justifiable to calculate the share price of Nonindicted Co. 2’s shares to the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1, and there is no evidence to prove that there is less than KRW 4,518 at the time of the sale of the shares.

B. The judgment of this Court

In the context of breach of trust, property damage means a case where the representative director, etc. of a company inflicts property damage on the company in general in violation of his/her duty, and it is reasonable to deem that the amount of damage incurred by the company is equivalent to the difference between the market price and the sales price of the shares. In the case of trading unlisted stocks, where there is a normal example of trading that reflects the objective exchange value properly, the market price should be evaluated by considering the market price. However, where there is no such case of trading, the relevant laws and regulations governing the evaluation method should be considered as the market price, and it cannot be concluded that any one evaluation method (e.g., the evaluation method of Article 54 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) should be applied at all times in consideration of the application of different standards according to its purpose of each enactment. It shall be reasonably determined by comprehensively taking into account the situation of the relevant unlisted company and the trading party, the characteristics of the relevant business type, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do856, Apr. 29, 2005).

In the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed as to the facts constituting the crime of this case, namely, the instant shares were held by Nonindicted Co. 11 or Nonindicted Co. 30; rather, the overall purchase of shares was unilaterally ordered by the planning and coordination office with which Nonindicted Co. 2 was overall, and the sales price was calculated by Nonindicted Co. 1 or 30; Nonindicted Co. 31, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 1, 30; Defendant 1, on June 29, 198, did not sell the shares at KRW 80,000,000, which were held by Nonindicted Co. 1 and KRW 5,000,000, KRW 10,000,000, KRW 8,000,000, which were held by Nonindicted Co. 1 and KRW 5,000,000,000, which were held by Nonindicted Co. 1 and KRW 1,000,00.

4. A portion of embezzlement of corporate funds, such as land sale proceeds;

A. Defense Counsel's assertion

Defendant 1 did not receive money from Nonindicted Co. 5. However, Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 did not receive money from Nonindicted Co. 4, 500 million won on December 31, 1998, and used money from Nonindicted Co. 1 to Nonindicted Co. 500 million won on the company’s operating funds (each of the above loans was issued by Nonindicted Co. 3 and issued by Nonindicted Co. 2 to Nonindicted Co. 3 as collateral for KRW 6 billion on April 12, 199; KRW 400 million on the following day; KRW 1 and KRW 500,000 on KRW 50,000 on KRW 9; KRW 500,000 on KRW 40; KRW 500,000 on KRW 1 and KRW 500,000 on KRW 1 and KRW 500,000 on KRW 1 and KRW 500,000 on KRW 40,000 on the following day.

B. The judgment of this Court

The facts charged of this case are mainly based on Non-Indicted 5's statement. Non-Indicted 5's statement. Non-Indicted 5's delivery of KRW 2.575 billion to Non-Indicted 3 on April 13, 1999, and on the circumstances, Non-Indicted 3 entered into a contract on December 31, 1998 to purchase 42 parcels, such as Gyeonggi-gun's business site for Non-Indicted 4 Co. 3's business site (detailed number omitted) with KRW 5.9 billion on December 31, 1998, the non-Indicted 2's remaining amount of KRW 500 million on the part of Non-Indicted 4.7 billion on February 9, 199 (the remaining amount of KRW 500 million on the part of Non-Indicted 2's remaining amount of money transferred to Non-Indicted 4.5 billion on the part of Non-Indicted 1's business site and the remaining amount of KRW 900 million on February 2, 1999.

The difference between the defense counsel's assertion and the statement of the non-indicted 5 is that the non-indicted 5 billion won should be paid to the non-indicted 3 during the process of the transfer of the land for the non-indicted 4 corporation (as to the non-indicted 5's statement, the amount of KRW 5.9 billion is KRW 5.4 billion, according to the defense counsel's claim), the character of the above money (the non-indicted 5 is the purchase price of the land for the non-indicted 4 corporation, but the defense counsel borrowed the money, but transferred the land for the non-indicted 4 corporation). The amount of money that the non-indicted 3 received from the non-indicted 5 on April 13, 199 (as to the non-indicted 5.4 billion won according to the non-indicted 5's statement, KRW 1.5 billion is KRW 1.4 billion,5 billion, and the remaining part of the bill was delivered to the non-indicted 4 corporation's defense counsel's claim that the non-indicted 9.5 billion won was delivered.

First, the amount of KRW 5.9 billion paid by Nonindicted Co. 5 to Nonindicted Co. 3 or KRW 5.44 billion, regardless of the purchase price of the business site for Nonindicted Co. 4 or the mere loan, was issued by Nonindicted Co. 1 and the bill endorsed by Nonindicted Co. 2 was offered as security, and the business site for Nonindicted Co. 4 was transferred to the repayment of the said money, so the said money shall be presumed to be the money of Nonindicted Co. 1 or 2, or the company to be deposited into Nonindicted Co. 4. In addition, the money paid additionally in addition to the purchase price of the business site for Nonindicted Co. 4 on April 13, 199 ( KRW 2.0 billion or KRW 1.245.3 million) in addition to the purchase price of the business site for Nonindicted Co. 5, regardless of the mere loan, and thus, the assertion that Nonindicted Co. 1 issued the said money to Nonindicted Co. 4 and paid it as security is not reasonable.

Next, as to the amount of money that Nonindicted 5 promised to pay to Nonindicted 3 with respect to the site for Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 5, up to the court, paid KRW 5.9 billion with the purchase price for Nonindicted 4’s business site. On April 13, 1999, it is relatively consistent that Nonindicted 5, KRW 2.5 billion was paid with the purchase price for Nonindicted 3, 3,500,000 won. In light of the fact that Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 196, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 5, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 3, and Defendant 400,000,000 won of the check account at KRW 9.75 billion, Defendant 1, 280,000 won of the check account at KRW 9.

5. Parts of evasion of compulsory execution;

A. Defense Counsel's assertion

Even if Defendant 1’s personal funds (cash) had been successfuled and put into a new construction of a house site in Seongbuk-dong, Defendant 1 had already concealed the above personal funds until the land site in Seongbuk-dong was successful bid, and in this case, it is merely transferred the already concealed property to the original state, and it cannot be deemed that it newly concealed the property that can be subject to compulsory execution at the creditor’s request, and therefore, the crime of evading compulsory execution is not established.

B. The judgment of this Court

Even if a concealed property is already concealed, if the discovery is more difficult or if the ownership relation is more unclear, it also constitutes a "harbor" as prescribed in the crime of evasion of compulsory execution. In this case, since Defendant 1 used personal funds at the auction and new construction of a house under the name of Non-Indicted 14, which is another person, to make it more difficult to discover the property or made it more unclear about the ownership status, it constitutes a crime of evasion of compulsory execution.

1. Defendant 1

Considering the crimes of this case, such as the fact that the Defendant borrowed money from financial institutions using the window dressing financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, and the fact that the Defendant had affiliated companies such as Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 11, etc. purchase high-priced stocks of the Defendant, and that the entire group (group name omitted) has embezzled KRW 1.20 million out of the proceeds from the sale of real estate owned by the company and used it for the construction of the Defendant’s house, etc. in the situation that the entire group was in default, and that the Defendant used the capital of KRW 1.20 million out of the proceeds from the sale of real estate owned by the company, used the capital of KRW 1.20,000,000 as the deposit for the auction of the said house, and had the Defendant’s wife registered as the representative director or auditor and received unjust benefits exceeding KRW 100

However, in this case, the capitalization of the cost of the inventory assets pointed out as the principal window dressing accounting was recognized as normal accounting for the year 197 with the revision of the accounting standards. Since the above revised corporate accounting standards are more reasonable, it cannot be deemed as bad window dressing accounting in quality, and the size of window dressing accounting is not smaller than the sales amount of the company. It was a large number of companies with window dressing accounting to take account of the company before and after the 197 foreign exchange crisis. The fact that the defendant sold the amount of the loans received by using the window dressing financial statements to the 10th company and the 10th company with the 1st company with the value of the real estate acquired by the 1st company with the 1st company with the 197 company with the 1st company with the 10th company with the 1st company with the 4th company with the view of the change of the value of the real estate acquired by the 1st company with the 1st company with the 1st company with the 1st company at the time.

2. Defendant 2

( Group Name omitted) The defendant, as a director in charge of the group’s re-election, ordered the window dressing accounting to Nonindicted 31, etc., and decided the selling price in selling the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, who are owned by Defendant 1 to an affiliate company. While the defendant 1 concealed the funds embezzled, the degree of participation in the crime is less than that of the defendant in the crime. However, the defendant appears to have caused the crime under the direction or consent of Defendant 1, who is the president of the group, and the window dressing accounting is not larger than that of the company, and the amount of loans through window dressing accounting is not larger than that of the company, and the amount of loans through window dressing accounting is not larger than that of the company, and the above stock sale case is more than 10 won in light of the fact that the value of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, 1998, which was less than 10 won in total and more than 14 won in consideration of the fact that the value of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. was changed to 14 won in consideration of the total value of the shares.

3. Defendant 3

Defendant 1’s wife and (group name omitted), as the head of the Construction Support Headquarters of the Group, instructed Nonindicted 83, a subordinate employee, to raise extra funds through subcontractor, supervised the construction process by dispatching on-site supervision at the building site of Seongbuk-dong Housing owned by Defendant 1, and part of Defendant 1’s involvement in the money laundering, etc. However, even though the degree of participation in the crime is somewhat minor, Defendant appears to have reached the crime of this case upon Defendant 1’s order, Defendant appears to have reached the crime of this case. In light of the fact that the Seongbuk-dong Housing and its site was donated to Nonindicted Co. 2, and that there was no previous conviction, and that it is contrary to the fact that it is against the law of this case at the time of the commission of the crime, the sentence shall be imposed as set forth in the order and the execution thereof shall be suspended.

4. Defendant 4

Although the Defendant, along with other union members, intrudes into the office where the employee of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation is investigating, imposed the above conditions, and interferes with the investigation by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation for a period of two months or for interference with the investigation by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, there is a circumstance to consider the Defendant’s motive to bring about the rest of the Defendant’s failure to work due to the investigation by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, resulting in the failure of the company, resulting in the failure of many employees to lose their jobs. In addition to the initial period of the crime, the Defendant obstructed by a relatively passive method, such as an implied demonstration, etc., in addition to the initial period of the crime, and even if the Defendant did not have

1. Part of the refusal to conduct an investigation by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (this part of the prosecution);

A. Facts charged

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are as follows: “Non-Indicted. 1 and Non-Indicted. 2 are under the composition proceeding with the authorization of composition made on April 13, 1999 and around October 28, 199. As of February 2003, Non-Indicted. 1 Co. 2 did not perform the defective debt amounting to approximately KRW 81.7 billion for creditor financial institutions as of February 2, 2003; Non-Indicted. 2 Co. 2 did not perform the bad debt amounting to approximately KRW 108.8.8 billion for the reason that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation received a claim for damages from the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation or received a vicarious exercise of the right to claim damages or participation in the lawsuit, and in such a case, it did not refuse, interfere with, or evade an investigation.

Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with executives and employees of Nonindicted 1, Vice President 28, Vice President 29, etc. of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation to refuse an investigation into the business and property status of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in consecutive order. On February 4, 2003, the Director-General of Special Investigation Team on Non-Indicted 1, 200 of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, who received “the list of materials related to the business and property status” from Non-Indicted 89 regarding Non-Indicted 1, which received from Non-Indicted 2, “the special investigation team for Non-Indicted 1,” “the list of materials related to the business and property status of Non-Indicted 2,” which was demanded by Non-Indicted 89 to submit the said list of materials related to non-Indicted 1, 203, such as the list of materials related to non-Indicted 3, the internal office, telephone number, and non-Indicted 47, etc. of the said non-Indicted 2, without justifiable grounds, and continued to submit the remaining materials to the Chairman and 203, without justifiable grounds.

B. Defense Counsel's assertion

As seen earlier, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s defense counsel asserted that the failure of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to submit the data requested by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation does not constitute refusal or evasion of investigation under the Depositor Protection Act, since it is difficult to view that there is a duty to submit the data to those to be polled under

C. The judgment of this Court

The evidence as to this part of the facts charged is that Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with the executives and employees of the non-indicted 1 and the Industrial Development Bank of Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, each of the statements made by the prosecutor's offices of the non-indicted 47, 90, 31, 42, 91, 28, and 29, each of the public prosecutor's statements by the non-indicted 47, 90, 42, 98, and 29, each of the public prosecutor's statements by the non-indicted 47, 31, 42, 91, 28, and 29, each of the submission request for the submission of data, each of the status of the obligations of the non-indicted 1 and 2, the copy of the report on the non-indicted 1 and 2's failure to investigate the non-indicted 1 and 2, each of the above facts charged, and there is no evidence to support that the above defendants refused or avoided the investigation by the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation.

In other words, Article 21(1) of the Depositor Protection Act provides that an insured financial institution (referring to a bank, etc. subject to deposit insurance under the Depositor Protection Act; Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act) imposes an obligation to submit data related to its duties and property status within the necessary scope for determining insolvent financial institutions and insolvency-related financial institutions. Article 21-3 of the same Act provides that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation may request persons related to insolvency to file a claim for damages or to exercise the right to claim damages, it may request the relevant central administrative agencies, local governments, etc. to provide data or information on the assets of the persons related to insolvency. Article 41 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that a person who refuses to submit data or submits false data may be punished in violation of Article 21(1) of the Depositor Protection Act, while the Act provides that the person related to insolvency may request submission of data or request submission of false data, and that the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation may request the persons related to insolvency to file a lawsuit for damages, and that the person related to insolvency may not be subject to the principle of search and seizure of the Act.

Ultimately, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

2. Loan and payment guarantee from Nonindicted Co. 10 (Nos. 4 and 9, 11, 12, 14 and 27, 30 and 38, 40 and 48, 50 and 52, and Nos. 1 through 5, 7, and 8 of the list of crimes in attached Form 1 in indictment)

A. Facts charged

The facts charged in this part of the indictment in collusion with Nonindicted 3, the Vice-Chairperson of Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted 36, the director in charge of accounting, and Nonindicted 31, who is an employee in charge of accounting:

(A) In preparing the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1, 195, when the settlement of accounts was finished, the settlement of accounts is 1.25 million won as a result of the occurrence of the deficit of the current net loss of 1.25 million won, and in the case of the public disclosure after accounting as it is in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, there is concern that if the foreign confidence falls considerably, it would be likely that the foreign confidence will not receive new loans from financial institutions or that the pressure to recover existing loans and company bonds would be increased, and on the basis of the fact that there is a good financial situation and business performance such as the occurrence of net profits by overappropriating the assets, the false financial statements are prepared and publicly announced as if there are good financial conditions and business performance such as credit loans, issuance of company bonds, etc., and the repayment of the company bonds whose maturity comes due by raising the funds from financial institutions, and the new business funds, etc.

On February 196, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 1, 1996, the financial expense of KRW 11 billion has been excessively appropriated as inventory assets, and the net income has been realized at KRW 9.7772 million, and the net income has been realized at KRW 9.2 million, a false financial statement such as balance sheet and profit and loss statement has been prepared and announced in daily newspapers around March 10, 1996. On May 17, 1996, an employee in charge of loan of Nonindicted Co. 1, who received orders from the defendant, etc. from the office of Nonindicted Co. 10 in Seoul, submitted the financial statement and audit report in 195 prepared and announced falsely to the person in charge of loan of Nonindicted Co. 10 in 195, and it has been received KRW 3 billion as a bill loan from the victim Co. 10 in the name of a bill loan from the victim Co. 2, 199 to January 20, 197.

(B) As a result of the settlement of accounts in preparing the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 20 (as of January 1, 1996 and December 31, 1996), the settlement of accounts has been completed, which would result in the occurrence of a hostile loss of KRW 5.653 million as in the previous year, and if accounting is kept and disclosed as it is in conformity with the corporate accounting standards, it would lead to a significant decline in external confidence in the transfer of assets to obtain new loans from financial institutions or to increase pressure to recover existing loans and corporate bonds, and on the other hand, to prepare and publicly announce false financial statements as if there are good financial conditions and business performance, such as the generation of net profits by overappropriating assets, and to use them for the repayment of corporate bonds with maturity and the issuance of corporate bonds through credit loans and the issuance of corporate bonds, etc., and for the operation funds of the company, such as new business funds;

On February 197, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 1, 1997, an excessive appropriation of KRW 10.795 billion for financial expenses as inventory assets, and an increase in the net income for the same amount, thereby making a false financial statement, such as balance sheet and profit and loss statement, as if the net income for the net income was shown in blacks of KRW 5.653 million, and publicly announced in daily newspapers around March 15, 1997. On May 197, 1997, an employee in charge of loans of Nonindicted Co. 1, who was ordered by the Defendant, etc. at the office of Nonindicted Co. 10 Co., Ltd. located in Seoul, by submitting the financial statements and audit report for the fiscal year 195 and 1996, which were prepared and publicly announced to the loan manager of Nonindicted Co. 10 Co. 2, Ltd. for two years as above, who received the total amount of loans from the victim Co. 10, May 7, 1997 to the payment guarantee for the principal and interest of Nonindicted Co.

(2) Defendant 1 and 2 in collusion with Nonindicted 3 and 31;

In preparing the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1, 197 and December 31, 1997, as a result of closing the settlement of accounts, Nonindicted Co. 1, as well as the previous year, is likely to cause a deficit of KRW 19.24 billion in the net loss of the current year as in the previous year, and when accounting and public disclosure are made in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, it would cause a significant decline in external credit delivery to obtain new loans from financial institutions or to increase pressure to recover existing loans and corporate bonds. On the other hand, as if the financial situation and business performance are good, such as the occurrence of net profits by excessively appropriating assets, a false financial statement is prepared and publicly announced as if there are good financial conditions and business performance such as lending, issuance of corporate bonds, etc., and to use them for the repayment of corporate bonds with maturity and new business funds, etc.

Around February 198, 1998, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 1, an office of Nonindicted Co. 1, an office of Nonindicted Co. 1, who has received orders from the Defendant, etc. at the office of Nonindicted Co. 1, an office of 15.478 billion won, and an office of 8.68 billion won in foreign currency converted profit, and an office of 24.163 billion won in assets, such as KRW 24.19 million, and the net income has increased the net income, thereby making a false statement of balance sheet, statement of financial statements, etc. as if the net income had shown a black of 4.919 billion won in the net income. Around May 21, 1998, an office of Nonindicted Co. 1, a loan staff of Nonindicted Co. 1, who received orders from the Defendant, etc., at the office of Nonindicted Co. 10, a loan of 195,196,197 and an audit report of 190 billion won in total, which had been received from the victim Co.198.

(3) Defendant 1 and 2 in collusion with Nonindicted 3, etc.:

(A) In preparing the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 37 (C. 1, 195 and Dec. 31, 1995), as a result of closing the settlement of accounts, there is a deficit of KRW 1.5775 million in net loss in the current year, and when accounting and disclosure are made in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, it is likely that if the foreign confidence falls considerably, it would cause a significant decline in the foreign confidence to receive new loans from financial institutions or to increase the pressure to recover existing loans and corporate bonds, and on the basis of the fact that there is a good financial situation and business performance such as the occurrence of net profits by overappropriating assets, it is intended to prepare and publicly announce false financial statements as if there are good financial conditions and business performance such as lending, issuance of corporate bonds, etc., to raise the company's funds through credit loans, issuance of financial institutions, etc., and to use them as operating

On February 196, 196, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 2, 1996, an excessive appropriation of KRW 1.772 million for financial expenses as inventory assets, and an increase in the net income amount corresponding to the same amount, and the net income amount was realized in blacks of KRW 170 million, a false financial statement such as balance sheet and profit and loss statement, etc. was prepared and announced in daily newspapers around March 1996. On March 196, an employee in charge of loans of Nonindicted Co. 1, who received orders from the defendant, etc. from the office of Nonindicted Co. 10, in Seoul, submitted the financial statement and audit report of 195, which was falsely prepared and announced to the lending officer of Nonindicted Co. 1, 195, which was prepared and announced to him, and then received KRW 4 billion for bill loans from the victim Co. 10, Dec. 25, 1996, and thereafter received KRW 230 million in total for bill loans from around that time to December 6, 1996.

(B) In preparing the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co., Ltd. 39 (C. 1, 1997 through Dec. 31, 1997) and 40 (C. 1, 1998) as a result of the closing of the settlement of accounts, the settlement of accounts is 4.4 billion won per net loss in the fiscal year 1997, and 36.465 billion won per net loss in the fiscal year 1998, respectively in the accounting year 1997, and if the accounting and public notice are made as they are in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, there is concern that the foreign credit will rapidly decline from the financial institution to receive new credit from the financial institution, or that the collection pressure of existing credit and company bonds will be aggravated, as if the financial status and management performance were prepared and public notice of good financial statements, and as such, the financial status and management performance of the company is prepared and publicly announced, and based on these results, the company's new corporate bonds will arrive with its maturity and new corporate bonds repayment funds.

Around February 198, in the case of the accounting year 1997 at the office of Nonindicted Co. 2, 1997, the financial statements such as the balance sheet and profit and loss statement were falsely prepared as if the amount of net income was excessively appropriated and the amount of KRW 5.489 billion was increased, and then the amount was 1.08 billion, and the financial statements such as the balance sheet and profit and loss statement were made public around March 27, 1998. In the case of the accounting year 1998, the financial statements such as the balance sheet and profit and loss statement were made public around 1998 to the employees of Nonindicted Co. 2, 31.9 billion won of the site sales, and the financial statements of KRW 26.29 billion of the assets were collected from Nonindicted Co. 2, 31.9 billion of the total amount of KRW 12 billion of the debt, and the amount was 9.9 billion of the net income and the amount was 9 billion of KRW 9.9 billion of the financial statements.9 billion of each company.9 billion.9 billion of the net income.

B. The judgment of this Court

(1) As to whether the separate financial statements were submitted to Nonindicted Co. 10 (Nos. 4 through 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of the attached Table 1 of the indictment and the loan No. 1 and 5 of the attached Table 2 of the indictment)

The evidence as to this part of the facts charged as to the facts charged in this part, including the above evidence as to the facts charged in the second instance, and some of the statements in the court at the time of each of the above loans held by the executives and employees of the non-indicted 10 corporation, and each of the statements in the prosecutor's office at the time of the above loans, merchant bank business operation guidelines, reports on the current status of credit for the non-indicted 10 corporation and the non-indicted 2 corporation, changes in terms of transaction conditions, adjustment of increased amount of transaction, investigation report (report on the current status of loans handled as loans to the affiliated companies of the group (name omitted from the non-indicted 10 corporation to the (name omitted). However, each of the above evidences alone is insufficient to recognize that the financial statements divided into the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 2 corporation at the time of the above loans or the limit for each of the above loans have been submitted, and there is no other evidence to

Rather, according to Nonindicted Co. 20, 21 and 93’s respective legal statements, guidelines for operation of merchant bank and reports on credit conditions, etc., the loans of Nonindicted Co. 10 and Nonindicted Co. 2, including Nonindicted Co. 10, are not separately established for each individual loan, and the board of directors set a maximum limit for loans to the extent that it does not exceed the said limit by comprehensively assessing the size, future prospects, credit conditions, etc. of the company, and Nonindicted Co. 10, Co. 2, 95, each of the above financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., Ltd., 109 and KRW 99,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 19,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 96,000,00,000,000,000,00.

In addition, as seen below, it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relation between the preparation of financial statements through the window dressing accounting of Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 and the loans to the above companies of Nonindicted Co. 10.

(2) As to whether there is a proximate causal relationship between Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2’s window dressing account and Nonindicted Co. 10’s loan

The crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person to take advantage of the property or gain pecuniary advantage by inducing the act of disposal. As such, there is a proximate causal relation between deception, mistake, and property disposal (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1155, Jun. 27, 200, etc.). Thus, even if the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 were to obtain a bill loan from the non-indicted 10 corporation or let the non-indicted 10 corporation obtain a loan guarantee, the site for the payment guarantee for the bonds is that the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 10 corporation were to submit false financial statements, etc. to the non-indicted 10 corporation in order to establish the crime of fraud, there is a proximate causal relation between the above deception and the loans or payment guarantee for the non-indicted 10 corporation, and it is difficult to acknowledge that there was no other reasonable causal relation between the above non-indicted 10 corporation and the non-indicted 20,21,223, and 24 were to be known at the time of the above loan or payment guarantee against the non-indicted 21 corporation.

오히려, 공소외 20, 92, 21, 93의 법정 진술, 앞서 든 각 신용상태동향보고, 변호인이 제출한 증 제6호( 공소외 2 주식회사 1996년도 감사보고서), 증 제7호(1997년 공소외 10 주식회사의 공소외 2 주식회사에 대한 신규대출현황), 증 제45호( 공소외 10 주식회사의 신규 대출업체 현황), 증 제67호( 공소외 10 주식회사의 적자기업 발행 회사채에 대한 지급보증 현황), 참고자료 3(공소부제기이유고지서)의 기재 등에 의하면, (그룹명 생략)그룹이 1995. 9. 5.경 공소외 10 주식회사를 인수하여 (그룹명 생략)그룹이 공소외 10 주식회사의 대주주가 된 사실, (그룹명 생략)그룹에서는 매달마다 자금수요와 그 자금의 변제가능시기 등이 기재된 ‘자금계획표’를 공소외 10 주식회사 측에 제출하여 대출 여부에 대하여 상호 협의해 왔고 또한 연초에 그룹 전체의 ‘연간 사업실적보고회’를 개최하고 공소외 10 주식회사 사장 등 (그룹명 생략)그룹 계열사 사장단들이 모여 매달마다 계열사 영업실적 및 재무상태에 대하여 논의해 온 사실, 공소외 10 주식회사와 같은 종금사의 경우 주로 외부로부터 예금이나 자금을 차입하거나 채권을 발행하여 마련한 자금으로 기업들에게 어음할인 등의 방식으로 자금을 공급하고 따라서 종금사의 대출은 은행권보다 이자가 높아 수익률이 좋은 반면 그 위험성도 크기 때문에 재무제표에 대한 분석뿐만 아니라 기업의 규모, 향후 전망, 투자가치 등 제반사정을 종합적으로 판단하여 그 대출 여부를 결정하는 사실, 공소외 20, 92, 21 등도 적자기업이라고 해서 무조건 대출이 안된다는 것은 아니고 적자요인이 무엇인지, 적자요인이 일시적인지 계속적인지 등을 탐문하고 분석하며 특히 (그룹명 생략)그룹의 경우 모자관계라는 특수성이 대출 여부의 결정에 변수가 될 수 있다고 진술하고 있는 점(이들은 적자기업일 경우 대출이 안된다는 취지의 검찰에서의 진술은 대출의 원칙론을 이야기한 것일 뿐이라고 한다), 공소외 1 주식회사와 공소외 2 주식회사가 위 각 범죄일람표 기재 일시 이전에 공소외 10 주식회사에 원리금 상환을 연체한 사실이 없었던 사실, 이 사건 공소외 1 주식회사와 공소외 2 주식회사의 분식내용은 공소외 1 주식회사가 1997 회계연도에 공사수익 150억 원 가량을 과대계상한 것을 제외하고는 모두 재고자산에 대한 차입금이자를 자본화했다는 것인데 위 금융비용의 자본화는 앞서 본 바와 같이 1997 회계연도부터는 정상적인 회계기준으로 편입되었고, 위 분식규모 또한 크지 않은 점, 한편 공소외 10 주식회사가 직전연도에 적자를 시현한 업체들에게 대출을 해 준 사례가 다수 있는데, 공소외 2 주식회사의 경우 1996년도에 당기순이익이 -64억 원이었음에도 불구하고 공소외 10 주식회사는 1,000억 원의 대출한도를 그대로 유지하였고, 그 외에도 1997년에는 두산농산(주), 창원특수강(주), 주은부동산신탁(주), 통일중공업(주), 1998년에는 (주)두루넷, 서울지하철공사, (주)태흥, 두산포장(주), 1999년에는 (주)아시아나 항공, 성신양회공업(주) 등 직전연도에 적자를 시현한 업체에 신규로 어음할인한도를 설정해주거나 기존 어음할인한도를 증액해 준 사실, 나아가 공소외 10 주식회사는 1996년에는 해태전자, 1997년에는 한솔전자와 거평패션 등 직전연도에 적자를 시현한 업체가 발행한 회사채에 대하여 지급보증을 해 준 사실, 또한 공소외 10 주식회사는 IMF 이후 1997. 12.경 1차로 영업정지 되었다가 1,700억 원 상당의 유상증자를 조건으로 1998. 5. 2.경 다시 영업을 재개할 수 있었는데(당시 공소외 10 주식회사는 당국이 정해 놓은 BIS 비율을 맞추어야 존속이 가능했고 이를 위하여는 자기자본 비율을 높여야만 했는바, 그 유일한 대안이 유상증자였다), 당시 극도로 어려워진 경제사정 때문에 정상적인 방법으로는 유상증자에 참여할 기업을 찾기가 어려웠기 때문에 공소외 10 주식회사에서는 업체에 일정 금액을 대출해 주되 해당업체에서 대출금 중 상당 금액을 다시 유상증자 명목으로 공소외 10 주식회사에 환입시키는 방법으로 유상증자를 실시한 사실, (그룹명 생략)그룹의 경우에도 그 무렵 계열사 명의로 이루어진 대출의 상당 부분이 유상증자대금으로 공소외 10 주식회사에 환입된 사실( 공소외 20은 자신이 대표이사로 있던 1998. 5. 14.부터 1999. 1. 8.까지 사이에 있던 대출의 상당 부분은 유상증자를 위한 대출이었다고 진술하고 있고, 공소외 20, 93 등의 진술에 의하면 공소외 10 주식회사가 1차 1,770억, 2차 800억, 3차 3,000억 합계 약 5,500억 원을 증자했는데 (그룹명 생략)그룹이 1차에 786억, 2차에 330억, 3차에 900억 도합 1,913억 가량 유상증자에 참여하였고 그밖에 공소외 10 주식회사 후순위채 매입대금, 신대한금고 출자금, 차입금이자 등을 합하면 합계 4,560억 원 가량이 공소외 10 주식회사로 환입되었다고 한다), 공소외 10 주식회사 이사회의 의장으로서 실제로 공소외 10 주식회사를 경영하였다고 자인하고 있는 피고인 1 등이 공소외 10 주식회사의 대출에 관여한 것이 공소외 10 주식회사에 대한 사기라기보다는 오히려 업무상배임이 될 소지가 있는데, 피고인 1의 경우 공소외 20 등 공소외 10 주식회사 임직원들과 공모하여 신용도 조사 등을 하지 않고 (그룹명 생략)그룹 계열사들을 통하여 공소외 1 주식회사에 5,436억 원 상당을 우회대출하였다는 범죄사실에 대하여 위 대출금의 대부분을 공소외 10 주식회사의 증자와 관련하여 사용하였을 뿐 처음부터 공소외 10 주식회사에 손해를 가할 의사로 여신을 취급한 것은 아니라는 이유로 서울지방검찰청에서 1999. 12. 23.자로 업무상배임의 점에 대하여 혐의없음 처분을 받은 사실 등을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 나타난 바와 같이 공소외 10 주식회사는 (그룹명 생략)그룹의 계열사로서 공소외 1 주식회사가나 공소외 2 주식회사의 재정상황을 상세히 파악하고 있던 것으로 보이는 점, 공소외 10 주식회사와 공소외 1 주식회사, 2 주식회사는 한쪽의 부도가 다른 쪽의 부도로 직결될 정도로 공동운명체인 동일계열사이므로 피고인 1이나 피고인 2에게 공소외 10 주식회사에 손해를 가할 의도가 있었다고도 보기 어려운 점, 특히 공소외 10 주식회사가 영업재개된 1998. 5. 2. 이후의 대출은 공소외 10 주식회사의 유상증자에 참여하는 조건하에 이루어진 것으로서 당시 대출 여부를 결정함에 있어 재무제표의 분석은 그다지 중요한 요소로 고려되지 않았던 것으로 보이는 점, 그밖에 이 사건 분식회계의 질이나 규모 등의 제반사정에 비추어보면 공소외 10 주식회사가 공소외 1 주식회사와 공소외 2 주식회사가 분식회계를 통하여 재무제표를 허위로 작성하였다는 것을 알았다면 대출이나 지급보증을 하지 않았을 것이라고 단정하기는 어렵다고 할 것이다( (그룹명 생략)그룹 회장인 피고인 1이 공소외 10 주식회사 이사회의 의장을 맡고 있었던 점과 공소외 20, 92, 21 등이 (그룹명 생략)그룹과 공소외 10 주식회사는 양자 사이에 누가 누구를 속인다는 것이 가능하지 않다고 진술하고 있는 점 등에 비추어보면 피고인 1, 2가 공소외 10 주식회사를 기망하였다고 단정하기 어려운 면도 없지 않다).

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

3. The portion of trust loan of KRW 5 billion from Hanmi Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea-U.S. Bank”) on August 30, 1997 (attached Form 1 Crimes List 39 in the indictment)

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted 3, the Vice-Chairperson of Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted 36, the director in charge of accounting, and Nonindicted 31, the employee in charge of accounting:

In preparing the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1, 196 and December 31, 1996, as a result of closing the settlement of accounts, Nonindicted Co. 1, 200,000 won of net loss 5.6553 billion won as in the previous year, which is the same as in the previous year, is likely to cause a significant decline in external credit delivery and to cause new loans from financial institutions or to increase pressure to recover existing loans and company bonds when it is recorded and publicly announced in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, and on the other hand, to prepare and publicly announce false financial statements as if the financial situation and management performance of the company are good, such as the occurrence of net profits by excessively appropriating assets, and on the basis thereof, to use them as operating funds of the company, such as credit loans, issuance of company bonds, etc., and new business funds, etc.

On February 197, at the office of the non-indicted 1 corporation, it appropriated the financial expenses of KRW 10.795 billion as inventory assets in excess of the net income amounting to increase the net income amount corresponding to that amount, and then prepares a false financial statement such as balance sheet and profit and loss statement as if the net income was shown in blacks amounting to KRW 5.6553 million, and makes a false financial statement such as balance sheet and profit and loss statement publicly announced in daily newspapers around March 15, 1997. On August 30, 1997, the non-indicted 1 corporation loan staff who received orders from the defendant, etc. at the office of the non-indicted 1 corporation was made and announced falsely to the above loaner of the above non-indicted 1 corporation after submitting the financial statement and audit report for the fiscal year of 1996 and the fiscal year of 195, and received five billion won in trust loans from Han-U.S. bank.

The evidence as to the above facts charged is as follows: the evidence mentioned above as to the facts charged in the crime of Article 2 of the judgment and the statement at the court and prosecutor's office of the non-indicted 26, investigation report (the credit rating rating rating table of the non-indicted 1 corporation), credit rating appraisal table, examination report (the Hanmi Bank on August 27, 1997), the current status of credit and security (the Hanmi Bank on August 22, 1997), the current status of credit and security (the Hanmi Bank on August 22, 1997), etc.

Rather, according to the above evidence's statement of non-indicted 26, the credit rating table of Korea-U.S. bank and the current status of collateral, etc., the above loans were reduced by 2.88 million won on June 26, 1997, and were changed to trust loans. The total amount of loans to non-indicted 1 corporation at the time of the above loans was 2.3 billion won including the above 5.0 billion won, and the collateral ratio was 2.287 billion won and the real security was 91.7 billion won (the other non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 3 were personally 60, 400, 40, 1997, 400, and 500,000 won, and the credit rating table of Korea-U.S. bank was 50,000 won and 40,000 won, and it was still 10,000 won in terms of financial soundness and 12,000,000 won.

Ultimately, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court acquitted the defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

4. The portion of the payment guarantee for the 68-time public bonds offered by the Gyeongnam Bank on December 31, 1998 (No. 51 of the indictment attached to the indictment).

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “In collusion with Nonindicted 3 and 31, Defendant 1 and 2 prepared and announced false financial statements as if the financial situation and management performance of the company were good, and on the basis of this, they are used as operating funds of the company, such as repayment of the company’s funds raised from the financial institution through credit loans and issuance of corporate bonds, and new business funds, etc., which come due to maturity, and when the settlement of accounts was finished, as in the previous year, as if the net loss was recorded and announced as is in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, there is concern that if it is recorded and announced as is the fact that there is a large amount of net loss 19.24 billion won as in the previous year, it would be likely that the foreign credit will rapidly decline and would be likely to receive new loans from the financial institution or increase pressure to collect existing loans and corporate bonds.”

Around February 198, Nonindicted Co. 1, 1998, at the office of the said Nonindicted Co. 1, 15.478 billion won of construction profit, foreign currency conversion profit of KRW 8.685 billion of asset, including KRW 24.163 million of total net profit, and the net profit was increased by making a false statement of financial statements such as balance sheet and profit and loss statement, as if the net profit was actualizing a black person of KRW 4.919 billion of net profit, and was made public in daily newspapers around March 21, 1998. Around December 31, 1998, an employee in charge of loan of Nonindicted Co. 1, who received orders from the Defendant, etc. at the office of the said office of the Namnam Bank in Seoul, submitted the above false financial statements to the person in charge of loan of the said Gyeongnam Bank and the audit report of KRW 1995,196 of the said amount and the profits of the victim Co. 2, Ltd. 1781 billion won of the principal and interest of the bank.

The evidence as to the above facts charged reveals the following facts: the evidence mentioned above, the non-indicted 25's statements, applications for approval of credit, credit and collateral contents, examination opinion, and business director's opinion in the court and prosecutor's office. According to the above evidences, it can be acknowledged that the non-indicted 1 corporation has received a payment guarantee amounting to KRW 17.2 billion from the Gyeongnam Bank by submitting a separate report on non-indicted 1, 1995 and 1996. However, as to the existence of proximate causal relation between the above window dressing-type accounting and the above payment guarantee, the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the above evidence’s statement and statement of Nonindicted Company 25’s examination of the Namnam Bank, the above payment guarantee amounting to KRW 20 billion to Nonindicted Company 1’s 4th corporate bonds issued by the Konam Bank before its payment guarantee was not redeemed on November 27, 1998. Nonindicted Company 25, who was in charge of the examination of the above payment guarantee, appears to be due to bank losses if the above payment guarantee was not issued. It was difficult to conclude that the above 16 billion won corporate bonds were to be redeemed at the time of 1900,000,000,000 won, and the above 190,000 won corporate bonds were not redeemed at the time of 19,000,000 won, and the above 19,000 won corporate bonds were not redeemed at the time of 19,000,000 won, and the above 19,000 won corporate bonds were not redeemed.

Ultimately, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court acquitted the defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

5. The part concerning the breach of trust of an unfair loan to Nonindicted Co. 4

A. Facts charged

The facts charged in this part of the indictment in collusion with Nonindicted 35 and Nonindicted 28, the executive director of Nonindicted 11 Company, who is the representative director of Nonindicted 11 Company,

Notwithstanding the fact that Nonindicted Co. 11 borrowed a total amount of KRW 7.92 billion from October 1996 to April 198, 1196, Nonindicted Co. 12 did not repay the above loans, but Nonindicted Co. 12, a joint and several surety, on May 13, 1998, owned by Nonindicted Co. 12, a representative director of Nonindicted Co. 12, a joint and several surety of KRW 191 square meters and KRW 3 multi-family houses on its ground, and Nonindicted Co. 2, a joint and several surety of KRW 14,50,00,00 were not to recover from Nonindicted Co. 14 to Nonindicted Co. 2, a joint and several surety of KRW 199,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

On January 1, 1999, at the office of Defendant 1 in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Daedong, Defendant 1 had Nonindicted Co. 1 borrow KRW 7.755 million to Nonindicted Co. 4, and decided to repay the debt of Nonindicted Co. 12 to Nonindicted Co. 4 with the funds. The physical security for loans to Nonindicted Co. 11 from Nonindicted Co. 18, a director treatment Nonindicted Co. 11, a general manager of the loan business, which Nonindicted Co. 4 decided to succeed from Nonindicted Co. 12, to Nonindicted Co. 4, a demand was made to request the establishment of a collateral security right on the land of the business that Nonindicted Co. 4 decided to succeed from Nonindicted Co. 12, the Nonindicted Co. 18 violated his business duty by ordering Nonindicted Co. 18 to lend funds to Nonindicted Co. 4 without the establishment of a collateral security right, and without preparing a collection plan such as having Nonindicted Co. 1 receive sufficient collateral to preserve the debt, thereby causing considerable financial loss to Nonindicted Co. 4. 14.

B. Defense Counsel's assertion

Defendant 1’s defense counsel asserts that, in the process of acquiring the business rights and debts of Nonindicted Co. 4 in the above facts charged, Nonindicted Co. 11 did not provide actual loans from Nonindicted Co. 4 to Nonindicted Co. 4, but only on the account of the settlement of the loan, the debt of Nonindicted Co. 12 was repaid by Nonindicted Co. 4. At the time, Nonindicted Co. 12, compared to the fact that it was immediately before the bankruptcy, was a company with considerable construction performance and was capable of continuing the above business, so the risk that the debtor could not recover the loan due to the change from Nonindicted Co. 12 to Nonindicted Co. 4, which led to a decrease in the risk that Nonindicted Co. 11 would not recover the loan. The reason why Nonindicted Co. 11 did not set the collateral security on the above business site was already made in the name of Nonindicted Co. 12 Co. , Ltd., which was already established on the above business site at the time of the change in the name of the loan, and the approval for the above business site was obtained immediately, and it was required to be the Nonindicted Co.

C. The judgment of this Court

The evidence as to the above facts charged reveals that Nonindicted Co. 1, 18, 60, 33, and 35’s statement at each court and prosecutor’s office, copies of the agreement on transfer and acquisition of business rights, investigation report (Attachment to the Director of the Bank of Korea, Nonindicted Co. 12), investigation report (Attachment to the loan details for Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 12), loan handling circumstances, copy of the agreement on loan for consumption of money, investigation report (Attachment to the copy of the agreement on loan for consumption of money for Nonindicted Co. 12 Co. 4), etc. on the ground that Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 acquired the above money from Nonindicted Co. 12 Co. 1, 196, and Nonindicted Co. 12 Co. 2, Ltd., Ltd. were not subject to the above change of their right to lease from Nonindicted Co. 14 Co. , Ltd., Ltd. on the ground of the above fact that it was insufficient to recognize that Nonindicted Co. 11 acquired the above amount of money to be transferred to Nonindicted Co. 12700 million won.

오히려 공소외 18, 60, 33, 35, 94, 95의 일부 법정진술, 견본주택비보조부(수사기록 5권 1393～1395쪽), 변호인이 제출한 증 제33호( 공소외 11 주식회사 대체전표 및 출금확인증), 증 제36호(양수리 사업분석), 참고자료 14(주택공급에관한규칙)의 각 기재 등에 의하면, 공소외 11 주식회사는 1996. 10.경 공소외 2 주식회사의 연대보증 하에 공소외 12 주식회사에 사업자금을 대출해 줌에 있어 애초부터 위 사업부지에 대하여 근저당권을 설정받지 않았고 대신 시공사인 공소외 2 주식회사가 위 사업부지에 대하여 근저당권을 설정받았는데, 그 이유는 당시 분양승인을 얻기 위해서는 원칙적으로 사업부지에 설정된 근저당권을 말소해야 하였으나 다만 지주공동사업의 시공사가 근저당권을 설정해 놓은 경우에는 입주자 모집 후 저당권을 행사하지 않겠다는 각서를 공증받아 제출할 경우 분양승인을 얻을 수 있었기 때문인 사실(당시 주택공급규칙 제7조 3항 3호 에는 ‘지정업자 또는 시공권이 있는 등록업자인 사업주체가 건설하는 대지에 저당권이 설정되어있는 경우 저당권 등의 권리자가 주택의 입주자 모집 이후에는 저당권 등을 행사하지 아니하고 그 주택의 사용검사를 받기 전까지 그 저당권 등을 이의없이 말소한다는 약정서를 저당권자와 사업주체가 공동으로 공증하여 제출하는 경우’에는 사업부지에 설정된 저당권을 말소하지 않고서도 입주자를 모집할 수 있다고 규정되어 있다가 위 규정은 1998. 6. 15. 주택공급에관한규칙 개정으로 삭제되었다. 한편 공소외 11 주식회사가 애초에 근저당권을 설정받지 않은 점에 관하여 당시 공소외 11 주식회사 이사이던 공소외 18은 공소외 11 주식회사가 지주공동사업을 위한 대출을 함에 있어 직접 사업부지에 담보권을 설정받는 유형과 본건과 같이 연대보증한 시공사가 담보권을 설정받는 유형 등이 있었다고 하고, 공소외 2 주식회사 직원 공소외 94는 공소외 12 주식회사와 같은 사업시행사가 임의로 시공사를 변경하는 것을 방지하기 위하여 시공사가 근저당권을 설정하는 측면도 있었다고 진술하였다), 본건 지주공동사업은 사업부지에 1차로 아파트 230세대를, 2차로 아파트 158세대를 각 신축하는 사업으로서 1단계 사업을 통하여 사업이익 약 15억 2,800만 원과 토지 매입대금으로 선투입한 약 42억 8,200만 원 등 총 58억 1,000만 원 상당의 잉여자금이, 2단계 사업을 통하여 사업이익 약 6억 7,400만 원과 토지매입대금으로 선투입한 34억 3,000만 원 등 총 41억 400만 원 상당 합계 약 99억 원 상당의 잉여자금을 확보할 수 있을 것으로 예상되었고, 당시 공소외 11 주식회사나 공소외 2 주식회사는 공소외 12 주식회사가 위 잉여자금으로 대출금을 충분히 상환할 수 있을 것으로 예상하고 있었던 사실, 공소외 4 주식회사가 공소외 11 주식회사로부터 실제 대출금을 교부받은 것이 아니라 공소외 11 주식회사가 공소외 4 주식회사에 대출을 하고 공소외 4 주식회사가 이 대출금으로 공소외 12 주식회사의 채무를 변제한 것으로 회계처리한 것으로서 공소외 11 주식회사 입장에서는 채무자 명의만 공소외 12 주식회사에서 공소외 4 주식회사로 바뀐 것에 불과한 사실, 한편 공소외 4 주식회사가 공소외 12 주식회사로부터 사업시행권 및 공소외 12 주식회사의 공소외 11 주식회사에 대한 채무를 인수하게 된 것은 공소외 12 주식회사가 1998년 초부터 자체자금 부족과 IMF 등으로 부도위기에 직면하여 위 대출금을 상환하지 못하게 됨은 물론 더 이상 위 지주공동사업의 시행사 역할을 할 수 없게 되었기 때문이고 공소외 12 주식회사를 대신하여 (그룹명 생략)그룹의 계열사이며 나름대로 사업실적이 있었던 공소외 4 주식회사로 채무자를 변경한 것이 공소외 11 주식회사 측의 채권보전 및 회수를 위하여 보다 유리하였던 사실, 공소외 4 주식회사가 공소외 12 주식회사로부터 사업시행권 및 채무를 양수하는 과정에서 공소외 11 주식회사가 공소외 12 주식회사 대표이사 공소외 17 소유의 주택 및 그 부지에 설정해 두었던 가압류를 해지하기는 하였으나 위 가압류 상 청구금액은 5억 원에 불과하여 공소외 11 주식회사의 전체 채권액인 77억 5,500만 원에 훨씬 못미치고 그나마 위 주택 및 부지에는 국민은행 등 명의의 근저당권이 설정되어 있던 상태이어서 위 가압류를 통하여 회수가능한 대출금은 극히 적었던 것으로 보이는 사실, 공소외 4 주식회사가 사업주체가 된 후 당시 공소외 2 주식회사는 1차 사업부지에 대하여 분양을 준비하고자 1999. 2.경 모델하우스 공사에 착수하였고, 위 모델하우스 공사는 1999. 3. 30.경 완공된 사실 등을 인정할 수 있는바, 이와 같이 공소외 11 주식회사의 공소외 4 주식회사에 대한 본건 대출은 실제 대출금이 나간 것이 아니라 전표상으로만 대출처리된 것으로서 공소외 11 주식회사에 실제 손해가 발생했다고 보기 어렵고, 공소외 12 주식회사가 더 이상 사업추진이 불가능하게 되어 계속적인 사업추진이 가능한 공소외 4 주식회사로 사업권이 양도됨으로 인하여 공소외 11 주식회사가 대출금을 회수하지 못할 위험이 증가했다고도 보기 어려우며, 또한 공소외 11 주식회사는 애초부터 본건 지주공동사업에서 나오는 이익금으로 대출금을 회수하려고 했던 것으로 보이는데, 공소외 4 주식회사가 사업권을 양수한 후 위 지주공동사업이 더 이상 진행될 수 없었던 상황이었거나, 위 사업권 양수로 인하여 공소외 11 주식회사가 위 대출금을 회수하지 못할 위험성이 증가한 것이라면 근저당권을 이전할 필요가 있겠으나 위 사업권양도양수 당시에도 위 사업이 계속 진행되어 그 무렵 모델하우스를 착공하는 등 분양승인을 얻기 위한 준비를 하고 있었고, 공소외 11 주식회사가 근저당권을 설정받았다고 하더라도 분양승인을 얻기 위해서는 어차피 근저당권설정등기를 말소했어야 하므로 많은 비용을 들여가면서 굳이 근저당권을 이전해야할 필요성은 적었던 것으로 보이는 점, (그룹명 생략)그룹의 회장으로서 공소외 11 주식회사만이 아니라 공소외 2 주식회사의 경영도 함께 총괄하는 피고인 1이 공소외 2 주식회사로부터 공소외 11 주식회사로 근저당권을 이전하도록 지시할 경우 공소외 2 주식회사에 대한 배임이 문제될 소지가 다분한 점 등을 고려하면 피고인 1이나 공소외 35, 28 등이 공소외 4 주식회사로 하여금 공소외 12 주식회사의 채무를 인수하게 하고 그 과정에서 공소외 2 주식회사로부터 근저당권을 이전받는 등 공소외 11 주식회사를 위하여 별도의 담보확보조치를 취하지 아니한 것이 공소외 11 주식회사에 대하여 배임행위가 된다고 보기 어렵고, 피고인 1에게 자신 또는 제3자의 이익을 취득하고 공소외 11 주식회사에게 손해를 가하려는 배임의 범의가 있었다고 보기도 어렵다.

Therefore, the above facts charged also constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “Defendant 1, in collusion with Nonindicted 3, the Vice-Chairperson of Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted 36, the director in charge of accounting, and Nonindicted 31, the employee in charge of accounting:

In preparing the financial statements of Nonindicted Co. 1, 196 and December 31, 1996, as a result of closing the settlement of accounts, Nonindicted Co. 1, 200,000 won of net loss 5.6553 billion won as in the previous year, which is the same as in the previous year, is likely to cause a significant decline in external credit delivery and to cause new loans from financial institutions or to increase pressure to recover existing loans and company bonds when it is recorded and publicly announced in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, and on the other hand, to prepare and publicly announce false financial statements as if the financial situation and management performance of the company are good, such as the occurrence of net profits by excessively appropriating assets, and on the basis thereof, to use them as operating funds of the company, such as credit loans, issuance of company bonds, etc., and new business funds, etc.

Around February 197, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 1, 1997, an excessive appropriation of KRW 10.795.8 billion for financial expenses as inventory assets, and an increase in the net income amount corresponding to the same amount, and the net income was made by making a false statement of the balance sheet, income statement, and other financial statements, as if the net income was shown in blacks of KRW 5.6553 billion, and was made public on March 15, 1997. On March 197, 197, an employee in charge of loans of Nonindicted Co. 1, who was ordered by the Defendant, etc. at the office of Nonindicted Co. 37, in Seoul, submitted each financial statement and audit report for the fiscal year 196 and 195 fiscal year as above to the person in charge of loans of Nonindicted Co. 37, which was falsely made and submitted to that person, the injured Co. 37, the victim, obtained the payment guarantee of the principal and interest of KRW 5.320,000,000.

In light of the above, the prosecutor's first indictment, on March 14, 1996, prosecuted the case of the payment guarantee of the corporate bonds of KRW 8 billion issued by Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 37 and the case of the payment guarantee of KRW 10 billion issued by Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 3 on April 3, 1996, and then withdrawn it and added the above charges through the modification of the indictment. However, the facts charged as stated above are different from the facts charged as the date, method, and contents of the crime, and the additional facts charged are different and the basic facts are not the same. Thus, the prosecutor's addition of the facts charged without the additional indictment constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure becomes invalid in violation of the provisions of Acts, and thus, the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the

Judges Lee Woo (Presiding Judge)