2012 Highis 532, 2013 Highis43 Ducts

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

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

(c) Property in breach of trust;

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Events of a falsified investigation document;

(f) Property in breach of trust;

1(c) A.

2A.(c)(d)(e) B

3.A. C

4. D;

dyp indictment, trial)

Law Firm E, Law Firm F, Law Firm G, Attorneys Hoo-hn et al.

For purposes of this section)

Law Firm I, Attorney Jin-Defendant C

Law Firm K, Attorney Ln Du-Defendant D)

November 15, 2013

Defendant A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for five years, by imprisonment for two and half years, and by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years for Defendant C, and for two years for Defendant D, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

20,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant D. Defendant D shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Criminal facts

Defendant A is the representative director of M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "M"), the main vice president of M and the head of Energy Business Headquarters, the head of M as the management support headquarters, who was in charge of management support, such as development of M, budget, funds, accounts, etc.; Defendant C is the head of the department who was in charge of accounting in the re-major department under the management support headquarters of M; and N as the deputy head of M's Energy Business Headquarters, who was in charge of power generation business for M's 2.1 billion won in total.

1. Evidence of breach of trust by Defendant A and B;

The Defendants conspired with N to find out in advance the bid price of P in order to receive the '0' contract amount equivalent to the 19 billion won contract amount ordered by the Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. in relation to the 'ITER, International Basic Research Agent'(ITN), which is an international project for the development of nuclear convergence, in order to receive the '0' contract, which is equivalent to the 19 billion won contract amount ordered by the Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

Therefore, on August 2010, the Defendants ordered N to contact P with the officer in charge of P, and around that time, N proposed that Q, a director of the business of the development of P, would give KRW 300 million if the Defendants informed P, in advance, of the bid price of P, at the coffee shop located in the Yongsan-gu Yongsan-gu in Changwon-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and then set the amount to be provided to Q to Q as KRW 300 million.

Accordingly, on August 2010, Defendant B issued KRW 50,000,000 in cash with N in the Chinese restaurant called "S in Ulsan-gu R" in the name of "S in the Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and delivered KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000 in cash, which is the remainder of the money, to Q, from the hotel located in the Busan-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-gu, China-U.S., in addition to illegal solicitation.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with N to grant Q KRW 300 million in return for the above illegal solicitation.

2. On July 2010, Defendant B’s fabrication of private documents, and displayM of the above investigation documents was established as the Energy Business Headquarters, and the project was confirmed to be the area of nuclear power and thermal power generation, and in order to receive orders from the thermal power plant, they should be registered as a qualified company on the side of the thermal power plant. In order to register the above qualified company, documents evidencing the facts of the relevant licensing agreement need to be submitted. As such, the Defendant conspired to submit to the development enterprise, such as the Republic of Korea, by forging the N and U.S. water heating system, T, a specialized company for heat exchange (hereinafter “T”), which is the N and U.S. water supply system, and T, a specialized company for heat exchange (hereinafter “T”), a forged license agreement, and submitting it to the development enterprise, such as the Republic of Korea.

As a result, around February 201, 201, N took possession of the relevant license files of a company that he/she had worked in the M’s Energy Business Headquarters office, using the computer on February 1, 201, as if T company had entered into an agreement with M&A, N drawn up a license on February 1, 201 in the name of T company under the most fictitious name, and write U’s signature in the signature column of T company representative U with the verification color pen, and the Defendant, at that time, had N receive a notarized license from the M’s management deputy vice head, and then had N obtain a qualified business registration by submitting the forged license to the W Team X representative of the Korea Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Inc. as if it was duly formed.

Accordingly, the Defendant forged a copy of the license in the name of Telecommunication, which is a private document on rights and obligations, for the purpose of exercising them in collusion with N, and exercised it.

3. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by Defendant A, B, and C tried to attract investment from the victim Y-based investment company (hereinafter “Y”) since around 2008 when the losses incurred due to low-cost receipt of orders, currency derivatives (KSO), and increase in the price of raw materials were continued, and around the second half of 2010, Defendant B tried to attract investment from the victim Y-based investment company (hereinafter “Y”) since November 2010. On or around December 2010, the victim tried to review the financial statements of M in 2010 and make a decision on whether to grant investment after examining them on the basis of their confirmation.

Accordingly, Defendant A and B have attempted to adjust the accounting data for attracting investment, extending the maturity of existing financial rights loans, new loans, and issuing payment guarantee certificates, etc. to ensure that the financial status and management performance of M is better than actual ones.

As a result, around January 201, Defendant C instructed Defendant C to “the net income for the current term to be increased to 3% compared to the sales amount by adjusting the sales amount,” and Defendant B also instructed Defendant C to “I would like to have any profit if the company would not have any profit if the loss occurred.” Defendant C made a statement that “I would like to have a profit rate of 18,1290,000 won, which was invested in the project where the profit rate is lower or the loss already occurred, or would have been used in the project where the progress rate is lower or the cost of 18.15,129,000 won was used in the project where the progress rate is lower or a replacement of the project input amount was low,” Defendant C made a statement that “I would have made the net income for the current term of 20,000,000 won in 20,000 won to Defendant B and the same statement to Defendant B around January 24, 2011.”

In addition, on March 201, Defendant B and C requested to make an investment, stating that “M shall be a black-level company, with approximately KRW 39.3 billion net income at 201,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for assets and profits through the window dressing accounting as above, was appropriated by the victims’ team leader, AAAB affairs, and AB deputy director, and the head of AE division, who stated the intent to make additional investments, and the accounting data such as financial statements after such window dressing accounting as above, and audit report prepared.” However, in 2010, M’s accounting data of 2010,000 won was appropriated in excess of KRW 24.177,50,000 through such window dressing accounting as above. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired the victims’ employees, by deceiving them, and concluded a conversion contract between the victims and the victims on April 21, 2015.

4. Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies A or B;

The Defendants conspired to prepare a false financial statement of M in 2010 as stated in the above paragraph (3) in collusion with the Defendants, and had Ajin Accounting Firm disclose the said financial statement through the electronic disclosure system of the Financial Supervisory Service on March 28, 201.

Defendant D was employed by Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. around January 1, 1986 and served as the head of Hyundai Heavy Industries AF from January 2009 to February 22, 2013.

5. On August 18, 2010, Defendant A and B participated in the '0' proposal tender ordered by the above AF Book, and entered into a contract with Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. on or around August 27, 2010 with the contract amount of 18.9 billion won. The Defendants were willing to provide money and valuables to D who managed the entire contract.

As a result, Defendant A issued KRW 20 million in cash to D with a solicitation of requesting convenience in the above contract acceptance process, future performance process, and anticipated contract cases at around September 2010, to the effect that “D” was “D” at its own office located in Ulsan-gun AG in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun. Defendant B offered KRW 20 million in return for the above illegal solicitation to D. Accordingly, Defendant B conspired to offer KRW 20 million in cash to D in return for the above illegal solicitation.

6. Property in breach of trust by Defendant D

The Defendant received KRW 20 million from B at the same time and place as above in the foregoing paragraph (5). Accordingly, the Defendant acquired KRW 20 million in exchange for such unlawful solicitation as to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

[2013Gohap532]

[Each fact of paragraphs 1 and 2 at the Time of Sales]

1. The statements of the defendant A and B in the first trial record;

1. Copy of each protocol of suspect examination of N and Q by the prosecution;

1. Copy of each prosecutor's statement made to AH, X, and AI;

1. Each investigation report (to attach a copy of forged LICEAEAREENT submitted for the development of the Eastwest, to attach details of 100 million won account received from directors of the P company, to suspect Q agricultural bank account, and to verify deposit of 100 million won;

1. Counterfeited LICEAEEMNT, the details of new bank deposits in the name of the N, the details of the agricultural bank account in the name of the AJIN mother), and the details of Qu Anng Agricultural Bank account in the name of Qu.

[Each fact of paragraphs 3 and 4 at the Time of Sales]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, and C

1. Each legal statement of a witness AB, AE, AK, AL, AM, andN;

1. Examination protocol of suspect C by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against AO;

1. AP, A Q and R written statements;

1. Each investigation report (the attachment of audit report of theM for 2011, M organization chart, annual orders, details of reward payments and details of use of investment funds, attachment of data related to M suspect C newspaper, the current status of the corporate account of the stock company, M, AS and AT, reporting on suspicion of decentralization accounting, and attachment of a written statement of Ana-accounting accounting corporation);

1. Each complaint letter, an audit report on financial statements in 2010 ( March 17, 201), an investment contract, a certificate of payment of shares, a register of shareholders ( April 29, 201), the estimated profit and loss calculation status ( September 20, 2011), an financial fact-finding report ( October 7, 201), an application for the analysis of losses of PRJT before and after the change of accounting ( February 27, 2012), an application for the implementation of a plan for the normalization of management (Article 10, an audit report on the financial statements of the Korea Development Bank and its subsidiaries (Article 10, an audit report on the financial statements of the Korea Development Bank and its subsidiaries), an audit report on the financial statements in 2010, an audit report on the settlement of profits and losses, an audit report on the settlement of profits and losses, an audit report on the financial statements in 201, an audit report on the financial statements in 201, an audit report on the financial statements in 200 years prior to the settlement date;

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, and D;

1. Statement by prosecution against AU;

1. A copy of a criminal investigation report (a copy of the contract between modern industries and M in relation to ITIT construction);

1. A copy of each individual contract for material transactions;

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A: Articles 357(2) and (1), 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 20(1) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Preparation and Publication of False Financial Statements; Selection of Imprisonment)

B. Defendant B: Articles 357(2) and (1), 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 231, 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 3(1) and 347(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 20(1) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Preparation and Publication of False Financial Statements; Selection of Imprisonment)

C. Defendant C: Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Fraud point and choice of limited imprisonment)

D. Defendant D: Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (Defendant A, B, and C);

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant C);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following favorable circumstances):

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant C, D);

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The following favorable normal consideration):

1. Collection (Defendant D);

The latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act

1. The defendants and defense counsel's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and judgment on the provisional payment order (defendant D)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant A and BI edition 3 and 4

In addition, the Defendants did not instruct the increase of the sales by replacing project inputs in the way of replacing project inputs, and the preparation of the accounting documents by replacing project inputs is not an exaggeration of profits such as entering false sales, but merely an early awareness of sales. The victims were aware of the early recognition of sales before the investment contract or made a decision on the investment in this case before the actual inspection of M.. The Defendants did not induce the victims. Even if the Defendants deceiving the victims, they did not have any causal relationship between the deceptive act by the Defendants and the victims, nor did they have any criminal intent to commit a crime, nor did they have prepared and published false financial statements.

B. Defendant C.

The Defendant, with the knowledge that the instant investment contract was not in mind, but is customaryly carried out, sought a report on the adjustment of profits and losses in 2010 by adjusting the cost between projects according to the direction A and B, and played a role in submitting data to the victim and providing guidance to the victim according to the direction A and B, and the Defendant did not attract the victims, such as requesting investment by stating M as a black company.

2. Determination

가. 피고인 A, B이 법원이 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인 A이 2011. 1.경 C에게 "매출 원가를 여기에 있는 걸 다른 곳으로 옮겨서 이익이 나도록 한번 만들어 봐라, 매출원가를 조정하여 매출액 대비 당기순이익이 3% 정도 나게 해보라."고 지시하였고 피고인B도 "회사가 손실이 난 것으로 되면 안 되니까 이익이 난 것처럼 조정을 하라."고 지시하였으며, C이 그에 따라 예정원가 또는 수주금액보다 실제 발생원가가 많은 21개 프로젝트의 원가 중 181억 5,129만 9,000원을 시행 중인 27개 프로젝트에 옮겨 매출액을 196억 9,176만 6,000원 증가시키는 등의 방법으로 172억 8,300만 원 당기순손실을 68억 9,200만 원 당기순이익으로 변경하는 내용의 '2010 회계연도 손익조정보고의 건'을 작성한 사실, C은 위 보고서를 피고인 B에게 설명하고 결재를 받은 뒤 M의 재경부 상무였던 AL이 2011. 2. 7.경 위 보고서를 피고인 A에게 설명하고 결재를 받았는데 피고인 A은 서명을 하고 1~2분 뒤 피고인 A, B이 서명한 부분에 가로로 여러 줄을 그었고 이 사건 고소가 있은 후 피고인 A이 AL에게 "이 기안문은 지시를 한 게 아니라 시뮬레이션을 한 것으로 하자, 위 기안문 상의 서명 위에 여러 줄을 그은 이유, 조정결과와 재무제표의 결과가 유사하게 나타나게 된 논리를 만들어 보라."고 말한 사실, 위 보고서에는 위와 같이 매출액 및 당기순이익이 조정되어 있고 그 밑에 '원가율 높은 W/O(WORK/ORDER, 프로젝트를 의미)의 원가를 진행 중인 W/O에 대체하였음'이라고 기재되어 있으며, 피고인 A, B이 서명한 부분에는 삭선처리가 되어 있고 안진회계법인 이 위 보고서에 기초하여 2011. 3. 17. M의 당기순이익이 5,258,419,266원으로 기재된 '(주)M 2010년 재무제표에 대한 감사보고서'를 작성한 사실, 기업회계기준 제4호는 '용역의 제공으로 인한 수익은 용역제공거래의 성과를 신뢰성 있게 추정할 수 있을 때 진행기준에 따라 인식한다. 다음 조건이 모두 충족되는 경우에는 용역제공 거래의 성과를 신뢰성 있게 추정할 수 있다고 본다. (가) 거래전체의 수익금액을 신뢰성 있게 측정할 수 있다. (나) 경제적 효익의 유입 가능성이 매우 높다. (다) 진행률을 신뢰성 있게 측정할 수 있다. (라) 이미 발생한 원가 및 거래의 완료를 위하여 투입하여야 할 원가를 신뢰성 있게 측정할 수 있다.'고 규정하고 있어 진행률에 따라 매출액을 인식하려면 발생한 원가 및 예정 공사원가를 신뢰성 있게 측정하여야 하는데 위 보고서와 같이 고의로 프로젝트간 투입원가를 대체하여 매출액 및 당기 순이익을 증가시킨 것은 이와 같은 기업회계기준에 위반되는 점, 피해자 Y는 M과 투자유치관련 자문용역계약을 체결한 AV회계법인의 전무 AM으로부터 M을 소개받아 투자 여부를 검토하던 중, 2010. 12.경 M의 2010년도 재무제표가 확정된 후 투자여부를 결정하기로 하여 일단 투자보 류결정을 내렸다가 2011. 3. 중순경 M이 안진회계법인이 작성한 '(주)M 2010년 재무제표에 대한 감사보고서'를 제출받고 피고인 B, C으로부터 "M은 흑자 우량기업이다. 2011년에는 당기순이익이 약 393억 원에 달할 것이다."라는 설명을 듣고 2011. 4. 13. M과 투자계약을 체결하였고, 피해자 AC도 2011. 1.경 AM으로부터 투자제안을 받고 위와 같이 M으로부터 자료를 제출받고 설명을 들은 뒤 투자계약을 체결한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 피고인들이 프로젝트 간 투입원가를 대체하는 방법으로 M의 당기순이익이 과다계상된 회계자료를 건네주면서 M의 재무상태를 허위로 설명하여 피해자들을 기망하여 피해자들로부터 500억 원을 편취하였고 거짓으로 재무제표를 작성하여 공시한 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있으므로, 피고인들의 주장은 이유 없다.

B. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court by the defendant C, as seen earlier, the defendant prepared a "2010 accounting year report on the adjustment of profit and loss of M" with the contents that the project inputs included in the net income of M through substitution, and explained it to B and received approval, and the defendant and M's financial director ordered to raise funds from A through AW of the new tax accounting corporation was contacted with AW of the original tax accounting corporation, and AM appears to have consulted with the defendant in order to receive the victims' investment, and the explanation of the accounting records as mentioned above. The defendant provided the victims with M's false accounting records at the time of making an investment to the victims, and the defendant also attended M's financial status with the victims at the time of making an investment in Haman on March 3, 2011, and explained the victims' financial status and requested an investment, and the defendant's assertion that the victims received the monetary rewards from the victims, as well as the defendant's assertion that the victims conspired with the victim's investment in M, can sufficiently be acknowledged.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment of 5 years to 45 years

[1] Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

○ Determination: Fraud, General Fraud, Type 5

○ Scope of Recommendation: 5 years to 10 years of imprisonment (the basic area, the most severe crime as a result of summing-up and the lower limit of the sentence range shall be reduced by 1/3, but the lower limit of the type applicable to a single crime shall be limited to the lower limit of the sentence range).

[2] Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

○ Determination: Securities and finance, securities crimes, violations of transparency in the capital market, preparation and disclosure of false financial statements;

○ Scope of Recommendations: Imprisonment of up to one year and six months (basic areas)

[The scope of the revised recommended sentence] Five years of imprisonment or more (the sentencing criteria are not set, and only the lowest limit of the above sentencing range should be considered as the concurrent crimes are not set).

[Determination of Sentence] Five years of imprisonment with prison labor and the amount increased by the defendant exceeds 320 million won in total; the fraud of this case; the crime of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; the defendant, a representative director of M, ordered C to substitute project inputs between project inputs to prepare accounting data which cover net income; on the basis of this, the defendant, as the representative director of M, announced false financial statements to the public; deceiving the victims, and received 50 billion won from the victims; the crime was significant in light of the method of the crime; the degree of the defendant's participation; the amount of fraud; the defendant did not violate the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); the defendant denying the crime of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; the defendant paid 2.5 billion won in total to the victims; the defendant paid 2.5 billion won in total; the defendant has no penalty force and suspension of qualification due to the same kind of crime; the defendant's social relation; the defendant's social advantage relationship; the circumstances of the defendant's new order of punishment; etc.

2. Defendant B

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment of 5 years to 45 years

[1] Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act on Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

○ Determination: Fraud, General Fraud, Type 5

○ Scope of Recommendation: 5 years to 10 years of imprisonment (the basic area, the most severe crime as a result of summing-up and the lower limit of the sentence range shall be reduced by 1/3, but the lower limit of the type applicable to a single crime shall be limited to the lower limit of the sentence range).

[2] Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies

○ Determination: Securities and finance, securities crimes, violations of transparency in the capital market, preparation and disclosure of false financial statements;

Scope of ○ Recommendations: Imprisonment between 8 months and 1 year and 6 months (basic area) (crimes 3], and the crime of forging private documents, and the crime of uttering of falsified Private Document

○ Determination: Private documents, fabrication, alteration, etc. of private documents

○ Scope of Recommendations: Imprisonment of six months to two years (basic areas)

○ General Convicts

· Mitigation elements: serious reflect

- Aggravations: Where a person who has made a forgery, alteration, etc. uses the relevant forged or altered document;

[The scope of the revised recommended sentence] Five years of imprisonment or more (the sentencing criteria are not set, and only the lowest limit of the above sentencing range should be considered as the concurrent crimes are not set).

[Determination of sentence] Five years of imprisonment with prison labor and the amount increased by the defendant reaches KRW 320 million in total; the fraud of this case; the crime of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; the crime of violation of the Act on External Audit has been ordered by the defendant who was the chief vice president of M to instruct C to replace the project inputs; the defendant, who was the chief vice president of M, also has ordered A to prepare accounting data with the same purport; on the basis of this, he has made an accounting corporation disclose false financial statements; and received 50 billion won from the victims by deceiving the victims; the crime was significant; the defendant committed the crime; the defendant committed the crime of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; the defendant did not reflect his mistake while denying the crime of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies; the defendant paid 2.5 billion won in total to the victims; the defendant paid 2.5 billion won in total; the defendant had no other power over punishment; the circumstances and circumstances of the defendant's social relation with the crime of this case; the circumstances of this case; and other clear character and behavior.

3. Defendant C

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months to 22 years and 6 months;

[Determination of Type] Fraud, General Fraud, Type 5

[Special Convicts] - Reductions: Non-Provision of Punishment

[Scope of Recommendation] Three to nine years of imprisonment (the mitigation area, the most severe crime as a result of addition, where the type is higher than the single crime, the minimum of the sentence scope shall be mitigated by 1/3)

【Suspension of Execution】

○ positive reasons for major participation: Non-prosecution of punishment

○ positive reasons for the general participation: clear social relationship, and there is no criminal record of suspended execution or more.

- negative: There is no serious reflector, and where the price is given or received due to a crime;

[Decision of Sentence] Two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and the amount of damage caused by the fraud of this case reaches 50 billion won, the defendant received KRW 100 million from A in return for the crime of this case, the defendant denies the crime of this case and did not reflect his mistake, and the crime of this case is in accordance with the direction A and B, the victim Y has cancelled the complaint, and the victim Y wanted to have the preference against the defendant. The victim AC has not filed a complaint, M has no other penalty force than a fine, the defendant has no other penalty force, the defendant's social relative relationship is clear, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., and the decision of sentence like the disposition of this case shall be made after comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the sentencing of this case.

4. The crime of this case by Defendant D, as the head of the AF of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., was committed by Defendant D, in consideration of the following factors: (a) under the unfavorable circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant was taking advantage of convenience in the process of obtaining contracts by M, and the process of performing contracts in the future, etc.; (b) the Defendant did not seem to actively demand money and valuables; (c) since the Defendant entered Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. in around 1986, he was performing his duties in a relatively sincere manner; (d) the Defendant was a primary offender; and (e) favorable conditions such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and circumstance of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime.

Judges of the presiding judge, Kim Dong-ho

Judges Kim Jae-jin

Judge Sung-sung