beta
Cases
2019 Highest 1354 (a) School building to destroy evidence;
(b) A evidence concealment teacher;
(c) Destruction;
(d) Concealment of evidence;
Defendant
1.(a) A
2.c.(d) B
3.c. D. C.
Prosecutor
Magical (prosecution), compensation for damage, lectures, Kim Gi-gle (Public trial)
Defense Counsel
Attorney Seo Jung-gu, Kim Byung-gu, and its unique (for Defendant A and Defendant C)
Law Firm LBnB Partners (Defendant B)
In the case of Korea, Kim Jong-soo and Seo-mar
Imposition of Judgment
August 23, 2019
Text
Defendant A
Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months.
Defendant Bu
Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
[Defendant C]
Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
However, with respect to Defendant C, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
To order Defendant C to provide community service for 300 hours.
Reasons
Criminal facts
1. The process of manufacture and sale of 'D' and 'E humidifier disinfectant';
In around 1994, F developed a liquid humidifier disinfectant (product name, "G", and "CMF/MIT", which is a toxic substance used as an industrial air rupture) in the form of liquid humidifier disinfectant in which germs in water are removed by inserting them into damp water.
H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "H") received ‘G' business sector from the KBA on June 2000, and thereafter manufactured and sold ‘G'.
H and J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "J") entered into a "long-term supply contract for the manufacture and sale of H's above "G" under the name of "D" and entered into a "long-term supply contract for the manufacture and sale of goods". H provides raw materials and ingredients (for example), the J manages design, size and subsidiary materials, and the K Co., Ltd, the external company selected by J, agreed to manufacture and supply the above humidifier disinfectant to the J in accordance with the "OEM contract with H", and the J sold the "D" manufactured and supplied as above, from September 2002 to August 201, at nationwide sales stores.
On the other hand, in November 2006, J concluded a contract of self-marking goods (PL) with L Co., Ltd. and supplied L with 'M humidifier disinfectant' manufactured in the same manner as the above D', and L sold 'M humidifier disinfectant' (the name of 'E humidifier disinfectant' from 2007 to 'E humidifier disinfectant' and 'E humidifier disinfectant' from around 201 to around 201.
2. The Defendants’ status and teachers, public offering relationships;
A. Status of the Defendants
Defendant A is a representative director who exercises overall control over and supervises the overall management of the J from January 2010 to November 2017, Defendant B is a general public relations and general affairs of the said J (including legal affairs) from January 2016 to November 2017; Defendant C is a person who has worked as an agent in charge of legal affairs within the said J-General Credit Team from January 201 to November 2017, and the head of the general affairs and general affairs within the said J-General Credit Team from March 2007 to November 2018; and P is a person who has worked as an agent in charge of legal affairs within the said J-General Credit Team from March 2015 to April 2018.
B. The conspiracys between Defendant A and Defendant B and Defendant C
Defendant A: (a) around January 2016, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office constituted a special investigation team of humidifier disinfectant; (b) since February 1 of the same year, the prosecution’s investigation into the manufacturer and seller of humidifier disinfectant such as Q et al. was conducted in full scale; (c) ordered Defendant B to prepare countermeasures against the prosecution’s search and seizure that is anticipated to be conducted to J in the future; and (d) ordered Defendant B, Defendant B, and C to prepare countermeasures against humidifier disinfectant case, including measures to destroy and conceal materials unfavorable to J, among materials related to humidifier disinfectant in the O, P, and J; and (e) Defendant A, around February 11, 2016, ordered Defendant B to inspect all materials related to humidifier disinfectant case reported by Defendant B, and to delete materials unfavorable to J, and destroy and conceal evidence.
According to the above instructions, Defendant B, Defendant C,O, and P conspired to implement specific destruction and concealment of evidence.
3. Specific acts of destroying or concealing evidence;
(a) The destruction of primary evidence immediately after the commencement of an investigation by the prosecution in 2016;
(i) the deletion of office PC, nanotechnology files, and replacement of n.e. hard disks, n.e.;
Defendant B, Defendant C,O, and P, in accordance with the direction of Defendant A as described in paragraph (b), deleted individual files by searching data related to humidifier disinfectant in office PC/North Korea used by its employees, J and affiliated research institutes, and then reproducing them into an external storage device only in case of files irrelevant to humidifier disinfectant, and then replacing hard disks/North Korea, and completely deleting the data related to humidifier disinfectant stored in each business PC/North Korea by storing the said backup data again in an replaced hard disc/North Korea, and establishing a replacement plan for replacement of hard disks/North Korea to destroy evidence in a way that physically destroys old disc/North Korea.
A) Daejeon R Research Institute
Pursuant to the above replacement plan for hard disks and Nowon-do, O, P, around February 12, 2016, ordered researchers belonging to the R Research Institute located in Daejeon P&D to immediately replace the PC in accordance with the search terms, such as e-mail, groupwa pages, design, report data, research data, and paper, and confirmed the subjects to replace the PC by allowing its researchers to search the data related to humidifier disinfectant, such as the e-mail, groupwa page, design, and P/C, i.e., the list of those subject to replacement, c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., c., e., c., c., c., c., c., c., c. to purchase the PC from the P&D located in the area, and then requested them to purchase the PC-related No. 2016, c.
After the deletion of individual files, the order was given to replace the hard disks and Nowonbuk, and the O, P, and T replaced the hard disks and Nowonbuk of office PC used by 33 persons, such as the vice president U, the president of the R Research Institute, around February 2016.
B) J-related departments
In accordance with the above Hadern Replacement Program, O, P 2016, in accordance with the Hadern Replacement Program
On February 1, 2016, in contact with the head of J marketing department, business department, and department VI for long-term employees, and confirmed whether humidifier disinfectant-related data were stored in the PC and Nowon-North Korea, and then deleted the individual files related to humidifier disinfectant-related data searched and discovered, ordered the replacement of the PC and Nowon-North Korea in the above way, and then replaced the PC’s PC for business use used by 16 persons, including JW X, from February 16, 2016 to May 2016.
C) JTRM Department
Defendant B, in accordance with the above Edrid disc replacement plan and Edart replacement plan:
On May 3, 2016, in order to contact Y with the JRM Team leader Y, deleted individual files related to humidifier disinfectant products stored in the PC of the CRM Team in order to provide customer consultation and eliminate clean data, and instruct the replacement of the HM team’s main body, and Y replaced 8 PC diskss used by 6 employees of the CRM team from May 3, 2016 to the fourth day of the same month.
2) Deletion of e-mail
Defendant A’s instructions, such as the statement 2-b. As of February 12, 2016, P, upon accessing the e-mail account, sent the e-mail to its employees to permanently delete the said e-mail, and then sent the e-mail to the head of the team in the J to permanently delete the said e-mail. In addition, Defendant C sent the e-mail to the employees of the R Research Institute to access the e-mail and process the e-mail generated in connection with the humidifier disinfectant, and then, from around February 12, 2016 to June 2016, the K Research Institute’s employees processed the e-mail with respect to the research department related to humidifier disinfectant, AZ, AA, AB, AB, and humidifier disinfectant, which was treated as a humidifier disinfectant.
(b) the second destruction and concealment of evidence after completing the investigation of the National Assembly in October 2016;
On May 31, 2016, in order to prepare for the investigation of the prosecution and the investigation of the National Assembly, Defendant A instructed the investigation of the prosecution to organize ( state) ICT (ACT) in preparation for the investigation of the prosecution and the investigation of the National Assembly, under the circumstance that the prosecution's prosecution's prosecution is ongoing, such as the prosecution's prosecution against the representative director of the manufacturer and seller of humidifier disinfectant, and the prosecution's prosecution's investigation is highly likely to be initiated according to the risk evaluation of the CMF/M IT ingredients in progress in the Ministry of Environment.
According to the foregoing direction, the "AC TFT consisting of Defendant B’s team leader, Defendant C’s team leader, O, P, Y, Z, AD, and AE, and the above "AC TFT" prepared a separate confidential office in the vicinity of AW building.
From June 2016 to October 20 of the same year, the above "AC TFT" was a general check of the data related to humidifier disinfectant that O and P were gathered from J employees and managed in secret, the files related to humidifier disinfectant stored in the J server, and the results of analysis by requesting them to the legal office. On the other hand, upon the result of the check, determined the scope of data to be submitted according to the request of the Special Committee on the Investigation of the National Assembly at the National Assembly. On July 27, 2016, the direction and details of inquiries by the executives and employees to be responded in the on-site investigation held by the JJ, and around August 29, 2016 and around the 30th day of the same month, Defendant A's answer direction and contents to be present at the hearing as a witness.
In the process, theO, P, <1> History, ② S, ③ D (the details of product transformation history, process of delivery, transaction structure, sales data, functionality and safety-related data, product labeling and advertising, and voluntary recall) of the humidifier disinfectant case, ④ M humidifier disinfectant, 5 Creclor and 6 status of victims.
(7) The current status of litigation, 8 H and N documents generated and received from H and N, 9 Other issues (participation in the manufacture of humidifier disinfectant by the J)
(1) The lower court determined that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the standard of proof, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the standard of proof, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the standard of proof, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
After the completion of the investigation of state affairs around October 2016, Defendant A, etc., is subject to the above "AC TFT Gu."
He collected and discard Hadrids' materials held by each gender group, made electronic information deleted, and ordered the other core materials that need to be kept in secret interest to be kept in a separate place from the outside of the company.
Pursuant to the direction of Defendant A, as described in paragraph 2-b, and the above separate instructions of Defendant A, this is discarded by collecting and crushing the Hadrids in possession of the members of the AO TFT office, Defendant C returned the computers used in the AO TFT office to AG Co., Ltd., a lessee, and disposed of them with the information stored in the computer, along with the information stored in the computer, and theO concealed the core data such as the 4th floor of the AH building, including “final report on intake exposure test using the Madice, a test report on inhale's inhale toxicity,” the R Research Institute-Based Technology Team Innovation Team, a summary of the examination report data in the NAFT office, “S” related data remaining in the AC TFT office, “D's final process of delivery,” and “D's process of delivery,” where the information collected in the NA TFT office were stored in the 4th floor of the AH building.
4. Conclusion
As such, Defendant A: (a) instigated the J employees, such as Defendant B, Defendant C,O, and P, to destroy or conceal evidence in relation to another person or his/her criminal case; and (b) Defendant B, Defendant C,O, and P had the staff destroy or conceal evidence in relation to another person’s criminal case according to Defendant A’s aid.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant B’s legal statement
1. Defendant C’s partial statement
1. Each legal statement of witness B, P,O, AI, Z, and Y;
1. Examination protocol of Defendant B by the prosecution (Evidence record 7917, 8783, 9320, 9716 pages);
1. Some statements made by the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant A (Evidence records 8010, 8972, 9039, 9303, 9694)
1. Some statements made by the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant C (Evidence records 8106, 9589, 9667)
1. Statement by the prosecution on P (Evidence records 5966, 6073);
1. Statement made by the prosecution againstO (Evidence records 5821, 5930, 604, 8579, 949, 9561);
1. Statement by the prosecution against AE (Evidence records 6361 of the evidence);
1. Statement by the prosecution against AJ or AK (Evidence records 6390 pages of evidence);
1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to Y (Evidence records, 6417, 8741 pages);
1. Statement by the prosecution concerning the Z (Evidence records 6447 pages);
1. Statement made by the prosecution against AB (Evidence records 6477 pages);
1. Statement by the prosecution against AI (Evidence records 9509 pages);
1. A written statement (Evidence records 6293);
1. Investigation report (verification of the circumstances of destruction of evidence by the court), list of replacement of Hadrid (Evidence record 1649, 1652 pages);
1. Investigation report [The circumstances of destruction of evidence in preparation for investigation by the J's prosecution], 11 cases of daily work (Evidence Records 2453, 2462 pages), copy of this work (Evidence Records 2483 pages);
1. In cases of investigation reports (in cases of seized articles: Attachment of a copy of a place of business), a copy of a joint copy of a paper of business (Evidence Records No. 2918, page 2918);
1. Investigation report [Article 447 of the evidence recording] (Article 46-18 of the K Communications Team head's O Nowon-to-North digital siren extraction data; 'P (16-18)' (Article 447 of the record);
1. Investigation report (Analysis of an O business pocket book - Destruction of evidence and concealment circumstances) (No more than 4835 pages of evidence records);
1. Investigation reports (Analysiss, such as reports on executive officers and meetings of the J Law Firm Team (Evidence records of not more than 4926 pages);
1. Investigation report [Analysis, etc. of reports, etc. of executive meetings of the J law Firm Team] (Evidence records 4926 pages), countermeasures, etc. against humidifier disinfectants case (Evidence records 4948 pages);
1. Investigation report (verification of the fact that the PC hard disc was replaced from J to February 2016) (Evidence Record 6302 pages), and output of the account records of purchase of expendable goods on January 1, 2016 to December 31, 201 (Evidence Record 6304 pages)
1. Investigation report (the head of the department in charge of general bond affairs) attached to a daily business log (the evidence record 7076 pages), daily business log (the record No more than 7077 pages of evidence);
1. Investigation report [Attachment to the daily work log of the J General Credit Team) (Evidence No. 7494), daily work log (Evidence No. 7495 pages) (Evidence No. 7495 pages);
1. Investigative report (Attachment to a daily work log) (Evidence Record 7718 pages), daily work log (Evidence Record 7719 pages) (Evidence No more than 7719 pages);
1. Investigation report [Verification of Operation of the "AC TFT" against J humidifier disinfectant (Evidence Records 1637 pages);
1. One copy of investigation report [Attachment of presented data in the course of investigation of reference witnesses] (Evidence Record 6045 pages), one monthly report on legal proceedings (Evidence Record 605 pages 605 pages 6065 pages 6068 pages 6068 pages 6068 pages 60);
1. Investigation report (Evidence No. 8406 pages), copy of a draft document (Evidence No. 8408 pages), a copy (Evidence No. 8409 pages), a copy of a statement related to the payment of office rent (Evidence No. 8409 pages), a statement of withdrawal details, and a copy of a certificate of confirmation of details of transactions (Evidence No. 8410 pages);
1. Temporary table (Evidence Record 6295 pages), electronic tax account statement (Evidence Record 6296 pages);
Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument
1. Defendant A
(a) The assertion that there is no fact that the first person has instigated the destruction of evidence (3. A.)
1) The assertion
Defendant A shall submit data "Countermeasures against the Damage Caused by humidifier disinfectant" dated February 11, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "data on February 2016").
2. 11. The countermeasures against the Defendant B, etc. on February 11, 2016 have not been reported, and there is no fact that the Defendant B, etc. has instigated destruction and concealment of evidence. Rather, the countermeasures against the Defendant B, etc. on February 11, 2016, discussed together with the Defendant C, O, and P4 under the presence of the Defendant B, and thereafter did not report to the Defendant A, during the commencement of the PC replacement work at the Daejeon Research Institute on February 12, 2016, there was a series of destruction of evidence. The charges against this portion of the charges are as follows: (a) there was no fact that the Defendant A caused destruction and concealment of evidence at the site where the countermeasures against the Defendant B on February 11, 2016 were reported by the Defendant on February 11, 2016; or (b) there was no fact that the Defendant A has instigated destruction and concealment of evidence or that there was no such fact.
2) Determination
A) Major contents and issues of the countermeasures against February 11, 2016
In the fourth page of the countermeasures taken on February 11, 2016, research is conducted in preparation for the expansion of the subjects of investigation by the prosecution.
In order to conduct a complete inspection of related products, materials, and documents by checking all related products, materials, and documents in small factories, etc., the Daejeon Research Institute is scheduled to visit the Daejeon Research Institute on February 12, 2016, and thereafter, it is a problem whether the above mentioned items are reported to the defendant on February 11, 2016, and whether the defendant A has instigated the destruction of evidence and concealment of concealment of evidence that occurred later by inspecting the internal information unfavorable to us (hereinafter referred to as "the description of destruction and concealment of evidence").
B) Whether the countermeasures against the Defendant on February 11, 2016 were reported to the Defendant A, and the following facts or circumstances revealed by each of the above evidence are revealed at the time of the report:
Defendant A, on February 11, 2016, can recognize the fact that Defendant B reported the destroyed or concealed portion, which is the evidence of the fourth page of the countermeasures against Defendant B on February 11, 2016, and abetted Defendant A to implement it.
(1) The countermeasures taken on February 11, 2016 were formulated under the direction of Defendant A.
First, Defendant B andO continue to exist from the investigative agency to this court.
The defendant stated that the countermeasures taken on February 11, 2016 were prepared according to the direction of the defendant A.
Specifically, Defendant B testified in this Court and Defendant A
As a specific countermeasure, it was stated that Defendant B should prepare and report the countermeasures related to the disinfection of moisture, as of February 11, 2016 (section 12). In addition, under the investigation conducted by the prosecutor's office, Defendant B should prepare and report the countermeasures as of February 11, 2016, and Defendant B should prepare and report the countermeasures as of February 11, 2016 (Evidence No. 8581 of the evidence record).
In addition, Defendant B under investigation by the prosecution, and the health and welfare of August 201.
After publishing the results of the epidemiological investigation that the humidifier disinfectant was the cause of a pulmonary disease in the father, the humidifier disinfectant response team was formed mainly by the legal team under the direction of the defendant A, and continuously engaged in the response activities to the humidifier disinfectant at the time of January 2016, and the prosecution's investigation into the humidifier disinfectant was strengthened in February 2016, and the activities of the response team were strengthened, and at the time, the defendant A searched data related to the humidifier disinfectant unfavorable to J and then deleted, and stated that the defendant A submitted countermeasures against the defendant A by preparing them on February 11, 2016 (Evidence Record 8787 through 8792).
In full view of these statements, Defendant A’s epidemiology of the Ministry of Health and Welfare on August 2011
Since the announcement, in February 2016, when the prosecution investigation was conducted in response to the humidifiers case, and when the investigation was conducted in response to it, it was ordered to establish countermeasures such as searching and destroying disadvantageous evidence. Accordingly, the countermeasures taken on February 11, 201, which are evidence, are included in the fourth page.
(2) When Defendant A reported on February 2, 2016 that it would be caused by the inspection of materials in the company, Defendant A was for the purpose of destroying and concealing evidence.
The office was known.
Meanwhile, according to the statement of Defendant A, Defendant A was a research institute on February 2, 2016.
In light of the following facts and circumstances, the defendant A approved the inspection and collection purpose of the data at the time when it was known that the purpose of the inspection and collection was concealed and destroyed.
In this regard, upon examining the statements of Defendant A, Defendant A shall be examined by the prosecution.
As a result of an investigation, he/she had given the direction that he/she would search for the remaining materials in the company even before 2016. In particular, on February 2, 2016, he/she ordered the O to check and gather materials in the previous company, such as research institute, factory, and head office, and that he/she would do so. At the time, theO stated that he/she did not report to remove or delete what he/she had after reviewing the materials that he/she had been gathered (Evidence Record 8975, 8976 page).
However, AI is under investigation by the prosecutor, and on August 31, 201, the cause of the pulmonary disease.
After an epidemiological investigation conducted by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Health and Welfare was announced on a regular basis, under the direction of Defendant A, convened a meeting to cope with the humidifier disinfectant, and he/she received data from the relevant departments and arranged the meeting data. After two months, in the course of transferring his/her business to the legal team after the date of the second month, O called Defendant A's instruction and transferred all the data he/she possessed to theO, and as such, destroyed all the data related to the humidifier disinfectant such as meeting minutes, meeting materials, purchase and sale of the said substances, and sales of the said substances. After this, the broadcast program for the current issue, victim's meeting, and process investigation, etc., the J deleted data related to the humidifier disinfectant from this office every time there are various issues such as the video broadcasting program, investigation into the victim, and process level (Evidence No. 9514 of the record).
In addition, Defendant C’s corporate investigation by the Fair Trade Commission around 201 in the name of the general team.
In relation to ‘necessary documents (documents that may arise at the time of the investigation into fair trade)', among the files stored in personal PCs, the above concerns are deleted, the contents of the issue or the contents to be used from time to time are deleted, and the e-mail to be stored in the private USB is sent to the head of the relevant department as well as the right to request deletion (Evidence Records 9516, 9521, 9591, page 9591). As to this, the defendant C made a statement that the documents were destroyed, deleted, and stored separately in the same way as this case in the J from 2016 to 2016 (the steam records 9607, page 9607), and the AI also made a statement that the above e-mail was circulated whenever the issue was after the prosecutor was investigated (Evidence records 9515). From the point of view of this, the defendant C also made a statement that the documents were destroyed in the same way as this case.
Furthermore, the destruction and concealment of evidence has been made before 2016
On the other hand, examining whether Defendant A was aware of his perception, Defendant C, who was an executive officer at the time, prepared the above e-mail proposal and prepared it as a proposal for the regular director of AF, who was an executive officer at the time, and the regular director of AF appears to have reported to Defendant A (Evidence No. 9594 of the evidence record), or stated that the report to Defendant A or the instructions of Defendant A are necessary (Evidence No. 969 of the evidence record) although it was not recorded in detail (Evidence No. 969 of the record). In addition, on February 12, 2016, Defendant C sent an approval of the daily work process of identifying the scope of e-mail visiting the Daejeon Research Institute and the hard disc subject to replacement, and Defendant B, who had been aware of the e-mail destruction and e-mail removal from the research institute on February 15, 2016 and stated that it can be completed soon within 0 days from the date of investigation (Evidence No. 7093 of the evidence destruction of this case). 7094.
As a result, Defendant A’s disinfection in the company since before 2016.
Then, it can be seen that the O's order to find out relevant materials is based on the premise of deletion or concealment, and in particular, on February 2, 2016, the O's order to inspect and gather data in the whole company, such as research institutes, factories, and headquarters, and on the premise of deletion or concealment of the discovered materials even at the time of approval for such order.
(3) According to P’s testimony and statement, the Defendant’s countermeasures against February 11, 2016 are the same day.
report to A may be recognized.
Whether the countermeasures of February 11, 2016 are reported to Defendant A, and the time when the countermeasures are reported.
P was investigated by the prosecutor's office on February 11, 2016, and the countermeasures against the defendant B were made at the executive meeting in which the defendant A was stationed (Evidence Records 5972, 5973). While giving testimony in this court, the countermeasures against the defendant A on February 11, 2016 were reported to the defendant A on the same day, and the countermeasures against him/herself,O, the defendant C, and the defendant B, etc. were reported on the same day (Records No. 4).
The countermeasures of February 11, 2016 were prepared by P, and 1) P was the following day by the following day.
Since the Daejeon Research Institute started to conduct a business trip on February 12, 2016, the part of the destruction and concealment of evidence as stated in Section 4, the determination of whether the countermeasures against February 11, 2016 were reported to Defendant A on the same day can be the most important evidence for P memory. According to the above P’s statement, the fact that Defendant B reported the countermeasures against February 11, 2016 to Defendant A on the same day can be acknowledged.
On the other hand, P and P prepare countermeasures against them on February 11, 2016, and 2016.
2. On February 12, 2016, the Daejeon Research Institute made a statement to the defendant B on February 12, 2016, which stated that the report on the countermeasures against the defendant B on February 11, 2016 before the business trip was made to the Daejeon Research Institute was not memory (on May 22, 2019, the recording page 33), and that it was different from the P's statement that the report was made to the defendant B on February 11, 2016. However, considering that the above statement was made by the defendant B on February 11, 2016, it was thought that the above report was made to the defendant B on February 16, 201, and that the report was made to the defendant B on February 16, 201 (on May 22, 2019, the record page 33) and that the report was made to the defendant B on February 16, 2016.
Defendant B was investigated by the prosecution and held a meeting on February 11, 2016.
Although it is not clear that the O or P held a meeting before the Daejeon Research Institute is appropriate, it is the same that it has not reported it solely, it is the same as Defendant A or legal officer, and Defendant A or a legal officer held a meeting at that meeting as well as Defendant A or a person in charge of legal affairs, and Defendant A instructed Defendant A to take measures for separate storage and deletion after censorship of internal information unfavorable to Defendant 4 at that meeting on February 11, 2016 (Evidence Records 7944 pages). However, since testimony at this court is three years or more, it is not possible to clearly state that Defendant A’s instructions were specified at the meeting date or meeting, and it is also stated that Defendant B’s testimony was separately stored and deleted by censorship of internal information unfavorable to Defendant B and its contents on the same day as Defendant B’s testimony at the meeting, Defendant B’s response measures can be acknowledged to the same effect as Defendant B’s testimony at the same time, as Defendant B’s testimony at the meeting, and Defendant B’s testimony at the same time were 16th or more.
(4) The following circumstances also destroy evidence by Defendant A’s instruction and approval.
In support of the progress of the undisclosed work.
(A) On February 16, 2016, theO was dispatched from Defendant A, and Defendant A.
The situation of destruction and concealment of evidence was reported.
O-on February 16, 2016 (Evidence Nos. 7097 of the Evidence) For the work log of February 16, 2016,O on the day.
From 08:10 to 00, the relevant department's e-mail deletion work for marketing, business, and V begins and identified as 49 persons to be defed. It is interpreted that "the implementation of the plan to cope with satisfying" was stated as "the implementation of the plan to cope with satfying" as the title of the relevant item, and it is interpreted as "the execution of the plan to cope with satfying" on February 11, 2016. In addition, it is stated that "the President was summoned and the President was summoned, and the report is related to the overall progress of satfying and controlling similar marketing products in the National Assembly's office," and theO was investigated by the prosecutor, and the defendant A was asked on February 16, 2016 to find and arrange evidence related to satfying satfying satfying.
On the other hand, Defendant A shall be investigated by the prosecution (Evidence Records 8037 pages), and reputation
In light of the above circumstances, the J, from around 2011, has already been engaged in the business of destroying and concealing materials at the company level, and theO seems to have been approved on the premise of deletion or concealment of the discovered materials at the time it approves such materials by reporting to Defendant A on February 2, 2016, it appears that Defendant A would have obtained approval on the premise of deletion or concealment of the materials that were discovered at the time it would have obtained the overall report on the progress of the humidifier disinfectant process on February 16, 2016, when Defendant A head office provided an objection with his office to receive a report on the overall progress of the humidifier disinfectant process. In other words, the J had already been engaged in the business of destroying and hiding materials at the company level, and since it had received the aforementioned report on the purpose of destruction and concealment of evidence related to the said products, it is difficult to expect Defendant A’s assertion as a matter of course until that time.
B. Defendant A ordered the destruction of evidence or the suspension of the concealment of the destruction of evidence or concealment or ordered to do so.
there is no fact that such act was conducted.
Even by the statement of the defendant A, the defendant A Hadd at a certain point.
In light of the fact that the disc replacement work is in progress (Evidence No. 8035 pages). However, Defendant A did not take any responsibility for the destruction and concealment of evidence against P andO, or instruct the suspension thereof (P record No. 60 pages, CO No. 92 pages, June 14, 2019), and in light of this, it can be seen that the destruction and concealment of evidence in this case was carried out by Defendant A’s instruction and approval.
(C) The destruction and concealment of evidence was undertaken at the entire level of JJ company.
D. At the time of replacement of the Habbbs of the Daejeon Research Institute by P, Daejeon.
AE, who had worked as the head of the new technology team of the Gu small-based technology team, was investigated by the prosecutor's office, and at the time, was investigated by the prosecutor's office, when the main investigation of the humidifier disinfectant case was initiated at the time, and the O was in charge of the humidifier disinfectant response work as a legal employee, but it was thought that the H was replaced in preparation for the seizure and search by the prosecutor's office, and that at the time the J was in preparation for the investigation by the prosecutor as a whole, the direction made during such a series of processes was known to the effect that it was not personal judgment by theO (Evidence Record 6369 pages).
AI also under the investigation conducted by the prosecution, and as a whole, the PO must do so.
In doing so, Defendant A’s instruction was thought to be the direction of Defendant A as a matter of course, and Defendant A stated that the process of replacing hard disks and deleting relevant materials could not be conducted without Defendant A’s instruction (Evidence Records 9517 pages);
Such statements also are evidence under the direction and approval of Defendant A.
It supports that destruction or concealment work has been carried out.
The J review the adverse material remaining in the Company and the possibility of its deletion.
In order to determine whether a siren work was carried out, Defendant A also carried out
Along with the knowledge of the Masting work, I approved the Masing work.
First of all, the purpose of the siren is examined, theO on June 22, 2016.
In the work pocket book, the AL legal office AM andN telephone conference with the AL legal office (N. 1) stated "(1) for human rights for use, whether it remains or completely deleted. 2. 3) Risk marking on SDR (Evidence No. 3010 pages). It stated that the PL legal office's attorney should check the remainder of SDR on the AL legal office's server server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's server's list's list's list's list's list's list's list's list's list's list's list's list's list's 8. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 6. 2. 2016. 6. 16. 16. 2016. 2. 3. 2016.
Next, the defendant A is aware of the purpose of the sirening
Examining whether Defendant A testified at this court’s testimony and made a statement to the effect that Defendant A was aware that he was aware of the fact that he had been engaged in the work of deleting materials related to humidifiers from the entire J since before July 5, 2016 (final approval of a siren) for the purpose of arranging unfavorable materials (No. 65 pages on June 14, 2019), and that Defendant A was also aware of the fact that he had been engaged in the work of deleting materials related to humidifiers from the past 2016 to the fact that Defendant A was aware of the fact that he had been engaged in the work of deletings from the entire J in order to determine the possibility of deletion of materials unfavorable to the company (Evidence No. 8583) (Evidence No. 8583).
(5) The existence of the draft of February 17, 2016 and the countermeasures against February 15, 2016 and P
The contents of the daily business log shall be subject to the same day as the countermeasures taken on February 11, 2016.
It does not interfere with recognizing facts reported to Gohap.
Ma. Preparation and approval of the draft of February 17, 2016
Electronic rehabilitation documents submitted by Defendant A (Evidence No. 1 et al., hereinafter referred to as "the document") on February 17, 2016
According to the draft text, theO drafted an electronic draft document on February 17, 2016, along with a report document stating "D countermeasure" as of February 15, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "measures against February 15, 2016") attached to the defendant C, B, and the defendant A, and the said draft document was approved on February 23, 2016 by the defendant C on February 18, 2016, respectively.
B. Defendant A’s assertion
O shall complete the countermeasures taken on February 15, 2016, February 17, 2016, and shall be electronic.
Defendant A was drafted with approval on February 23, 2016, and the approval was made by Defendant A, thus, Defendant A became aware of the countermeasure report related to the disinfection of moisture around that time. Also, there is no content that Defendant A reported the countermeasures to Defendant A on February 11, 2016 in the daily non-business of P andO. Therefore, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have received the countermeasures on February 11, 2016 or to have instigated Defendant B to destroy and conceal evidence in the reported place.
(C) Arrangement of work logs of O and P
O and P are daily work days prepared from February 2, 2016 to March 10, 2016 by the date of such daily work.
Of paper (Evidence Records 7085 to 7129, 7501 to 7538), the following are arranged:
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.
A person shall be appointed.
(D) A summary of the duties of O and P appearing in daily work log;
O and P, from February 3, 2016 to March 10, 2016, humidifier disinfectants;
The following shall be arranged on the basis of daily work log in relation to the destruction and concealment of evidence:
(1) February 3, 2016
P on February 2, 2016, visit the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, together withO, and the following:
From February 2, 2016, the seal 2016, the "compact manual" was started to be prepared in relation to the humidifier disinfectant case, and the document included the response strategy in each criminal case.
(2) February 4, 2016
O on February 4, 2016, the review of civil and criminal response laws was conducted on the process of the review of humidifiers.
In addition, while monitoring criminal cases, the direction of the "Countermeasures manual" was set to request the AL Office to respond to the prosecution's investigation or prosecution. In the future, P prepared the "Countermeasures Manual" in the case of humidifier disinfectant including countermeasures against criminal cases on the same day and planned to complete the following day.
(3) February 5, 2016
P On February 5, 2016, the investigation into the J of the Prosecutor’s Office related to the humidifier disinfectant case commences.
The response manuals, including the former and latter countermeasures, were prepared, and the internal review was conducted. On the same day, this study conducted the legal review and preparation of the report on the "Private and Criminal Countermeasures against the humidifier disinfectant", the report and implementation of the "Civil and Criminal Countermeasures", and the Daejeon Research Institute's CMF-related inspection.
(4) From February 6, 2016 to February 10, 2016: New vacations.
(5) February 11, 2016
O Formulate on February 11, 2016 the “Plan for Civil and Criminal Response to the humidifier disinfectant.”
In the future, the Daejeon Research Institute reported on the "Private and Criminal Countermeasures" related to the CMIT and the "Private and Criminal Countermeasures" of the said CMIT, and planned to implement the said measures.
(6) February 12, 2016
P andO shall conduct a business trip on February 12, 2016 as the Daejeon Research Institute and shall conduct a due diligence related to CMF.
The work is conducted to identify the hard disks to replace in preparation for the prosecution investigation, and the O reported it on the daily work log, and the defendant B approved it and left the O's daily work log to make the request that the measures be completed soon within the time limit based on the results of the investigation of the Daejeon Research Institute. On the other hand, theO appointed a civil and criminal response lawyer for humidifier disinfectants as a duty to proceed in the future on the same day, and planned the report and implementation items of the "civil and criminal countermeasure".
(7) February 15, 2016
P on February 15, 2016, after consultation withO on a weekly and monthly business plan, P shall take damps.
The response manuals in this case were completed and discussed, and the response manuals were revised and the final review was conducted in response to the investigation by the prosecution. On the same day, this work was conducted to prepare a report on the civil and criminal countermeasure against the damp-gu disinfection, and it was planned to implement it in the future, and to request the appointment of a lawyer.
(8) February 16, 2016
O and P are the head office CMF as a prior internal measure for the humidifier disinfectant case.
On the marketing, business department, and V (including the company established jointly with AP, a Japanese company, around 2007) under the custody of relevant data, the process of deleting and combining the relevant e-mail and collecting a list of replacement of hard disks was conducted. In addition, upon the summons of the Defendant A, the Defendant A reported the overall progress of the relevant case in the Defendant’s office, and drafted a draft of civil and criminal response and a letter of appointment of attorney-at-law, and arranged the contents of the “criminal response manual” in preparation for unsatting with the attorney-at-law of the AL office. This was planned to report to Defendant B on the implementation of the “civil and criminal response plan” and the appointment of attorney-at-law, and P planned to prepare a criminal advisory statement related to the response of the instant case.
(9) February 17, 2016
O The term "civil and criminal response bills" and attorneys-at-law selection against Defendant B
I reported that the draft on February 17, 2016 was the settlement date) and reviewed and arranged the content of inquiries to the AL law office about D-type criminal cases, P reviewed the internal data of the J in relation to the response of humidifier disinfectant criminal cases, and prepared inquiries related to the request of the AL law office for the preparation of the "criminal response manuals".
(10) February 18, 2016
O and P shall visit a AL legal office to “specing manuals” for criminal cases.
The direction of preparation was discussed, and P requested a prior monitoring cooperation related to the request for preparation and search and seizure of the manuals. On the other hand, P prepared and provided data for the preparation of the "manial Manual" and planned to prepare data for the preparation of the "manial Response Manual" in the next day.
(11) February 19, 2016
O and P shall be CRM Team (Custainship management. All of customers
The department in charge of receiving and managing complaints through harmony, the Internet, e-mail, etc. and requested related data and the related data were stated in the daily business log, and Defendant B left the request to ensure that the case of the humidifier disinfectant is conducted at the same time as the investigation is not conducted.
(12) February 22, 2016
O = 100 Dazers CR teams 100 Dozers and 200 Dozerss
The fact that the documents on this case have been secured was entered in the daily work log, and the response to the crime of sterilizationic agents
The collection of related data and consultation with the AL law office lawyers was conducted.
(13) February 23, 2016
O shall collect data related to criminal response against humidifier disinfectants and send them to AL.
The P consulted on this, and P did work to prepare a criminal response manual in relation to the AL case.
(14) February 29, 2016
O A reported to Defendant A in relation to D cases, and February 26, 2016
In full view of the contents of the principal work of the person's name, it seems that the report related to the criminal case was made. P discussed the O and week work plan and monthly business plan, and discussed the damp AL Co., Ltd. AL Co., Ltd.
(e) Operations of a report on countermeasures against this case by O or P and the Defendant
A Electronic Resolution on A
Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing contents, from February 3, 2016 to P’s daily business log.
By February 5, 2016, it is stated that the work was conducted with respect to the "Countermeasures Manual" or "Case Response Manual" in relation to humidifier disinfectant, and on February 5, 2016, it is stated "in the course of internal review" in the daily work log, and from February 11, 2016, P seems to have not been indicated in such work, and P appears to have been delivered to theO after completing document work on February 5, 2016.
O From February 4, 2016, the Civil Criminal Response Law Review and Responses shall be conducted from February 4, 2016
On February 16, 2016, except for February 12, 2016, when visiting the Daejeon Research Institute, P made an operation to set up a plan for civil and criminal countermeasures against humidifier disinfectant or a civil and criminal countermeasures against it (as of February 15, 2016, P made an operation to revise and review the "measures Manual" corresponding to the investigation into the prosecution (as of February 15, 2016, it appears to be in the same document as the document written by theO as the "Civil and Criminal Countermeasures Plan" or the "Civil and Criminal Countermeasures Plan"), and on February 17, 2016, P reported to Defendant B on the appointment of a lawyer.
On the other hand, according to the draft of February 17, 2016, the O made an electronic decision on February 17, 2016.
In the draft, along with the countermeasures taken on February 15, 2016, Defendant C, Defendant B, and Defendant A, including the appointment of counsel, requested approval. TheO plans to report and implement countermeasures against humidifiers and criminal affairs as part of the duties to be conducted in the future from February 4, 2016 to February 16, 2016, and the contents of the plan are no longer specified in the "main business" after February 17, 2016. Thus, the document stating "civil and criminal countermeasures" or "civil and criminal countermeasures" in the daily business of theO as part of the daily business of theO refers to countermeasures against February 15, 2016 attached to the draft electronic resolution on February 17, 2016.
Therefore, as alleged by Defendant A, theO should reach on February 17, 2016.
In February 15, 2016, the countermeasures were completed and the electronic decision was finalized by attaching the draft of February 17, 2016.
In addition, according to the above-mentioned O and P's daily work log, P and P's records
On February 11, 2016, there is no indication that Defendant A reported countermeasures against the daily work log.
F. Judgment on the defendant's argument
However, taking into account the following facts or circumstances into account: 17 February 2016
Despite the know-how, the existence of countermeasures against the plaintiff on February 15, 2016, and the foregoing O and P's daily work log, the countermeasures against the plaintiff on February 11, 2016 are deemed to have been reported to the defendant A on the same day.
(1) With respect to the draft on February 17, 2016, approval for the payment of attorney-at-law's expenses is granted.
To report countermeasures on February 15, 2016.
is not the case.
Defendant B’s defense counsel in this Court as above
On February 15, 2016, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance was asked questions to the effect that the countermeasures against the defendant A cannot be reported to the defendant A, as of February 11, 2016, and that the separate custody and deletion after censorship of internal information unfavorable to the defendant A is not a matter to be reported verbally at the meeting with the report, but a matter to be reported verbally at the meeting is not a matter to be decided electronically, and the approval was made at the cost of approval. Thus, the draft of this case as of February 17, 2016 is related to the attorney-at-law's fee and the cost of appointment, and the head of Q216 statement as of February 15, 2016 is not attached to the draft of this case, and as of February 15, 2016, the head of Q216 statement as a supplement to the budget of Q16 statement as of February 21, 2016.
In addition, the O's countermeasures on February 11, 2016 are also in accordance with the situation at that time.
In an urgent report, the countermeasures taken on February 15, 2016 were a separate document for the appointment of an attorney-at-law, and the report form was memoryed twice (No. 45,47, and 48 pages). P testified that the draft written on February 17, 2016 was a progress of a material for the execution of the budget (No. 68 pages).
AL law to be appointed by J on the draft of February 17, 2016
The name of the attorney-at-law of the office and the cost per hour shall be written, stating that the expenses for the appointed attorney-at-law will be processed by increasing the budget amount of the future fees for the attorney-at-law (AR) account, and considering the fact that each protocol is attached to the attached documents and that the employee in charge of the budget allocation for each team sign "agreement", the countermeasures against the attorney-at-law on February 11, 2016 shall be prepared and reported, and the additional expenses for the appointment of the attorney-at-law shall be separately paid, and the countermeasures against the representative director on February 15, 2016 shall be deemed attached to the draft on February 17, 2016.
(2) Replacement of a hybrid for the Daejeon Research Institute that was conducted after February 12, 2016
Work could not be done without the direction and approval of the defendant A.
O A vice president who is the president of the Daejeon Research Institute after testimony at this Court.
으로서 직급이 피고인 B보다 높았기 떄문에 2016. 2. 12. 이후 진행된 대전연구소 소속 직원들에 대한 하드디스크 교체작업은 피고인 A의 지시가 없었으면 불가능하다고 진술하였고(2019. 6. 14.자 녹취서 89, 90면), P 역시 이 법정에서 증언하면서 2016. 2. 12. 대전연구소에 갔을 때 서울 본사에서 법무담당 직원들이 가습기 살균제와 관련해서 불리한 자료들을 제거하기 위하여 온다는 것을 사전에 그곳 직원들이 알고 회의 시간을 미리 잡아두었고, 각 연구부장들이나 부분장들이 모두 참석하였다고 진술하였는 바(녹취서 9, 10면) 이러한 진술은 모두 피고인 A이 2016. 2. 12. 이전부터 증거인멸·은닉작업에 관여하였음을 뒷받침한다.
③ Defendant B’s detailed matters to Defendant A as of February 2016
All reports were made.
Defendant B testified in this Court at the time of February 2016, when Defendant B testified
Many of the facts related to the humidifier disinfectant have been broken off, and we want to know that it is too much, and you want to do so, only one kind of 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', and 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', and 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I' and 'I', 'I', 'I'. 'I'. 2, ' I'.
(4) Even if it is not indicated in the daily business log ofO and P, it shall be February 11, 2016.
It recognizes that the countermeasures are reported to Defendant A on the same day.
shall not interfere with such activities.
Defendant A shall record, in detail, the daily business log of O and P.
Nevertheless, there is no statement that Defendant A has reported countermeasures against the daily business day of February 11, 2016, and the countermeasures against Defendant A were not reported to Defendant A on the same day. However, in the case ofO, it is written that: (i) May 16, 2016 (Evidence Records 2959); (ii) May 17, 2016 (Evidence Records 2979); (iii) June 1, 2016 (Evidence Records 2979); (iv) Defendant A did not report to Defendant A or receive instructions from Defendant A; (v) the daily business day of the pertinent date (Evidence Records 7210; (v) May 17, 2016: 7:7:7:7; and (v) May 17, 2016; and (v) Defendant A did not enter the relevant facts in the daily business day of 201; and (v) Defendant A did not enter them in the daily business day of 2016:6.16.
(6) It is fundamental to say that Defendant A’s destruction of evidence constitutes an offense.
§ 24(1)(2). It is merely an expression of the content of the destruction and concealment of evidence.
No interpretation can be interpreted as such.
O under the investigation conducted by the prosecution, Defendant A and Defendant B, and the Defendant
C At the meeting of this case, the statement that ‘the destruction of evidence' would be a crime, ‘the speaker who does not mention that the evidence would be deleted' is written, and that the statement of ‘the destruction of evidence' as of June 1, 2016 in his business pocket book is written as ‘the risk of destroying evidence' (Evidence No. 2979), ‘the deletion of evidence' as of June 3, 2016, and ‘NO(Evidence No. 2985 of the Evidence No. 2984 of the Record)' (Evidence No. 8584 of the Evidence Records), and this court testified as the same content (No. 42 of the Record No. 14 June 14, 2019).
Defendant A does not destroy and conceal evidence on its ground.
It argues that the objective facts should be responsible is the position of responsibility.
However, Defendant A did not go beyond the draft after making the above remarks.
On June 9, 2017, the fact that the J’s oral approval of the receipt of sirens from the AL law office (Evidence No. 2997 of the evidence record) was made for the purpose of deleting the data that can be restored by search and seizure, while the defendant A knew that it was conducted for the purpose of searching and deleting them, the final approval was made on July 5, 2017, and on June 1, 2016, the defendant A instructed the destruction of evidence and the suspension of concealment or concealment of work that was being conducted before or after the above statement was made on June 3, 2016, or there was no fact that there was no direction or reprimand that the above defendant’s statement was an original content that the work that was conducted rather than for the purpose of preventing destruction and concealment of evidence could constitute destruction or concealment of evidence, which is evidence.
B. The assertion that the destruction of data during the process of the termination of the AC TFT (crimes 3.b.) does not constitute destruction of evidence and that there is no fact that the defendant A instructed to destroy the data.
1) The assertion
AC TFT is an organization operated for a limited period of time in preparation for inspection of state administration.
Since collection of data, such as computers, was temporarily established in order to perform a temporary and short-term task, such as securing a short-term lease from a lessee company, it was planned from the beginning to return the office equipment and arrange all the data in the office after completion of the task. Therefore, the existing office equipment that was no longer necessary while collecting office equipment in the process of dissolution after completion of the work by a temporary organization, cannot be said to constitute destruction and concealment of evidence by breaking all the existing office equipment and returning all the computer equipment. Furthermore, the Hadrida data or computer files that were broken in the process of dissolution of ACFT, which copied all existing materials or computer files stored in the company, are stored in the office or computer in the company, and the original materials were stored in the office or computer, so it is difficult to view them as evidence of destruction and concealment of evidence. Moreover, Defendant A’s order to do not have been issued.
2) Determination
However, according to the following facts or circumstances revealed by each of the above evidence, the destruction and separate storage of materials carried out at the time of the completion of the AC TFT constitutes the destruction and concealment of evidence, and the defendant A instigated it. Therefore, the above assertion cannot be accepted.
(1) The name of AC TFT or the location of an office shall be determined in consideration of search and seizure in mind.
was made.
P, while giving testimony in this Court, the name of the response team related to the humidifiers case
As to the reasons for the decision of "AC", the name "AC" was used to prevent documents related to "AC" from leaving out of the company through search, seizure, etc., and the separate establishment of ACFT office outside of the company was also stated in order to prepare for search and seizure by the prosecutor (hereinafter recorded page 11,12). In addition, the accounting documents on the ACFT office rent stated that the office was leased for IPO rather than ACFT, and the defendant C stated that it would be good if the defendant B did not have any ground for the operation of TFT in relation to the cFT, and according to these evidence, the purpose was to respond to the search and seizure by the prosecutor from the stage of determining the name of ACFT office or the location of the office (Evidence No. 9611).
(2) AC TFT shall collect data related to humidifier disinfectant and keep such data for the original purpose.
The department that had not been left has not been left.
O In giving testimony in this Court and collecting data in AC TFT, the original department
The materials mentioned above have been reversed, and they are all scattered in all departments under the name of security maintenance and external storage, and they are different from disks in the place where the materials were originally stored, and the prosecution made it impossible to restore the disks even after the investigation was conducted by the prosecutor. As of October 2016, ACFT was at the time of termination of ACFT office and the legal team glnet, it stated that materials related to D development, manufacture, and sale in the company were rarely remaining (104 pages on June 14, 2019), and P also made a statement that they were collected, collected, and arranged materials related to D delivery or E-dried sterilizationing production, manufacturing, and sale from ACFT, and that they were collected at the time of collection in the original department and concentrated into AFC13 (hereinafter referred to as AC13).
In addition, the Z shall be R Research Institute and V kept by P at the time of the operation of the AC TFT
Although the data delivered or obtained by incumbent and retired employees were delivered to a hump containing the data, and then returned the data, all the data searched into the search language, such as "satise", "S", and "I," were deleted (Recording nine pages).
In light of this, the defendant's assertion that concealing the original data in ACFT is not a crime of destroying or concealing evidence because the original data were kept in the office or computer in the company.
3. Collection, destruction, or concealment of data from the beginning stage of AC TFT activities.
plan was plan.
Defendant B was investigated by the prosecution, and the AC TFT was a temporary organization; and
Since it should not be leaked to the outside due to a large number of towing materials, the individuals, upon expiration of their activities, have run back only the necessary data and deleted the remainder, and the collected off-line materials were planned to be discarded due to sensitive data (Evidence Records 7952 pages).
In addition, the defendant C also was investigated by the prosecution and collected at the time of the operation of the AC TFT.
Since all materials were sensitive data, the collection of materials was conducted from the beginning to be discarded, and Defendant B instructed the outside to keep important materials in preparation for search and seizure of the prosecution, and accordingly stated that O was aware of the fact that it had been in custody of the core materials related to the disinfection of moisture at the outside place (Evidence Records 8151, 8152 pages).
In light of this, ACFT collects and disposes of data from the beginning stage.
It seems that activities were conducted under a plan to conceal or conceal, and at the time of termination of the AC TFT, disposal or concealment was also carried out as part of such plan.
(4) The destruction and concealment of materials that take place upon termination of the AC TFT shall be seized by the prosecutor.
The purpose was to cope with colors.
AC TFT’s monthly report on October 31, 2016 at the time of termination of the AC TFT, shall be seized by the prosecution.
In preparation for search, the destruction of all offline Hadscops is completed, and the records related to the investigation of state affairs are recorded as being kept in electronic document form (Evidence Records 4947 pages).
P is investigated by the prosecution and all of the investigations are completed at the time of completion of the investigation.
The purpose of destroying off off-line materials and preserving them in the form of electronic document. Defendant B made a statement to the effect that data submitted at the time of investigation is kept as electronic data and the remaining data should be destroyed for security (Evidence No. 5982). Defendant B also received an investigation from the prosecution, and Defendant B also stated that among the data collected in arranging ACFT activities, the data should be deleted, except essential data, and the hals of documents gathered or created during ACFT should be destroyed. The details of the monthly report in the ACFT process are the same context, and the above monthly report in the ACFT process can be seen as the same context, and if the data are crushed, it may be necessary at the time of the later investigation, the EFT investigation, the prosecution investigation, and the Fair Trade Commission investigation, etc.
O In addition, at the time of the termination of AC TFT on October 2016, when testimony was made in this Court.
AC TFT's policies on the company's data were discarded unnecessary Hcar, and the necessary core data was concealed outside the company in preparation for seizure and search if the Ministry of Environment determines the hazard of CMIT/MIT, the prosecution made a statement that the data was concealed outside the company (No. 104 pages on June 14, 2019);
In light of such evidence, the destruction of the data in progress at the end of ACFT; and
Even if the prosecution seizes and seizes the prosecutor's office, it can be said that there was a purpose in order not to find any material that could be at issue of criminal responsibility of J and related persons in relation to the case of disinfection.
(5) In preparation for search and seizure by a prosecutor even after the termination of the AC TFT on October 2016, other than a company.
They continued to check the storage status of the materials concealed in the book.
J around February 2017, the Ministry of Environment re-established ACFT in preparation for the announcement of the test results recognizing the causal relationship between the damage caused by the closure of CMF/MIT, and this ACFT on March 2, 2017 was discussed to regularly check the storage status of core material in preparation for the search and seizure of investigation agencies (Evidence record 4628 pages or 6071 pages 5).
As to this, Defendant B is under investigation by the prosecution and “core material” refers to AC.
The purpose of the statement is to maintain each employee's security while holding the materials related to investigation or litigation, sensitive or misleading materials among the materials related to humidifier disinfectants, which were collected at around October 2016 (in light of the purpose of the statement, it seems that the ACFT was stated including ACT, which was dissolved around October 2016). (Evidence records 7957 pages) In light of this, the purpose of having the ACFT dissolved to keep the materials outside of the company was to avoid being seized by an investigation agency, and the status of custody was continuously inspected at the company level.
On the other hand, Defendant A is under investigation by the prosecution, and at the meeting of officers on March 2017.
It is the same as having received a report as a regular inspection of the storage status of core materials in preparation for search and seizure. 6) The prosecutor made a statement that it is intended to provide it and explain it voluntarily at the time of search and seizure (the steam record 8042 pages). However, voluntary provision of materials is possible before the prosecutor's search and seizure. Thus, it is not necessary to mention voluntary provision of materials as countermeasures against search and seizure. Thus, the contents of the above meeting's materials refer to concealing and concealing important evidence in preparation for search and seizure.
6. Members of AC TFT shall also have evidence centered on the legal team at the time the AC TFT ends.
It was aware that the destruction or concealment work was carried out.
Y who was involved in ACFT as the head of the CR team shall be subject to an investigation conducted by the prosecution.
On October 2016, ACFT terminated and delivered all of the data held at the time of termination to P, and received instructions to delete all of the data held by each party, which was reasonable (Evidence No. 6427 of the evidence record), and V participating in ACFT as a person in charge of the prosecution investigation was aware that all the data at the time of termination of ACFT were managed by the legal team and that it would be safely stored in an external place other than the company because it was not safe for the prosecution, search, seizure, etc. (Evidence No. 6465 of the evidence record). According to these statements, ACFT team was aware that the data at the time of ACFT was destroyed and concealed in preparation for destruction of evidence at the time of search and seizure by the prosecution (Evidence No. 6465 of the record).
7. Defendant A instructed the destruction and concealment of materials collected from ACFT.
Defendant B testified in this Court and made by Defendant A in AC TFT.
All pesters stated that data or materials held to be discarded and to make the pester have been stored in a place other than a company (Recording Nos. 6). P also testified in the court that they are memoryed with the Defendant’s delivery of the order to discard all the remainder except those materials submitted to the investigation (Recording Nos. 49).
In addition, theO's testimony at this Court shall be made before the National Assembly hearing on September 2016.
In the future, H.C., almost all the remaining materials related to the storage and destruction of documents are computerized and kept separately, and the core materials among the internal materials are determined to be unified from the legal team to be kept outside, and Defendant B made a report to the effect that it should be reported to Defendant A by reconcing the report and making it known to Defendant A (as of June 14, 2019, the recording book No. 54 through 56). This is premised on the premise that Defendant A’s instructions or approval for the destruction and concealment of evidence were made. Thus, this conforms to the above Defendant B and P’s statements.
Ultimately, according to the above statements, Defendant A is an evidence for the members of AC TFT.
The fact that a person has instigated the destruction or concealment may be recognized.
(d) argument that even if a person participated in the destruction or concealment of evidence, he/she does not constitute a crime because he/she destroyed or concealed his/her evidence.
1) The assertion that he is a principal offender to destroy and conceal his evidence
A) The assertion
Even if it is recognized that Defendant A participated in the destruction or concealment of evidence
In light of the physical progress, Defendant B, Defendant C,O, and P did not allow the resolution of Defendant A in the absence of the intent to destroy or conceal evidence, and thus, it is difficult to deem that Defendant A constitutes a co-principal even if it can be said that Defendant A constitutes a co-principal. However, in the event of destroying or concealing evidence of his/her criminal case, the crime of destroying or concealing evidence cannot be established, and ultimately, Defendant A’s act does not constitute a crime.
B) Determination
(1) The Defendant A’s own evidence subject to the destruction and concealment of the instant evidence
Whether it is included
Defendant A served as the representative director of J from January 2010, and “D”;
The evidence related to this is considered to have the nature of the defendant A as evidence for his criminal case (the charge of this case also prevents the defendant A to destroy and conceal evidence against the criminal case of another person or "the person's own") in that the defendant A sold the satisfying agents by the end of 2011.
(2) Whether the crime of aiding and abetting is established
However, according to the facts acknowledged above, Defendant A was first in February 2016.
Defendant B, Defendant C, C,O, and P were ordered to prepare countermeasures against the crime of destruction and concealment of evidence. Accordingly, Defendant B, Defendant C, C, and P prepared countermeasures on February 11, 2016, and reported them to Defendant A at the meeting on February 11, 2016, and Defendant A instructed Defendant A to destroy and conceal evidence by receiving the report of the destruction and concealment of evidence of No. 4 at that meeting and approving it. Although Defendant A did not merely instruct Defendant A to prepare countermeasures at the stage of ordering Defendant A to prepare countermeasures, Defendant B, etc. to prepare countermeasures against destruction and concealment of evidence, and Defendant A approved finally destruction and concealment of evidence by ordering Defendant A to implement them after receiving a report. Accordingly, Defendant A passed a resolution to compel Defendant B, etc. to commit a crime.
Defendant A’s above assertion is that Defendant B et al. instructed Defendant A
The premise that Defendant A had already had the criminal intent to destroy evidence and conceal evidence even without approval, but as recognized earlier, even if Defendant B, Defendant C,O, and P had already prepared the part of the destruction and concealment of evidence in accordance with the Defendant A’s response as of February 11, 2016 in preparing the countermeasures against the destruction of evidence and concealment of evidence in accordance with the Defendant A’s order or approval, it cannot be said that they had already had the criminal intent to commit the destruction of evidence and concealment of evidence even without the Defendant’s order or approval.
Furthermore, if the defendant A is reported on the countermeasures taken on February 11, 2016, the defendant A is reported.
If Defendant B et al. instructed Defendant B et al. to not destroy or conceal evidence in the course of implementing the measures to cope with the destruction and concealment of evidence as prescribed in Section 4 or the household-stoves case, then Defendant A et al. did not proceed with the work to replace the hard disc and delete e-mail against this reason. In this respect, Defendant A shall be deemed to have instigated Defendant B et al. to have resolved on the execution of destruction and concealment of evidence.
Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion cannot be accepted.
2) The assertion that the crime of aiding and abetting was not established, since the defense right was not abused.
A) The assertion
Even if Defendant A participated in the destruction and concealment of evidence of this case, the degree of such participation
Since it did not reach the abuse of the right of defense, the crime of teacher is not established.
B) Determination
The crime of concealing evidence is committed when concealing evidence of another person's criminal or disciplinary case;
Inasmuch as an act of concealing evidence in a criminal case is not subject to punishment in conflict with the intent of recognizing a defendant’s right of defense in a criminal case, the act of requesting assistance to another person in order to conceal evidence in his/her criminal case is not subject to punishment in principle. However, if it can be seen as an abuse of his/her right of defense, it may be punished as a crime of concealing evidence. Whether it may be deemed an abuse of the right of defense should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the form and content of the act identified as an abuse of the right of defense, the relationship between the offender and the offender, the specific situation at the time of the act, the degree of risk that may affect criminal justice (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do12079, Apr. 10, 201
In light of the above legal principles, the case of this case is approved by the Health Unit and Defendant A.
In light of the fact that from 2016 to 2016, Defendant A’s act committed the act of aiding and abetting each department of theJ, destruction of evidence and concealment of evidence, which was organized against each department of theJ, the method of direction also took the form of aiding and abetting destruction of evidence and concealment of e-mail, the method of destruction and concealment of e-mail, the method of destruction and concealment of e-mail, and the progress of the process of request to specialized institutions to determine the possibility of recovery of deleted materials, and the fact that the method of destruction and concealment of e-mail was conducted to determine the possibility of recovery of deleted materials, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant A’s act committed the act of aiding and abetting each department of theJ. Accordingly, the above assertion cannot be accepted.
2. Defendant C.
A. The assertion
The duties performed by Defendant C while carrying out the AC TFT activities are the team leader of the general bond-related team, and only performed the role of arranging the office and PC temporarily used by ACFT after renting the office and PC, and there is no fact that Defendant A, Defendant B, etc. destroyed or concealed data in the course of dissolution of ACFT.
B. Determination
O made testimony at this Court and stated that, in the absence of Defendant B, the team leader of the AC TFT, he/she carried out the work in compliance with the instructions of Defendant C, who is the next superior, and received instructions from Defendant B and Defendant C to process the preservation or destruction of the AC TFT data (No. 54 pages of June 14, 2019), and classified the data to be discarded and stored together with Defendant C at the end of AC TFT. At the office of Defendant B, the defendant C, himself/herself and P stated that he/she was in custody of the data when the meeting was held (no. 126 pages of the recording on June 14, 2019). According to this, the defendant also determined and carried out the destruction and concealment of evidence that was in the process of arranging the AC TFT as well as the evidence that the defendant had been in the process of organizing the AC TFT as a member of the AC TFT as seen earlier.
In addition, the O testified in this court that all members of the AC TFT team were to be considered as if they were to destroy and conceal the materials (57 pages on June 14, 2019). Defendant C, himself, Y, etc. upon obtaining approval from Defendant A, Defendant C, himself, and Y, etc. (58 pages on June 14, 2019), and Y also stated that the remaining materials were delivered to P at the time of the completion of the AC TFT (26 pages). In light of this, Defendant C, the team leader of AC TFT at the time of the completion of the AC TFT, shall be deemed to have participated in the act of destroying and concealing the evidence as determined above, and Defendant C, the team leader of AC TFT, followed Defendant B and participated in the AC TFT as a superior.
On the other hand, Y under investigation conducted by the prosecutor's office at around October 2016, Y: (a) instructed Defendant C to remove all the materials stored in the hard disc under the direction of Defendant C to remove all the materials stored in the hard disc while organizing ACRM office; (b) stated that Defendant C was directed by Defendant C on behalf of Defendant B, but this is not correct (Evidence Records 8747 pages); (c) ZT starts with the prosecutor's office and stated that Defendant C did not remove the materials stored in the PC from the legal team or the PC’s office; and (d) the statement that Defendant C was called as “IFT office” (Evidence 6461,6462 pages) and that Defendant C’s act was destroyed by evidence destruction, rather than Defendant CF’s role and role, Defendant CFF’s testimony is clearly deleted from Defendant CF’s role and role. However, Defendant CFF, who did not appear in the process of Defendant CF’s testimony.
Therefore, Defendant C’s above assertion cannot be accepted.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Article 8 of the Act concerning the Crime;
○ Defendant A: Articles 155(1) and 31(1) of each Criminal Act (the occupation of the teacher to destroy evidence of the first and second types, and the occupation of the teacher to conceal evidence of the second and second evidence)
○ Defendant B and Defendant C: Article 155(1) of each Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (each of the following points: 1 and 2)
1. Formal concurrence 10);
○ Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act (for each of the crimes of destroying evidence and the first crime of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence, punishment for each of the crimes of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence which are heavier than the crime of causing the destruction of evidence and the second crime of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence which are greater than the crime of causing the destruction of evidence and punishment for each of the crimes of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence which are more severe
1. Selection of punishment;
○ Defendants: Imprisonment with labor
1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;
○ Defendants: Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (with respect to the crimes of destroying evidence, between the crimes of causing destruction of evidence, between the crimes of causing destruction of evidence and the second and the second crimes of causing destruction of evidence, the punishment for each of the crimes of causing the destruction of evidence as prescribed by the first and the second crimes of causing the destruction of evidence, which is more severe, shall be aggravated, and with respect to the crimes of causing the destruction of evidence between the crimes of Defendants B and C, the punishment for each of the crimes of causing the destruction of evidence and the second crimes of causing the severe crimes
1. Suspension of execution;
○ Defendant C: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act
1. Probation and community service order;
Defendant C: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act
Reasons for sentencing
Defendant A 11)
The J has deleted materials, e-mail, etc. which can be used disadvantageous to the company in relation to the household's humidifier case since before 2016 with the approval of Defendant A, and the report and approval of the countermeasures against the destruction of evidence and the subsequent actions on February 11, 2016 were also conducted in such atmosphere, and Defendant A asserts that Defendant A had the intent to destroy and conceal evidence before that end, not to have the Defendant B et al. passed a resolution on the crime. However, as Defendant A instructed to prepare countermeasures, it cannot be accepted that Defendant B et al. voluntarily planned the destruction and concealment of evidence with the content of the destruction and concealment of evidence prepared on February 11, 2016 while preparing countermeasures against Defendant A et al. as of February 11, 2016.
In addition, according to the trends so created, Defendant A, etc. committed the crime of destruction and concealment of evidence of this case and the crime of aiding and abetting them to commit the crime of this case, like other daily business without awareness of how serious criminal acts were committed. Although their actions are perceived to be a serious crime that could later be committed, if their actions were to be punished despite the awareness that they were a serious crime that could later be committed, and if they resolved and carried out the crime of this case, they would be memory about the specific case. However, at the time, the parties committed the crime of this case according to the commercial atmosphere where materials unfavorable to the company were destroyed without any special rejection or awareness of the seriousness of the case, and without such awareness of the importance of the case, at the time of the destruction and concealment of evidence of this case, or the specific remarks and actions of the participants. However, even though the parties are unable to clearly memory the destruction of evidence of this case, Defendant A is consistent with a defense against the common sense that the facts reported to him or the contents of his instructions are not established, and there is no evidence supporting Defendant A’s destruction and concealment of evidence of this case.
In addition, at the request of the J, the AL law office prepared a response manual for a criminal case (Evidence No. 2) and the defendant C reported it to the defendant A on March 22, 2016 (Evidence No. 7752 of the evidence record), and the above manual stated that the "defensive issue, which is evidence, may arise as a prior countermeasure against the search and seizure of the prosecutor's office, should be careful not to destroy or delete the documents and other materials without permission."
In addition, in the production and distribution of damps which cause a big problem in our society by the direction of Defendant A, the evidence which can judge the nature and scope of criminal responsibility of J and related persons was destroyed and concealed, thereby hindering the discovery of substantial truth.
Taking into account the role of the defendant in the crime of this case, the progress of the crime of this case, the attitude taken by the defendant A from the investigation agency to the investigation agency, and the seriousness of the case of this case, even if considering that the defendant A was the first offender, the punishment corresponding to the act shall be imposed.
In addition, the sentencing conditions in the trial process of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, family environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after crime, were determined as above.
Defendant B 12)
1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to seven years;
2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;
(a) First offense (the destruction of evidence in the first place);
【Determination of Punishment】
02. Destruction of evidence, concealment of Witness (Type 1), Destruction of Evidence and Concealment of Witness
【Special Convicted Persons】
- Aggravations: Where the method of crime is very poor;
【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】
Aggravation, 10 months to 3 years
【General Convicts】
- Mitigation elements: serious reflective or criminal punishment;
- Aggravated factor: where evidence has been destroyed over a large number of evidence or for a long time;
(b) Second crime (a harbor of evidence in the first place);
【Determination of Punishment】
No. 02. Destruction of Evidence, and Concealment of Witness (Type 1)
【Special Convicted Persons】
- Aggravations: Where the method of crime is very poor;
【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】
Aggravation, 10 months to 3 years
【General Convicts】
- Mitigation elements: serious reflective or criminal punishment;
(c) A third crime (a second destruction of evidence);
【Determination of Punishment】
02. Destruction of evidence, concealment of Witness (Type 1), Destruction of Evidence and Concealment of Witness
【Special Convicted Persons】
- Aggravations: Where the method of crime is very poor;
【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】
Aggravation, 10 months to 3 years
【General Convicts】
- Mitigation elements: serious reflective or criminal punishment;
- Aggravated factor: where evidence has been destroyed over a large number of evidence or for a long time;
(d) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: From 10 months to 5 years (the upper limit of the first crime + the upper limit of the second crime + 1/2 + 1/3 of the upper limit of the third crime);
3. Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment; and
Defendant B was given a comprehensive order to destroy and conceal evidence by Defendant A as a general secretary of the publicity and general affairs of J, and carried out the order along with the head of the headquarters of the general affairs claims, as well as the head of theO in charge of Defendant C and the head of the P agency in charge of the legal affairs, and received the notification of the destruction and concealment of evidence from them and reported it to Defendant A. Ultimately, Defendant B, as an executive officer in charge, has a overall control over the actual execution of the destruction and concealment of evidence of this case, and thus, the responsibility cannot be deemed as weak
In addition, as mentioned above, the evidence which can judge the nature and extent of criminal responsibility of J and related persons in the production and distribution of damp saves which cause a big problem in our society has been destroyed and concealed by Defendant B, thereby hindering the discovery of substantial truth. Thus, the nature of the crime is also hot.
Considering these aspects, even if Defendant B received a fine of KRW 200,000 as a result of the crime of interference with business for about 30 years prior to the crime of interference with business, it is necessary to punish Defendant B as a sentence corresponding to the act of punishment, even though
However, there are the following favorable circumstances in Defendant B. First of all, Defendant B had consistently committed the instant crime from the investigative agency to the court. In addition, around November 1999, Defendant B entered the director of the public relations office of J, who was in charge of public relations-related affairs until 2014, and was in charge of public relations-related affairs for the period of 2015 due to the reorganization of organization, and was in charge of the general bond-related team, which was one of the role of the general bond-related team. From December 2006, Defendant B did not have any expert knowledge about the legal affairs. From around December 2006, Defendant B received benefits to receive 60% from AS and 40% from J, and 2 to 3 days from the day did not have been under the direct control of the PJ's legal affairs such as reporting on destruction of evidence and concealment of evidence to AS. On the other hand, Defendant B did not directly become an employee of the PJ or the legal affairs of the PJ before February 2007.
Considering these favorable circumstances, the sentence was determined as above, taking into account the following factors: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, family environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after crime.
Defendant C.
1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to seven years;
2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;
(a) First offense (the destruction of evidence in the first place);
【Determination of Punishment】
02. Destruction of evidence, concealment of Witness (Type 1), Destruction of Evidence and Concealment of Witness
【Special Convicted Persons】
- Aggravations: Where the method of crime is very poor;
【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】
Aggravation, 10 months to 3 years
【General Convicts】
- Mitigation elements: No history of criminal punishment;
- Aggravated factor: where evidence has been destroyed over a large number of evidence or for a long time;
(b) Second crime (a harbor of evidence in the first place);
【Determination of Punishment】
02. Destruction of evidence, concealment of Witness (Type 1), Destruction of Evidence and Concealment of Witness
【Special Convicted Persons】
Aggravations: Where the method of crime is extremely poor;
【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】
Aggravation, 10 months to 3 years
【General Convicts】
mitigation elements: No record of criminal punishment;
(c) A third crime (a second destruction of evidence);
【Determination of Punishment】
The crime of destroying perjury or evidence shall be 02. (No. 1) destruction of evidence or concealment of witness
【Special Convicted Persons】
- Aggravations: Where the method of crime is very poor;
【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】
Aggravation, 10 months to 3 years
【General Convicts】
- Mitigation elements: No history of criminal punishment;
- Aggravated factor: where evidence has been destroyed over a large number of evidence or for a long time;
(d) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: From 10 to 5 years (the upper limit of the first crime + the upper limit of the second crime + 1/2 + 1/3 of the upper limit of the third crime);
3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, suspension of execution for two years, community service hours for 300 hours;
Defendant C, as the head of the general affairs team in charge of legal affairs, carried out the destruction and concealment of evidence of this case at the same time under the direction of Defendant B, and resulting in an obstacle to the truth of the humidifier disinfectant case which caused a big problem in our society, and thus, the nature of the Defendant’s crime cannot be deemed to be negligible.
However, as seen earlier, the sentence of punishment is harsh in view of the fact that: (a) the act of destroying and concealing evidence of this case was conducted under a certain degree of expertise and autonomy in the legal affairs of J; and (b) the Defendant C, an executive officer of the Defendant B and the team leader who carried out the actual affairs, dealt with the affairs related to the position; and (c) it appears that the degree of participation in the decision-making or execution of the act of destroying and concealing evidence is not severe.
In light of these circumstances, the sentencing conditions in the trial process of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, family environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after crime, were determined as above.
The non-guilty part (S) destruction of Hadridal data related to the 'S'
1. Summary of the facts charged
In accordance with the orders of Defendant A, such as the facts stated in Section 2-b (b) of the criminal facts, around February 2016, theO requested that the R Research Institute be separately concealed from the outside of the R Research Institute by finding out data related to the "S" products, a humidifier disinfectant, which was independently developed and released around 1997, among the data kept in the R Research Institute, from among the data kept in the R Research Institute, around February 12, 2016. On February 12, 2016, at AE at a store in the Dong-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, in accordance with the above request, the "S" products stored in the residence located in the Seo-gu AU apartment, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, as seen above, was a file file file file (hereinafter referred to as "the files of this case").
O around February 13, 2016, at the 6th J president of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AW Building, reported the discovery of the file of this case to Defendant A, and Defendant A instructed P to dispose of the file of this case, and P again ordered P to dispose of the file of this case, P to destroy the files by means of crushing the documents attached to the file of this case at the office of the 2nd DJ office of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government WW JJ District, on February 13, 2016.
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant B and Defendant C
O testified in this court that the file of this case may not be reversed, but it was seized in the process of search and seizure by the prosecutor's office while keeping the file of this case in the side page (as of June 14, 2019, page 22). According to this, it can be recognized that the file of this case remains without being destroyed until the time of search and seizure by the prosecutor's office, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge that the file of this case was destroyed as of the facts charged.
Meanwhile, this court testified to the effect that the file file of this case had other accompanying documents while giving testimony in this court, and that some of them were destroyed in the course of organizing the AC TFT office (record No. 14, Jun. 14, 2019). However, it cannot be determined whether the documents destroyed were used as evidence in a criminal case, and whether the documents were used as evidence in a criminal case. Thus, the aforementioned testimony alone is difficult to acknowledge the crime of destroying evidence even for part of the file file of this case.
Therefore, the facts charged in this part should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the court found the above defendants guilty of the destruction of evidence against the above defendants in relation to the crime of blanket crimes, the judgment of not guilty is
B. As to Defendant A
According to the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone caused the destruction of the file file of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the facts charged in this part should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as it is found that the first crime of causing the destruction of evidence, which is related to the crime of comprehensive crime, is guilty, the court
A) The evidence supporting the fact that Defendant A ordered the O to destroy the file file of this case is a O’s statement, so it is important to determine its credibility.
Defendant B shall be investigated by the prosecution and shall not destroy the files related to “S” by Defendant A.
As to whether or not there was a match and the order to destroy the file was well known (Evidence No. 7936 of the evidence record), Defendant C also stated to the effect that it was not well aware of how or not there was a defect in how to report the file file of this case to Defendant A, and that Defendant A instructed the destruction of the file file of this case (Evidence No. 8126, No. 8148 of the evidence record), Defendant B, and Defendant C did not listen to the direction of the destruction of the file of this case.
In addition, the defendant C appears to be the defendant A in the process of examining the defendant in this court.
After the dismissal, it was known that the O was in custody of the General Credit Team Capitalnet, but the defendant A made a statement that the above file file was changed to the O when it was demanded that the board of directors can discuss the matters about the "S" at the time of the board of directors' meetings, and that the defectiveO was called the "O" and the "O" (No. 9,10 pages). Since this was known that the defendant C was aware that the file file of this case was not destroyed, this is consistent with the statement that the defendant C was unable to hear the direction of the destruction.
Therefore, the fact that Defendant A instructed the destruction of the instant file.
Since it is the only evidence to support, the determination of its credibility is important.
B) TheO stated that Defendant A voluntarily reported this to Defendant A in order to keep security upon Defendant A’s request for the search of “S” related data, but theO stated that Defendant A voluntarily reported this to Defendant A;
This is contrary to the statements of other witnesses and cannot be trusted.
C. On February 12, 2016, the Prosecutor made an investigation at the Prosecutor’s Office, and sent a business trip to the Daejeon Research Institute on the following day, and received the instant file from the head of the Daejeon AE division, and did not report it to the head of the division, the former secretary (the defendant C and the defendant B) and stated that the defendant A reported it to the defendant A without reporting it (Evidence No. 5942, 5943 page), and that the defendant A instructed the defendant to read it and destroy it (Evidence No. 5942, 5943 page). While the testimony at this court while maintaining the security of the defendant A, he requested the head of the Daejeon Research Institute to gather related data and reported it to the defendant A without reporting it to the defendant B and the defendant C on May 2, 2019 (the record No. 1942, May 13, 195 through 194).
However, the testimony and statements of Defendant B, Defendant C, and P are the testimony and statements of the aboveO.
(1).
Specifically, Defendant B shall be investigated by the prosecution and theO shall be the Daejeon Research Institute.
In order to find "S" related data and to make a direct report to Defendant A (the steam records 7948 pages), P testified at this court, and stated that P showed file files to Defendant B and Defendant C at the general bond office at the time of this court (the recorded page 40), and Defendant C also had files related to "S" at the prosecutor's investigation time, and Defendant C made a report to Defendant A at the same time, and Defendant A made a statement that the file was about 2-3 books in color file, and that the two files were about 10cm thick (the recorded page 8125 pages), and that it should be deemed that Defendant C and C made a false statement to the effect that it was not the same as that of several pages at the time, and that Defendant A made a false statement to Defendant C’s prosecutor’s office’s thickness in the process of this court (the recorded page 8125 pages), and that it should be deemed that Defendant C and C files were more than 9, and that it was more meaningful than that of Defendant C’s office’s thickness.
As a result, Defendant A gave testimony and statement to the effect that he/she received the file file of this case and reported the discovery to Defendant A solely after he/she received the file file of this case. However, this is inconsistent with the testimony and testimony of other Defendants and witnesses. Thus, it is difficult to believe that it is contrary to other Defendants and witnesses.
C) Defendant A acted on the premise that he did not direct the O to destroy the file file of this case.
Defendant B shall be investigated by the prosecution and subject to the investigation of “S”-related materials A-O
The author asked why why he was reversed, and stated that the O made a statement to the effect that he had reversed the Defendant’s words as the Defendant’s instructions (Evidence Nos. 7948), and Y testified at the AC TFT office around July 2016 that the O discarded the “S” file at the Defendant’s instructions, and that Defendant B did not confirm that he was “the Defendant’s orders of the Defendant A”, and that he did not ask the Defendant A for the said words, and that he did not ask the Defendant A again again before the Defendant’s horses, and that the O did not have made it clear (Evidence Nos. 27, 32).
According to these statements and testimony, Defendant A was acting on the premise that he did not instruct the destruction of the file file of this case.
In addition, the O shall be investigated by the prosecution (Evidence 6008 pages), and the defendant C shall be himself.
Defendant A made a statement that Defendant A had the head of the OO called “S file data so that there is a change,” and that there is a request to change the data. As such, Defendant A acted on the premise that Defendant A did not have the direction to destroy the file file of this case even by the O’s statement.
D) The circumstances where the file file of this case was not actually destroyed are supported by the fact that Defendant A instructed the destruction thereof.
P made a statement in this court that the testimony was not certain at any time, but the P stated that the P made the statement that the P would destroy the “S” file from the P.O. (Recording No. 41 pages).
P, however, give testimony in this Court and P, in the ordinary sense, O also have several documents.
If a P orders for the crushing of the instant file were to be given, and the P knew that it was in accordance with the direction of the Defendant A, then the P would have destroyed the instant file. However, the circumstances that the file of this case was not actually destroyed are supported by Defendant A’s instructions, even if they were to know that it was in accordance with the direction of the Defendant A.
E) It is difficult to view that Defendant A’s instruction stated in Section 2-b (b) includes the destruction of the instant file file, and also includes household affairs, and even if theO consented.
No punishment shall be imposed under Article 31 (2) of the Criminal Act.
In the case of the file file file of this case, Defendant A directly reported the existence of the file file of this case.
In light of the fact that even after reviewing the contents of the order, the circumstances leading to destruction do not seem to exist, and that Defendant A acted under the premise that the file of this case exists even after the review, it is difficult to view that Defendant A included the file of this case in the subject of destruction of evidence as stated in Article 2-b and paragraph.
In addition, even if Defendant A comprehensively ordered the destruction of evidence on February 11, 2016, including the file file of this case, and the O consented to it, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the actual commencement of the execution. Thus, the crime of destroying evidence or the crime of concealing evidence may be punished in accordance with the Article 31(2) of the Criminal Act. Since there is no provision to punish the preparation or conspiracy, the crime of concealing evidence is not a crime.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judges
Judge Hong-man
Note tin
1) P, around April 2018, delivered to 0 the data kept in custody at the time of leaving the J, and this was seized in the process of the prosecutor’s search and seizure (Evidence No. 4926, Feb. 11, 2016; hereinafter the same). Moreover, P, during the testimony at this court, testified to the effect that the former was not deemed to have been prepared, but the latter testified to the same effect that the latter was not the same (including a recorded record No. 66), and the Defendant also testified to the same effect as this court (written record No. 53, May 22, 2019); as countermeasures were prepared by the P on February 11, 2016 (Evidence No. 4).
2) Defendant A’s defense counsel asserts that P was reported to Defendant A only when the P testified that “the completion of the correction was reported at the meeting.” As such, the countermeasures taken on February 11, 2016 were not reported to Defendant A on the same day, and the countermeasures taken on February 15, 2016 following the revision were reported to Defendant A. However, Defendant A’s testimony in this court only stated that the testimony in this court was memoryd with Defendant A’s response prior to the time of the Daejeon Research Institute, namely, prior to February 12, 2016. However, Defendant A’s defense counsel’s defense counsel did not appear to be consistent with his daily work and his memory presented in the process of examination of the witness (fore, 67 pages).
3) On July 5, 2016, the business pocket book (Evidence No. 3030 pages) dated 5, 2016, the defendant A stated that "the request for the progress of the AL Scientific Investigation" was included in the daily work log (Evidence No. 7276 pages) of the same date, and the defendant A appears to have finally approved the siren on July 5, 2016.
4) In this Court’s testimony, this Court stated that not only the next day’s work but also the work to be carried out in the future as well as the contents indicated in the “main work to be carried out on a well-known day” (No. 43 of May 22, 2019). Such a statement also conforms to the overall contents recorded in the daily work log No. 0.
5) The draft data of the executive conference prepared by P is written.
6) On March 2, 2017, Defendant A’s defense counsel stated that the submission of the data at P’s board of directors (Evidence Nos. 4628 or 6071 of the Evidence No. 4628 or 6071 of the Evidence Nos. 462), the submission of the data at the board of directors meeting of March 6, 2017 (Evidence No. 10076 of the Evidence No. 1076 of the Evidence No. 201) was omitted, but Defendant A intentionally alleged that Defendant A had concealed the circumstances of destroying and concealing evidence, but Defendant A was stated on the premise that it was reported in the prosecutor’s investigation.
7) At the time of the prosecutorial investigation, Defendant B was the head of the AC TFT team, but it was not present at the AC TFT, but the role of Defendant C was performed on behalf of Defendant C (Evidence Records 8747 pages), and such statements are interpreted to the same effect.
8) On February 11, 2016, the act of destroying or concealing evidence as of February 11, 2016 among the facts charged against Defendant A, indicated as “the first vehicle”) that the act of destroying or concealing evidence as of October 2016, and indicated as “the second vehicle” the act of destroying or concealing evidence as stated in Section 3. A of the facts charged against Defendant B and Defendant C as “the first vehicle”; and 3.b. the act of destroying or concealing evidence as stated in Section 3.b. as “the second vehicle”.
9) Of the facts charged against Defendant B and Defendant C, the acts of concealing evidence and the acts of concealing evidence 1 and the acts of concealing evidence 1 and 2 are deemed to have been repeated as below the same kind of acts under the same criminal intent, respectively, single and continuous crimes, and the legal interests of such damage are also the same. Thus, it is deemed that the acts of destroying evidence, the acts of concealing evidence 1, the acts of destroying evidence 2 and the acts of concealing evidence 2 are one-way crimes, respectively.
10) The first crime of Defendant A’s aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence and the first crime of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence constitutes several crimes. Since the second crime of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence and the second crime of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence are the same as the second crime, it is deemed that each ordinary competition exists.
11) Since each crime committed by Defendant A is an ordinary concurrent crime, the sentencing criteria shall not apply.
12) Defendant B’s defense counsel asserted that there exist mitigation elements among special sentencing factors, as Defendant B’s simple conspiracy of crime and did not lead the crime, and did not directly share the act of crime, Defendant B’s defense counsel argued that there were special sentencing factors. However, Defendant B ordered the act of destruction and concealment of evidence as an executive officer of 0/P, etc. who directly performed the act of commission, and Defendant B ordered the act of destruction and concealment of evidence, this part of the argument cannot be accepted as it cannot be deemed that Defendant B’s role was done simply by simple conspiracy. Furthermore, Defendant B’s defense counsel asserted that there was mitigation elements. Since Defendant B’s defense counsel was restored of the destroyed evidence, the circumstance of partial restoration of the destroyed evidence or not restored evidence, and this part of the sentencing guidelines does not mean the case where there was any influence on the discovery of substantive truth by restoring the destroyed evidence, but it is also difficult to accept this part of the argument. Lastly, Defendant B’s defense counsel asserted that there was a reason for suspension of execution, but it does not apply the sentencing guidelines as a concurrent crime.