Defendant 1 and three others

Defendant 1 and one other and the prosecutor

Lee Jong-soo, Lee In-bok (Public Trial)

Attorney Han Man-hwan et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gohap1437, 1473, 1541, 201Gohap336, 1255 (Joint) Decided April 13, 2012

All of the appeals by Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 (Defendant 2 of the Supreme Court’s judgment) and the prosecutor’s appeals by Defendant 1, 2, and 3 are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

The punishment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 4

(1) mistake of facts or omission of judgment, or omission of reasons

A) ① On September 22, 2008, Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) jointly and severally guaranteed the monetary obligation of Nonindicted Co. 5 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 3”) of Nonindicted Co. 3 Co. 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 5”) with respect to the monetary obligation of KRW 5,297,829,600, and jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of KRW 6.3 billion issued by Nonindicted Co. 3 Co. 3 as security (hereinafter “joint and severally guaranteed obligation”) with respect to the obligation of promissory notes amounting to KRW 6.3 billion issued by Nonindicted Co. 3 Co. 3, Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) was naturally subject to transactional relations, such as mutual loans, joint and several sureties, joint and several issuance of bills, and promissory notes lending between Nonindicted Co. 1 and 3, as at September 18, 2008, the creditors’ joint and several sureties’s joint and several liability could not be found to have been for profit-making purposes.

B) If the representative director of the company knew or could have known that the issuing act of the bill by the representative director is an abuse of representative authority, the issuing act of the bill would not cause damage to the company, and thus, the crime of breach of trust is not established. Even if this part of the facts charged against Defendant 4 is recognized, even if all of the facts charged against Defendant 4 are recognized, the joint and several surety of this case is null and void since Defendant 4 actively participated in the act of breach of trust by Co-Defendant 1, the representative director of the

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor (Defendant 1, 2, and 3)

According to all evidence, although the facts charged against Defendant 1 in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 due to the lending of money in August 2008 can be found guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts charged against the above Defendants, due to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles.

2. Determination:

A. Determination as to Defendant 4’s assertion of mistake of facts

1) As to the assertion that the joint and several guarantee in this case is based on the profit-making purpose and management judgment of Nonindicted Company 1, and cannot be an act of breach of trust

원심 및 당심에서 적법하게 채택·조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인 4가 이 부분 공소사실 기재와 같이 자신의 전적인 자금 지원 등을 통하여 공소외 1 회사를 인수한 공동피고인 1에 대하여 큰 영향력을 행사할 수 있음을 기화로, 2008. 9. 22.경 자신이 운영하는 공소외 5 회사가 공소외 3 회사에 대하여 가지고 있던 5,297,829,600원의 채권을 공소외 1 회사로부터 회수하기로 마음먹고, 공동피고인 1에게 공소외 1 회사가 별다른 반대급부도 받음이 없이 공소외 3 회사의 공소외 5 회사에 대한 위 금전채무와 위 금전채무의 담보 목적으로 공소외 3 회사가 발행한 63억 원의 약속어음금채무를 연대보증할 것을 적극적으로 요구하여 공동피고인 1로 하여금 이 사건 연대보증을 하도록 한 다음, 그 후인 2009. 9. 하순경 공소외 5 회사가 이 사건 연대보증에 기하여 공소외 1 회사의 유상증자 납입대금 계좌에 채권압류 및 추심명령을 통한 강제집행을 함에 있어 그와 같은 강제집행에 반발하는 공동피고인 1을 회유, 협박하여 공동피고인 1과 사이에 다시 공소외 1 회사가 공소외 5 회사의 위와 같은 강제집행에 아무런 이의를 제기하지 않기로 하는 약정(이하 ‘이 사건 이의부제기약정’이라 한다)을 체결함으로써 공소외 5 회사가 법원의 배당을 통하여 공소외 1 회사로부터 위 약속어음금 63억 원을 추심하고 그로 인하여 공소외 1 회사에게 같은 금액 상당의 손해를 입게 한 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있는바, 이와 같이 공동피고인 1이 공소외 1 회사의 대표이사로서 회사의 재산을 성실히 관리하고 보전해야 할 업무상 임무가 있음에도 채권자인 피고인 4의 요구를 거절하지 못하고 별다른 반대급부도 받지 않은 채 이 사건 연대보증 및 이 사건 이의부제기약정을 함으로써 공소외 1 회사로 하여금 63억 원 상당의 손해를 입게 한 것은 배임행위에 해당한다고 보기에 충분하고, 피고인 4 또한 공동피고인 1의 배임행위의 전 과정에 위와 같이 적극적으로 가담한 이상 배임죄의 공동정범에 해당한다고 할 것이므로, 이와 달리 이 사건 연대보증이 공소외 1 회사 자체의 영리 목적 또는 경영상 필요에 따라 이루어진 정상적인 거래로서 배임행위가 될 수 없다는 취지의 피고인 4의 사실오인 등 주장은 이유 없다[피고인 4의 변호인은 공소외 1 회사와 공소외 3 회사 두 회사는 상호간에 담보 없이 또는 별다른 반대급부 없이 금전대여, 연대보증, 어음 공동발행 등을 해왔고, 이 사건 연대보증도 그러한 거래의 일환일 뿐 특별히 비정상적인 거래가 아니라는 취지의 주장을 하므로 보건대, ① 공소외 3 회사는 2008. 7. 30. 아무런 대가 없이 공소외 1 회사의 피고인 4에 대한 6억 6,000만 원의 채무에 관하여 연대보증한 사실이 있으나, 이는 공소외 3 회사 경영진에 회사의 인수자금 등을 빌려 주어 큰 영향력을 가지고 있던 피고인 4의 요구에 의하여 공소외 3 회사가 위와 같이 아무런 대가 없이 공소외 1 회사의 피고인 4에 대한 위 금전채무를 연대보증한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 공소외 3 회사는 공소외 1 회사에게 2008. 5. 9. 10억 원, 2008. 6. 27. 6억 1,500만 원을 각 대여한 것으로 회계상 정리되어 있으나, 위 각 금원을 공소외 3 회사로부터 대여받은 공소외 1 회사가 그 직후 또는 그 무렵에 위 각 금원 상당액을 인출하여 피고인 4에게 이를 전달한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이는 공소외 3 회사의 대표이사인 피고인 2가 피고인 4의 요구 등에 의하여 공소외 3 회사의 공소외 1 회사에 대한 대여의 형식을 빌려 피고인 4에 대한 개인 채무를 변제한 것이거나 공소외 1 회사가 공소외 3 회사에 대한 위 차용금의 변제에 갈음하여 피고인 2 또는 공소외 3 회사의 피고인 4에 대한 채무를 대신 변제한 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 또 공소외 3 회사는 2008. 8. 4. 공소외 1 회사에게 3억 1,700만 원을 대여해 준 사실이 있기는 하나, 이는 공소외 3 회사가 같은 날 공소외 6 주식회사에게 18억 원의 약속어음을 발행하여 주고 자금을 융통함에 있어 공소외 1 회사가 위 약속어음금채무를 연대보증한 대가로 공소외 3 회사가 위 금원을 공소외 1 회사에게 대여해 준 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 공소외 1 회사는 2008. 8. 12. 공소외 7로부터 75억 6,000만 원을 빌리면서 그 담보조로 공소외 3 회사와 함께 80억 원의 약속어음을 공동발행하여 공소외 7 측에게 교부한 사실이 있으나, 이는 공소외 7이 그와 별도로 2008. 5. 27. 피고인 2에게 70억 원을 빌려주면서 담보로 받았던 공소외 3 회사 주식 270만 주에 대한 담보가치가 주2) 하락하자 공소외 7이 피고인 2에게 위와 같이 자신이 공소외 1 회사에게 금원을 빌려주고 담보로 받게 될 80억 원의 약속어음을 공소외 3 회사가 공소외 1 회사와 공동 명의로 발행하는 형식으로 담보가치를 보충해 줄 것을 요구하여 공소외 3 회사가 위와 같이 공소외 1 회사와 함께 80억 원의 약속어음을 공동발행하여 공소외 7 측에게 교부한 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 공소외 1 회사와 공소외 3 회사 사이에 이루어진 금전대여, 연대보증, 어음 공동발행 등의 거래 중 담보 없이 또는 반대급부 없이 이루어진 거래는 두 회사의 경영진에 회사의 인수대금 등을 빌려주어 두 회사 경영진의 의사결정에 큰 영향력을 가지고 있던 피고인 4 또는 공소외 7의 적극적인 요구에 의하여 이루어진 것으로 보이고, 그 밖에 두 회사 사이의 거래에 있어서는 대부분 일정한 대가가 있었던 것으로 보이므로, 이 사건 연대보증이 공소외 1 회사와 공소외 3 회사 두 회사 간의 담보 없이 또는 별다른 반대급부 없이 이루어진 거래의 일환으로서 통상적인 거래라는 피고인 4의 변호인의 주장은 받아들일 수 없다.].

2) As to the assertion that the crime of breach of trust is not established on the ground of abuse of power of representation

In the case of breach of trust, property damage includes not only a case where a real damage is inflicted but also a case where a risk of actual damage to property has been caused. The determination of whether a property damage has been inflicted shall not be based on legal judgment in relation to the property condition of the principal, but also on an economic point of view. Even if the act of breach of trust is null and void by legal judgment, where a real damage has been inflicted on the principal or a risk of actual damage to property has been inflicted on the principal due to an act of breach of trust in an economic point of view (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do3013, Dec. 22, 1995; 2010Do1394, Nov. 24, 2011, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, Co-Defendant 1, as seen earlier, should manage the assets of Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1 as the representative director of Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1 and preserve them. Notwithstanding the fact that Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1 had a duty to do so, Defendant 4’s active demand, thereby having the Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1 guaranteed the obligations of Nonindicted Co-Defendant 5 without any specific consideration to Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1. Furthermore, in the process of executing compulsory execution through the seizure and collection order of the claims against Nonindicted Co. 1, 5, Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, as well as Defendant 1’s joint and several liability for Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, which would not raise any objection to the above compulsory execution against Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, 200 million won, it is reasonable for Co-Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 to have a certain amount of money to be collected from Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1, 2, and thus, Defendant 1 and Defendant 4’s allegation that the above act of breach of trust would not be applied in light of the purport of the judgment.

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of mistake

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

From July 17, 2008 to November 24, 2009, Defendant 1 was the manager or representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, and from September 16, 2008 to January 7, 2010, Defendant 3 offered that Defendant 2 jointly take over Nonindicted Company 3, and offered that Defendant 3 took over the management right with Nonindicted Company 8, who is the former representative director of Nonindicted Company 3, and received the management right by paying the price, and Defendant 2 was the de facto manager or representative director of the said company from May 8, 2008 to October 15, 2009, and Defendant 3 took overall charge of the business of the said company from September 16, 2008 to January 7, 201.

Defendant 2 and 3 conspiredd to have Defendant 1, a management manager of Nonindicted Company 1, make a loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) in the name of Nonindicted Company 3 in order to repay the personal debt borrowed from the nominal bondholder in the process of acquiring the said Nonindicted Company 3, and at the same time, to have Defendant 1, a management manager of Nonindicted Company 1, pay the money directly to Defendant 2 and 3’s creditors.

A) Defendant 1

Defendant 1 was on August 2008 and was engaged in the business of preserving the company’s property as the management manager and the de facto representative director of the above non-indicted 1’s company and managing it appropriately. Nevertheless, at that time, Defendant 1 requested that Defendant 2 pay KRW 2.62 billion out of the company’s funds received and kept in custody as the name of the issuance of preemptive right bonds for the above non-indicted 1’s company, Defendant 1 received KRW 7.56 million from Defendant 2 to “I will pay back if I will participate in the capital increase in Ghana” without securing any collateral, and the above non-indicted 1 made the above non-indicted 3 company lend money to it without securing any collateral, thereby having the above non-indicted 1 gain property profits equivalent to the same amount and thereby causing damage equivalent to the same amount as the above non-indicted 1 company.

B) Defendant 2, 3

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, as the representative director and the largest shareholder of each of the above Nonindicted Co. 3 companies, have been performing duties of managing the whole company, preserving the company's assets, and managing them properly.

Nevertheless, Defendant 2 and 3 borrowed KRW 2.62 billion from the above non-indicted 1 company in the name of the above non-indicted 3 company in order to use it for the repayment of personal debt to the above non-indicted 3 company. At the same time, Defendant 1 had Defendant 2 and 3 pay the debt to the above non-indicted 3 company by having Defendant 3 pay the debt immediately to the creditor of the above non-indicted 3. Accordingly, Defendant 2 and 3 violated the above occupational duty, thereby acquiring an equivalent amount of property profit and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to the above non-indicted 3 company.

2) The judgment of the court below

가) 먼저 피고인 1이 사채업자인 공소외 7에게 26억 2,000만 원을 전달하였는지 여부에 관하여 살펴보면, ① 피고인 1은 수사기관에서는 2008. 8. 중순경 공소외 1 회사의 계좌에서 바로 수표로 26억 2,000만 원을 출금하여 공소외 7에게 지급하였다고 진술하였으나, 원심 법정에 이르러서는 공소외 7 측에서 부산은행의 통장을 가지고 있다가 꺾기 자금과 26억 2,000만 원을 모두 인출한 다음 위 통장과 남은 돈 20억 원 가량을 자신에게 수표로 전달한 것 같다고 진술하여 돈을 건넨 방법에 관한 진술이 일관되지 않은 점, ② 공소외 7 또한 수사기관에 제출한 진술서 및 검찰 진술조서에서는 2008. 8. 13.경 피고인 2로부터 경영권주식 담보 차용금에 대한 담보용으로 26억 2,000만 원을 제공받았다고 진술하였으나, 원심 법정에 이르러서는 수사기관에 제출한 진술서 및 검찰 진술조서의 내용을 부인하면서 위 진술서는 자신이 작성한 것이 아니라 누군가 작성해 와 도장을 찍어달라고 하여 그에 응한 것에 불과하며, 2008. 8. 13. 공소외 1 회사의 부산은행 계좌에 입금한 돈 가운데 소위 ‘꺽기’ 자금으로 가져간 돈 이외에 따로 가져간 돈은 없고, 다만 2009년 하반기에 공소외 1 회사의 유상증자가 이루어져서 26억 2,000만 원을 상환받았는데, 이는 피고인 2, 3의 채무변제가 아니라 공소외 1 회사의 회사채 변제 명목이었다고 진술하여 수사기관에서의 진술을 번복한 점, ③ 피고인 1과 공소외 7은 원심 법정에서 공소외 3 회사 주가 하락으로 인한 담보비율 부족은 공소외 3 회사와 공소외 1 회사가 2008. 8. 12.자 약속어음을 공동으로 발행한 것으로 해결하였던 것 같다고 진술한 점, ④ 원심 법원의 금융거래정보제공의뢰에 대한 회신(부산은행)에 따르더라도, 공소외 7이 공소외 1 회사의 부산은행 계좌에 입금하였던 75억 6,000만 원 중 다시 공소외 7에게 꺽기 자금 약 30억 원이 반환된 이외에 별도로 26억 2,000만 원이 추가로 전달되었다고 볼 만한 사정을 찾을 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 1이 공소외 7에게 26억 2,000만 원을 전달하였음을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

B) Furthermore, even if Defendant 1 delivered KRW 2.62 billion to Nonindicted 7, a bond company, even if Defendant 1, who was a bond company, did not reach an agreement with the board of directors under Article 393(1) of the Commercial Act, considering the following: (a) Defendant 2 used Nonindicted 3’s borrowing of KRW 2.62 million to pay the individual debt to Nonindicted 7; (b) Defendant 2 was strong to promote the individual’s interest; and (c) Defendant 2’s borrowing of this case’s borrowing of this case’s loans exceeds KRW 2.62 billion; and (d) Defendant 2’s borrowing of this case’s borrowing of this case’s loans constitutes an important business not belonging to the ordinary business as a representative director; (b) it is difficult to recognize that the borrowing of this case’s borrowing of this case’s borrowing of this case’s coal is legally invalidated, and there is no evidence to urge Nonindicted 3 to repay the above KRW 2.62 million from Nonindicted 1 to 3, 2008.

C) Ultimately, even based on all evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 lent the above amount of KRW 2.62 million to Nonindicted Company 1 to Nonindicted Company 3. In the case of Defendants 2 and 3, it is unclear whether the aforementioned act of borrowing KRW 2.62 million from Nonindicted Company 1’s funds was actually conducted, and even if there was such act of borrowing, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted Company 3 suffered losses due to the act of borrowing without the resolution of the board of directors, and the other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1, 2 and 3.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, and therefore, the prosecutor's allegation of mistake or misunderstanding

C. Determination on Defendant 1’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

There is no record of criminal punishment prior to the crime of this case; it is reasonable to take into account the circumstances, such as the fact that the above defendant had no record of criminal punishment prior to the crime of this case; that the crime of this case was properly recognized and against the mistake; that the non-indicted 1 cancelled the complaint against the above defendant by agreement with the non-indicted 1; that the non-indicted 4 was harsh to the active solicitation of co-defendant 4 without the funds or ability to take over the company; and that it appears that

However, the crime of this case by the above defendant was committed in violation of his duty even though the above defendant had a business duty to preserve and faithfully manage the company's assets as management manager or representative director of the non-indicted 1, and therefore embezzled the amount equivalent to 1.6 billion won of the company's funds and caused damage to the company without any consideration by allowing the joint and several surety of this case without any consideration. In light of the amount of damage, the crime of this case is not somewhat less than 6.3 billion won. The non-indicted 1, the above defendant's crime of this case, which is the representative director, was conducted the de facto examination due to the above crime of the non-indicted 1, and eventually delisting and eventually caused enormous damage to many shareholders and creditors, including the officers and employees of the non-indicted 1, until the trial at the trial, and the damage from the crime of this case was not recovered properly until the above defendant was committed. Three years of imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by the court below, which is lower than the lower court's sentencing guidelines according to the above defendant's age, character and conduct, motive and circumstance of the above defendant, and circumstances.

D. Determination on Defendant 4’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The above defendant had no record of criminal punishment heavier than suspended execution prior to the crime of this case; Nonindicted Company 1 revoked the criminal complaint against the above defendant in the course of investigation by mutual consent with the above defendant); and the above defendant also has an aspect of leading to the crime of this case in the course of facilitating recovery of his claim as a creditor, etc.

However, the crime of this case by the above defendant was committed by Co-Defendant 1 with no funds or ability to take over the company of this case, which caused Co-Defendant 1 to acquire property benefits equivalent to 6.3 billion won by holding Co-Defendant 1's possession, threatening Co-Defendant 1 to acquire property benefits and causing damage equivalent to the same amount to Non-Party 5 operated by himself as the result of the crime of this case) and Non-Party 1, in light of the amount of damage and the law on the acceptance of crimes, etc., the nature and circumstances of the crime are very significant. The above defendant and Co-Defendant 1 suffered enormous damage to the shareholders and creditors, including the officers and employees of Non-Party 1, due to the delisting of Non-Party 1 due to the crime of this case by the above defendant and Co-Defendant 1, the above defendant did not resist the facts charged against him and did not properly recover damage from the crime of this case by the above defendant due to the crime of this case by taking into account the circumstances of imprisonment with prison labor of the above defendant, the motive and its age limit of punishment of the above defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant 1 and 4 and the prosecutor's appeal by the defendant 1, 2 and 3 are without merit. Thus, all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)

(1) The detailed contents of the joint and several sureties of this case were as follows: between Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 5 operated by Defendant 4 on September 22, 2008; and between Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 5, with respect to the existing obligation of KRW 5,297,829,600, which Nonindicted Co. 3 incurred to Nonindicted Co. 5, it concluded a monetary lending contract as of November 17, 2008, and issued a promissory note of KRW 6.3 billion to Nonindicted Co. 5 for the purpose of securing that obligation; however, Nonindicted Co. 1 guaranteed both the obligation of KRW 5,297,829,600 and the obligation of KRW 6.3 billion to Nonindicted Co. 5 on the same day.

2) At the time of May 27, 2008, the price of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 3 was KRW 3,645 per share of KRW 2.7 million ( KRW 9,841,50,000 ( KRW 3645 KRW x 2.7 million). The price of the shares as of August 12, 2008 is KRW 2,460 per share of KRW 6,642,00,000 ( KRW 2,640 KRW x 2.7 million).

(3) However, even in the facts charged in the above Supreme Court case, the purport of the above Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8110 stated that the creditor, after the issuance of a promissory note by the representative director, incurred actual loss to the company by selling the company’s subscription price for capital increase based on the promissory note. However, if the representative director’s act of breach of trust is limited to the act of issuing a promissory note due to abuse of representative authority, and the subsequent seizure is unilaterally made by the creditor, who is the other party, and

4) However, Nonindicted Party 2 asserts that the withdrawal of the above withdrawal of the complaint during the trial process after the filing of the complaint, and sought a strict penalty against Defendant 4.

Note 5) In substance, Defendant 4 acquired unfair pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 6.3 billion.

(6) Defendant 4 alleged to the effect that he fully repaid the damage caused by the instant crime. However, Nonindicted 2 submitted to the court a written application to the effect that, in addition to Defendant 4’s repayment of KRW 430 million in cash, Defendant 4 collected additional KRW 544,955,089 through an auction on the real estate provided by Defendant 4 in addition to Defendant 4’s repayment of KRW 430 million in cash.