Defendant 1 and one other

Lee In-bok (prosecution) and a public trial;

Law Firm Il-won et al.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 1 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 50,000 into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 2’s social welfare foundation located in the Seongbuk-gu branch of Sungnam-si (hereinafter omitted), and Defendant 2 is a corporation established for the purpose of establishing and operating a general social welfare center.

1. Where a social welfare foundation intends to sell, donate, exchange, lease, offer security, or change the purpose of its use with respect to fundamental property, Defendant 1, without obtaining permission from the Minister of Health and Welfare, on August 1, 201, leased the third floor of the building of ○○○○○○○○○○ Welfare Center, which is the fundamental property of the said Defendant 2 social welfare foundation, to Nonindicted Co. 1, without obtaining such permission, and received KRW 509,718,90,000 in total for seven occasions from around that time until February 29, 2012.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 leased the fundamental property of Defendant 2 social welfare foundation without obtaining permission from the Minister of Health and Welfare.

2. Defendant 2’s social welfare foundation committed the act under Paragraph 1 as to the affairs of Defendant 2’s social welfare foundation by Defendant 1, the representative director of the Defendant, at the same time and place as Paragraph 1.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 5 and 6

1. The statement of Nonindicted 2

1. A written accusation;

1. A certified copy of the register of a social welfare foundation No. 2, a certificate No. 2, an order issued by a social welfare foundation No. 2, an administrative disposition order issued by a defendant 2, an order issued by a social welfare foundation (the second (the third) to take measures to dispose of the outcomes of each special audit, the implementation of measures to dispose of the outcomes of each special audit, a certified copy of the register of a social welfare foundation No. 3, an identification of approval for disposal of fundamental property No. 4, an application for permission for disposal of fundamental property, a notification of non-permission for disposal of fundamental property, a statement of approval for disposal of fundamental property, a statement of approval for disposal of fundamental property, a statement of reasons for each application for permission for disposal of fundamental property, a statement of approval for disposal of fundamental property, a statement of reasons for each application for permission for disposal of fundamental property, a written review of permission for disposal of fundamental property by a defendant 2, an order issued by a social welfare foundation, and documents related to

1. A detailed statement of real estate lease contract or rent out of rents, a deposit passbook and a deposit passbook in the name of Defendant 2 social welfare foundation;

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

A. Defendant 1: Subparagraph 1 of Article 53 of the former Social Welfare Services Act (amended by Act No. 10997, Aug. 4, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 23(3)1 of the same Act (elective of fines)

(b) A social welfare foundation for defendant 2: Article 56, Article 53 subparagraph 1, and Article 23 (3) 1 of the former Social Welfare Services Act;

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 1: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 2’s social welfare foundation made a decision of unconstitutionality as to the penal provision on criminal facts as stated in the Constitutional Court’s ruling (the Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ga10, 49, 31, 43, 45, 46 (Joint), 62 (Joint), and 68 (Joint), Decided September 30, 2010), and held that the penal provision retroactively ceases to have effect according to the above decision of unconstitutionality, and thus, Defendant 2’s social welfare foundation’s non-guilty verdict should be declared as Defendant 2’s social welfare foundation.

However, the above Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ga10, 49 (Merger), 31, 43, 45 (Merger), 46 (Merger), 62 (Merger), and 68 (Merger) of Sep. 30, 2010 is amended by Act No. 5358 of Aug. 22, 1997, and Article 56 of the former Social Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 1097 of Aug. 4, 201) provides that "where an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation commits a violation under subparagraph 1 of Article 53 in connection with the business of the corporation, the corporation shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding Article even to the corporation," and the facts constituting the crime against Defendant 2 Social Welfare Foundation shall be held liable for the act of the corporation on behalf of the representative director of the corporation, and such assertion is not included in the scope of the above decision of unconstitutionality.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Yang Jin-jin