A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

(b) Occupational embezzlement;

C. Violation of the Insurance Business Act

(d) Interference with bidding;

1.(a)(c) A;

2.(a)(c)(d)(B);

3.A. C

4. D. D.

Posidong (prosecution), Kim Sung-won (Trial)

Law Firm LLC (For Defendant A and B)

Attorney Mak-chul

Law Firm Mali (for the defendant C)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Law Firm Sejong (for Defendant D)

5. 5. 5. 1

November 30, 2018

Defendant A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment for one year and six months, and by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000, respectively.

When Defendant D fails to pay the above fine, Defendant D shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

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

To order the defendant D to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

[Status of the Defendant] The Victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "victim E Co., Ltd.") is an enterprise that performs the "G services" business ordered by F. The Defendant A is the representative director of the Victim Co., Ltd., who is in charge of the management and fund management of the Company. The Defendant B is a person who manages the accounts, etc. of the Victim Co., Ltd. as the chief executive director of the Victim Co., Ltd., and the Defendant C

Defendant D is a person who actually operates H Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of manufacturing rolling stock parts (hereinafter referred to as “H”).

【Criminal Facts】

1. Joint criminal conduct of Defendant A, B, and C – Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement);

On April 1, 2012, the Defendants: (a) used the operation of the victim company as seen above, listed the Defendants’ wife and others as if they were the employees of the victim company; and (b) conspired to make up for personal use, such as living expenses, by depositing the money in the account in the name of the above persons; (c) five (d) Defendant A, one’s own wife; (d) three (e) Defendant B, one’s own chain J et al; and (e) Defendant C, four (e) one’s own wife, K et al., to embezzlement the funds of the victim company by falsely registering them as the employees of the victim company.

While the Defendants kept the company’s funds as the representative director, etc. of the victim company as seen above, on May 2012, the Defendants entered the company’s wife A as if he was the victim company’s employee, and deposited the company’s total amount of KRW 102,377,080 in one account from around that time to January 14, 2016, deposited the company’s funds into one account as wages, and then withdrawn the funds, and then used the funds for personal purposes such as Defendant A’s living expenses, etc. in mind from May 15, 2012 to January 14, 2016, as indicated in the attached list of crimes (1) by falsely registering 12 persons, including I, including 664,807,756 won as if he was the victim company’s employee, as if he were the victim company’s employee.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the property of the victim while on duty.

2. Defendant A and B’s joint criminal conduct - Occupational embezzlement and violation of the Insurance Business Act;

(a) Occupational embezzlement;

While the Defendants, as the representative director of the victim company and the head of the management headquarters, have been in custody of the company's funds as a business, they did not purchase a household or work for the office in the victim company as if they were engaged in the purchase of a household or the construction of an office, or recorded a false audit in the victim company as if they were to pay the auditor wages, they were able to divide the company's funds into personal purposes.

around September 20, 2012, the Defendants sent KRW 9,020,000, total amount of the company’s funds, including KRW 4,400,000, in the name of purchase, and KRW 4,620,000, in the name of book purchase, to the bank account managed by Defendant B, even though the Defendants did not purchase a bed or book. On September 20, 2012, the Defendants received the said money from L to the Defendant’s Ma’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s her son’s her son’s her.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the property of the victim while on duty.

B. Violation of the Insurance Business Act

No person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of insurance contracts shall provide insurance circles, the disadvantaged or the insured with special benefits, such as money and goods, in connection with the conclusion or solicitation thereof, and no policyholder or the insured shall request and deliver such special benefits, such as money and goods.

On March 28, 2013, the Defendants: (a) concluded a sales liability insurance contract with N Co., Ltd. at the victim’s office and the insured as the victim’s company; and (b) paid KRW 49,69,972 to the insurance premium on April 29, 2013; and (c) received KRW 7,450,000 in cash from 0 in the victim’s coffee shop near the victim’s office as special benefits from that time until April 23, 2014, all of five times including the receipt of KRW 39,940,00 in total from that time to April 23, 2014 as stated in the list of crimes (3) in the attached Form.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to demand special benefits in relation to the conclusion of the insurance contract and received them.

3. Joint criminal conduct of Defendant A, B, C, and D – The victim company involved in bidding interference was selected as a successful bidder by the P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P”) who failed to bid KRW 3,632,498,424 (hereinafter referred to as “P”) at a price lower than KRW 3,902,80,000, which was the amount invested by the victim company in the bidding.

Accordingly, Defendant A raised an objection to the purport that the service performance human resources are different from the actual ones in order to escape P, a successful bidder at the end of June, 2015, and suggested that “P will pay F penalty instead of the penalty to be paid if the successful bidder renounces the successful bidder, or if there is no penalty, 90 million won if there is no penalty.” Accordingly, Defendant A thought that there is a possibility that the successful bidder may be cancelled from F due to the actual difference between the human resources to perform the service as Defendant A’s assertion, Defendant A accepted Defendant A’s proposal and prepared a written waiver of the successful bidder, and Defendant A submitted the written waiver of the successful bidder, Defendant A submitted the written waiver of the successful bidder, and Defendant A revoked the successful bid of P around June 30, 2015.

After that, at F to July 1, 2015, the '2015 G service tender' was re-published. Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant C, while participating in the re-tender, were able to award a bid immediately after the victim's independent participation in the bid despite the victim's participation in the bid. Accordingly, Defendant A wishes to participate in the Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha'. Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's Ha's 2015 Ha's Ha's Ha's 5th Ha's Ha's Ha's 2015 Ha's Ha'7 Ha' Ha's Ha'7 Ha'. Ha'.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A, B, and C's legal statements and the defendant D's legal statements

1. An interrogation protocol of the police against 0 persons;

1. The statement of each police officer's statement on R, L, Q, Q, S, T, U,V, W, X, and Y: 1. Certification, each letter, receipt, receipt, statement of refusal of successful bidder's payment, statement of refusal of successful bidder's payment, statement of acceptance of the document for verification of facts related to entrusted service of internal driving, employment contract and person subject to employment, copy of the certificate of career, service notice, notice of successful bidder's participation [State], award, successful bid, cancellation of bid, tender notice, tender notice, tender notice, tender notice, notice of successful bidder's participation, notice of re-tender, notice of successful bidder's payment, tender notice, tender notice, notification of successful bidder's payment amount, notice of each account;

Application of Statutes

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

Defendant A and B: Each of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 15256, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 15256, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply), Articles 356, 35(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (including the occupational embezzlement due to the receipt of false wages); Articles 356, 35(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (including the occupational embezzlement due to the receipt of false wages); Article 202 subparag. 2 and 98 of the former Insurance Business Act (Amended by Act No. 14821, Apr. 18, 2017); Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 35(1)36(1) of the former Criminal Act

○ Defendant D: Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with tendering and the choice of fines)

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

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall be limited to the extent that the punishment for concurrent crimes prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with the largest penalty, the aggravated punishment for Defendant C shall be the sum of

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant A, B, and C);

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Code (the following circumstances considered as favorable to the reasons for sentencing); 1. Detention in Nowon-gu (Defendant D)

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

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant A, B, and C);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code (The following consideration shall be made for each of the reasons for sentencing:

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant D);

Judgment on Defendant A, B, C, and Defense Counsel’s argument (as to the crime No. 1 of this case in the market)

1. Summary of the assertion

Although Defendants were duly entitled to receive the dividend payment of the victim company as a shareholder of the victim company, the method of payment was merely received in the form of wages in the name of another person in order to avoid imposing the tax on dividends in accordance with the advice of the director of the tax accountant office. Therefore, the receipt of each of the money stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the Defendants does not constitute embezzlement of another person’s property, the victim does not suffer substantial loss, and there was no intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition.

2. Determination

The Defendants’ receipt of funds from the victim company in the form of registering false employees in the victim company as criminal facts constitutes occupational embezzlement, thereby causing damage to the victim company, and the Defendants’ intent and intent of unlawful acquisition may also be sufficiently recognized. The specific grounds are as follows. In order to distribute profits to shareholders, profits available for dividends after deducting the capital stock and the capital reserve accumulated up to the period for the settlement of accounts, and the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders should be adopted, and the requirements and procedures prescribed in Articles 462 and 464 of the Commercial Act should be complied with, such as the number of shares held by each shareholder.

However, according to the evidence adopted by the court and examined by this court, the Defendants did not pass a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders to receive money as above, and did not pay dividends in proportion to the number of shares to other shareholders, such as U, Y, X, X-W, and V. Meanwhile, even according to the Defendants’ assertion, in cases where the Defendants and other shareholders pay the total amount of money received as bonuses, settlement dividends, and wages in the name of others, the Defendants, A, and B received at least an amount equivalent to the number of shares held by them out of the total profits as bonus, wages in the name of others, etc., and Defendant C, W, and V received money in short of the requirements and procedures under the Commercial Act. It is difficult to view the amount of money received by the Defendants as a fraudulent wage under the pretext of payment. In addition, the shareholders’ claim for dividend is merely an abstract right until the shareholders’ final and conclusive dividend becomes final and conclusive upon approval at the general meeting of shareholders (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da3729, May 28, 2010).

Even if the Defendants were in an abstract position to receive dividends from the victim company as a shareholder of the victim company, as long as there was no resolution of dividend in accordance with the requirements and procedures under the Commercial Act, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have held a specific and conclusive right to receive dividends from the victim company. Nevertheless, if the Defendants actually received the funds from the victim company as false benefits based on such abstract position, such act should be deemed to have caused damage

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A and B

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months from June to June 22;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and occupational embezzlement

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (not less than KRW 500 million to less than KRW 5 billion)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2-5 years of imprisonment

2) Interference with bidding in the holding

[Determination of Type] Bidding 1 (Interference with General Auction Bidding)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment from 6 months to 1 years

3) A violation of the Insurance Business Act: No sentencing guidelines are set.

4) Scope of recommendation according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years (the crime for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crime for which no sentencing criteria are set are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so that the lower limit of the sentencing range in the guidelines for sentencing of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the crime of occupational embezzlement

The Defendants, as a major shareholder of the victim company, representative director, family member, person, etc. as the head of the management headquarters, falsely registered the victim company as an employee or auditor of the company, received money as his wage, and paid money by pretending to purchase a household in the victim company or the office construction, and received money, and embezzled the funds of the victim company by receiving them back. In light of the fact that the Defendants committed each embezzlement for a considerable period of time using their status and trust relationship, and that the embezzled money totaled to KRW 820,761,176, etc., up to KRW 820. In addition, the Defendants received special benefits that are strictly prohibited by the Insurance Business Act for equity among the policyholders in relation to the conclusion of the victim company’s liability insurance contract, and received special benefits to the conclusion of the victim company’s liability insurance contract with respect to the G service tender conducted by the F, and practically, the victim company interfered with the fairness of the tender by interfering with the tender by paying the price to the competitor as a false competitor even though it independently participated in the tender.

However, in relation to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in the judgment of the Defendants, the Defendants and C are equity right holders who have a total of 65% of the shares of the victim company and comply with the requirements and procedures under the Commercial Act.

On the other hand, the court shall take into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendants, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, method and method of crime, and the scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, in full view of the following: (a) the embezzlement of occupational embezzlement in the judgment; (b) 155,953,420 won returned to the victim company; and (c) the Defendants did not have any previous conviction beyond the same criminal record or fine; and (d) the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the order.

2. Defendant C.

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months from six months to one6 years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Basic crime: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (not less than KRW 500 million to less than KRW 5 billion)

[Special Sentencing]

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2-5 years of imprisonment

2) Concurrent crimes: Interference with bidding in the holding;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (Interference with Public Auction Bidding) for Interference with Auction and Bidding: There is no person with special sentencing

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment from 6 months to 1 years

3) Scope of recommending punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment for two to five years (five years of imprisonment with prison labor which is the upper limit of the scope of punishment for basic crimes plus six months of imprisonment with prison labor which is 1/2 of the upper limit of the scope of punishment for concurrent crimes). Determination of sentence shall be made.

The Defendant, as a shareholder of the Victim Company and the head of the Operational Headquarters, embezzled the funds of the Victim Company by falsely registering his/her family, person, etc. as an employee of the Victim Company and receiving money under his/her wage. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime for a considerable period of time using his/her position and trust relationship, and that the amount embezzled with A and B exceeds KRW 664,807,756, etc., the crime is not good. Furthermore, in relation to the G service tender conducted by F, the Defendant was involved in the instant crime, such as interfering with the tender conducted by F in a manner that the victimized Company independently participates in the tender, even though he/she participated in the tender, thereby obstructing H from participating in the tender conducted by F. This is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, with respect to the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), the defendant and Gap and Eul are in a position to properly distribute profits by complying with the requirements and procedures under the Commercial Act as equity right holders holding a total of 65% of the shares of the victim company. The amount actually acquired and disposed by the defendant is less than 106,030,566 won, and the amount actually acquired and disposed by the defendant is less than 106,030,566 won, and the fact that the defendant has no record of such crime is the first offender who has no record of such crime shall be considered as favorable to the defendant. Considering all other circumstances, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and method of the crime, and the scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines, the lower sentence than the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines shall be determined as stated in the order.

3. Defendant D

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Fines of 50,000 to 7 million won;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria for fines shall not be set.

The defendant, as the operator of H, submitted a tender document as if the victim company participated in the tender as a false competitor, and obstructed the F's participation in the tender, and harmed the fairness of the tender, although the victim company was alone participating in the tender of G services conducted in F, the defendant submitted the tender document as if the H participated in the tender as a false competitor.

However, considering the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the fact that the defendant was the first offender who has no record of the crime, etc., the circumstances favorable to the defendant should be considered, and other circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and motive, means and methods of the crime, etc., the punishment as set forth in the order shall be

The presiding judge and the deputy judge;

Regular Category of Judges

For judges the last place:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.