Defendant

Stack-in-house

Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Choi Young-ro et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

1. Facts of premise;

On May 19, 2009, the Defendant, a person operating Nonindicted Co. 21, agreed to acquire the management right and shares of Nonindicted Co. 15 and 35 million won in the name of Nonindicted Co. 15 and 8, a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 1, a company listed on the KOSDAQ, from Nonindicted Co. 15 and 8, a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 1, a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 1, a company listed on the KOSDAQ (hereinafter “instant acquisition agreement”), and paid 9 billion won out of 4.2 billion won in the same day on the same day, and paid 3.3 billion won in the remainder to Nonindicted Co. 21 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 21, a third three billion won in the name of the transferor, and made the Defendant establish a pledge right to the relevant account, and if the Defendant provided loans to Nonindicted Co. 20 with a balance of 3.3 billion won and repaid the loans to Nonindicted Co. 15 billion won, by cancelling the pledge right, thereby paying the payment to Nonindicted Co. 20.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

On May 29, 2009, after acquiring the right of management from Nonindicted Co. 15, the Defendant immediately held a special general meeting of shareholders to appoint six directors, including Nonindicted Co. 6, and appointed Nonindicted Co. 6 as the representative director, and the Defendant was in custody of all the property of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the course of controlling Nonindicted Co. 1 as the actual chairperson of Nonindicted Co. 1 as the actual chairperson of the victim Nonindicted Co. 1. On the same day, the same day is intended that Nonindicted Co. 1 would take over 30 billion won of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 1’s account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 as the performance guarantee, and deposited 33 billion won of the funds deposited in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 2’s account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5, a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 2, who is the Nonindicted Co. 1, and immediately remitted the funds to Nonindicted Co. 1’s account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 21, and embezzled them by using them at will.

3. Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies;

As above, the Defendant is likely to be at issue in the accounting audit due to arbitrarily discharging KRW 33 billion in the funds of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, and is willing to manipulate the data as if the amount of KRW 14.5 billion paid as the performance guarantee money was returned from the side of Nonindicted Co. 2 Company, and submit them to the accounting auditor, in collusion with Nonindicted Co. 6, etc.’s representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company,

Around August 14, 2009, KRW 14.5 billion raised through Nonindicted 7 by depositing it into the national bank account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1’s name, and the copy of the passbook was returned to her accounting corporation as if 14.5 billion won was recovered, and immediately withdrawn the above money and returned it to Nonindicted Co. 7, thereby presenting false data to the certified public accountant to whom the auditor belongs, or interfering with the normal external audit of the auditor by fraud or other improper means.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 3, 22, and 17

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 4 and 25

1. An explanatory note, a sales contract, an attached agreement, a joint sales agreement, a certificate of share receipt, a business plan of Nonindicted Co. 21, a written confirmation letter, a written agreement, a written evaluation statement of Nonindicted Co. 2’s accounting firm, a request for the inquiry of Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares and a written agreement of acceptance of shares, a written understanding of the acquisition of shares of Nonindicted Co. 2’s stock and a written agreement of acceptance of transfer of shares, a written statement of understanding on the acquisition of shares, a written statement of non-indicted Co. 2’s stock and management right, a written statement of withdrawal money, a deposit slip, an interim financial statement, a written statement of deposit slip, an additional agreement, a copy of receipt of interest income, a written statement of financial transactions of Nonindicted Co. 26 and Nonindicted Co. 27, a written statement of receipt of interest income, a statement of profits and losses, a statement of loans and provision of security, a service contract, a service

1. Summary of the assertion

Before selling Nonindicted Co. 1 to the Defendant, Nonindicted Co. 3, the actual transferor of the instant transfer agreement, had already embezzled the funds of Nonindicted Co. 1 by lending them to Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9, which is one of his own related companies, but had temporarily borrowed money equivalent to the amount of embezzlement from the bonds company on May 27, 2009 and around May 28, 2009, prior to the conclusion of the instant transfer agreement, before depositing the money into the account of Nonindicted Co. 1, the Defendant, sold the said money to Nonindicted Co. 1, and had failed to plan to conceal his embezzlement by again withdrawing the said money by using the Defendant, and in accordance with such plan, the said money was deposited in Nonindicted Co. 1 and returned again under the control of Nonindicted Co. 3. Therefore, the said money cannot be deemed to be deemed to be the ownership of Nonindicted Co. 1. Therefore, the premise that the instant facts charged that the Defendant embezzled KRW 3 billion owned by Nonindicted Co. 1 was not constituted the crime of embezzlement.

In addition, since the above KRW 33 billion deposited by Nonindicted Co. 3 to Nonindicted Co. 1 was a money under the management of Nonindicted Co. 3 (not the defendant) even though the defendant left the money after acquiring Nonindicted Co. 1, the subject of the crime of embezzlement of this case is not the defendant, but the subject of the crime of embezzlement of this case, and even if the defendant's embezzlement is recognized, it is merely the accomplice of Nonindicted Co. 3's embezzlement.

2. Determination

(a) Basic facts;

The following facts are acknowledged in full view of each of the above evidence and each of the prosecutor's interrogation records against the defendant, each of the prosecutor's interrogation records (including each statement of non-indicted 22 and 3), each of the prosecutor's protocol on non-indicted 3 and 17, and the

1) Nonindicted Co. 1 is a KOSDAQ-listed corporation established on October 1996 for the main purpose of the development and manufacture and sale business of DVR. Nonindicted Co. 21 (representative director Nonindicted Co. 28) is a non-listed corporation actually operated by the Defendant. Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 9, and Nonindicted Co. 15 are a non-listed corporation actually operated by Nonindicted Co. 3.

2) Around March 26, 2009, Nonindicted 3 entered into a contract with Nonindicted 11 Co. 13 to acquire (excluding DVR development and manufacture sales business, which is the main business of Nonindicted 1 Co. 1) the stocks and management right of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 15’s representative director of Nonindicted Co. 11, in the name of Nonindicted Co. 13 (5 million won, and 1,200 won per share) and entered into a contract to acquire the stocks and management right of Nonindicted Co. 1, and paid 6 billion won (6 billion won for the acquisition on May 12, 2009). Meanwhile, Nonindicted 3 acquired most of the stocks issued in the process of issuing new stocks of Nonindicted Co. 1, which were made from November 208 to February 2, 2009, and finally held 30 million shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, 3500,000 shares through the said contract.

3) From the end of March 2009, Nonindicted 3 sent a written request for sale to Nonindicted Co. 1 Company on the condition that “to provide a business having a value similar to the DVR business that is scheduled to be divided into Sfin-fin-fin-ff (1) in Nonindicted Co. 1 Company” to resale Nonindicted Co. 1 Company at the time of the end of March, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 3 sent a written request for sale to Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, and subsequently, sent the Defendant through Nonindicted Co. 17’s regular business of Samil Accounting Corporation, and had the Defendant negotiate on the acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company.

4) During the above negotiations, the Defendant confirmed whether Nonindicted Co. 3 had the ability to pay KRW 33 billion on the part of Nonindicted Co. 3 for the intermediate payment and the balance, and received a request for delivery. On May 13, 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 33 billion on the condition that the right of pledge was established to prevent the withdrawal of loans from withdrawing from Nonindicted Co. 20 to the repayment of loans, and deposited it into the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 15, and Nonindicted Co. 20 established the pledge right in the account of said Nonindicted

5) The Defendant submitted the business plan to Nonindicted 3 on May 18, 2009. The above business plan includes the following: (a) the merger plan of Nonindicted Company 19, Nonindicted Company 1’s DVR business spinfffp plan, and the report, etc. that the Defendant calculated the value of Nonindicted Company 2 as of January 1, 2008 by the Sam Jong KMG accounting corporation, as of January 1, 2008, includes a merger plan of Nonindicted Company 19, which the Defendant planned to merge after acquiring Nonindicted Company 1.

6) On the other hand, around August 2008, the Defendant continuously discussed the investment in Nonindicted Co. 2 with the introduction of Nonindicted Co. 4 and 22 to Nonindicted Co. 2 through the introduction of Nonindicted Co. 17 by Samil Accounting Firm on the part of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. ( Nonindicted Co. 2 was in the state of suspension of operation from November 2, 2008). At the time of entering into the instant transfer agreement, Nonindicted Co. 4 owned 100% shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 in the name of another (the wife Nonindicted Co. 548.09%, representative director Nonindicted Co. 22.7%, etc.) and Nonindicted Co. 4 delegated the representative director of the instant transfer agreement with all business practices on the sale of shares in Nonindicted Co. 2.

7) After that, on May 19, 2009, the Defendant entered into the instant transfer agreement with Nonindicted 3 on the acquisition of the shares of Nonindicted 3,5 billion won and the management right (excluding DVR development and manufacture sales business, the main business of Nonindicted 1) of Nonindicted 1, which Nonindicted 3 held in the name of Nonindicted 15 and eight persons, (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted 3,3,000,000,000 won”) at KRW 42 billion [the contract amount is KRW 3,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000 won, and paid KRW 9,000,000 to Nonindicted 3, while taking over the shares in the name of Nonindicted 21, and Nonindicted 3,000,000 won, the said KRW 9,000,000,000,000 to Nonindicted 7, on the date of the instant transfer agreement.

8) On May 21, 2009, the Defendant carried out the acquisition of assets according to lawful procedures immediately after an officer designated by the Defendant was normally appointed on May 29, 2009, which is the scheduled date of the temporary general meeting of shareholders of Nonindicted Company 1. On May 29, 2009, the Defendant introduced to Nonindicted Company 3 the largest shareholder and representative director of the corporation scheduled to carry out the acquisition of assets until May 22, 2009 for the transfer of assets, and let them sell the shares legitimately to Nonindicted Company 1; ② A written consent stating that the acquisition of assets owned by him shall be Esc with the law firm as collateral before the acquisition of assets is carried out; ③ written confirmation confirming that his share sales proceeds would be terminated by paying the shares to Nonindicted Company 20; ③ prepared on May 22, 2009, “The 300,000 Accounting Firm”) to the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Company 3, a sale agreement of Nonindicted Company 200, which would be short of the value of the company.

9) Meanwhile, the Defendant delegated Nonindicted Co. 2 to the accounting firm in the new era, but decided to request the said business to the accounting firm at the recommendation of Nonindicted Co. 3. Nonindicted Co. 3 entered into an evaluation contract with the Samil Accounting firm on May 25, 2009 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1’s name. After doing so, Samil Accounting Firm prepared an evaluation statement which assessed the value of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 from KRW 120,745 to KRW 147,341 to KRW 141, and issued it to Nonindicted Co. 1 on May 28, 2009. At the same time, Samil Accounting Firm RMC (RDD Management Deliberation Office: Risk Management Office)’s “Non-Indicted Co. 2, Ltd. 2, a minimum amount of funds necessary for re-operation, fails to meet the demand to supplement the investment commitment statement and financial evidence, etc. for the plan for raising funds.”

10) After that, on May 26, 2009, the Defendant and Nonindicted 22 promised to transfer 30% of the shares of Nonindicted Company 2 owned by Nonindicted Company 5 to Nonindicted 3 on May 26, 2009. At the same time, Nonindicted 5 promised to immediately repay the principal and interest obligation of KRW 33 billion borrowed from Nonindicted Company 20 to Nonindicted Company 1 with the payment received from Nonindicted Company 1. Of the shares of Nonindicted 5, the largest shareholder of Nonindicted 2 Company, 30% (324,00 shares) among the shares of Nonindicted 5, the largest shareholder of Nonindicted 2 Company, was in fact registered as the shares of the Defendant.”

11) In addition, at the special general meeting of shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 1 on May 29, 2009, the Defendant was appointed as the representative director. At that time, the Defendant, Nonindicted Co. 3, 5, 4, 22, Nonindicted Co. 17 of Samil Accounting Firm, and Nonindicted Co. 7 were waiting at the ○○○○○ branch of the National Bank. After the completion of the temporary general meeting of shareholders, Nonindicted Co. 1’s deposit of KRW 33 billion in the account of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 1 into the account of Nonindicted Co. 2, the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 30 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 21, and repaid KRW 33 billion in the above loan to Nonindicted Co. 20. Accordingly, the pledge established in the account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 25, and withdrawn KRW 33 billion in the above account.

12) After that, the Defendant, along with Nonindicted 22 and 4, tried to enter into an underwriting contract with Nonindicted 22 and Nonindicted 4’s branch in the above citizen bank’s ○○○○ and Nonindicted 4’s branch in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong, with an intention to enter into an underwriting contract with 30% equity interest of Nonindicted 2 Co. 33% (356,400 equity interest) and management right of Nonindicted 2 Co. 39 billion won, and the contract was concluded between the Defendant and Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 5 on May 29, 2009, with an explanation that the down payment amount of KRW 33 billion should be paid with the contract deposit on the same day, and the balance amount should be paid within June 30, 2009, and the contract was concluded between the Defendant and Nonindicted 4.

13) The Defendant, as seen above, failed to execute the acquisition agreement with Nonindicted Co. 2 on June 2009, and subsequently, ordered Nonindicted Co. 4 to support KRW 1.5 billion in preference to Nonindicted Co. 2’s share in early 2009, when the Defendant paid KRW 400 million to Nonindicted Co. 2, but failed to pay the remainder of the money thereafter.

14) On September 14, 2009, the Defendant: (a) between Nonindicted Co. 22 and the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 22 on September 14, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 5 and 22 transferred the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 to Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 33 billion won (4%) and the management right of Nonindicted Co. 2; (b) on May 29, 2009, the said KRW 33 billion was replaced by the performance guarantee that Nonindicted Co. 1 paid to Nonindicted Co. 5 and 22 on May 29, 2009; and (c) the Nonindicted Co. 1 prepared a share, management right transfer and investment contract with the Nonindicted Co. 22 to invest KRW 5 billion in the Nonindicted Co. 2 Co., Ltd. (the above contract omitted the name and seal affixed to Nonindicted Co. 22); (c) the above contract became void on the day when the Defendant prepared a receipt stating that “The Nonindicted Co. 2 received KRW 3. 13 billion from Nonindicted Co.

15) On September 23, 2009, the Defendant demanded a public announcement of inquiry about “the theory of acquiring shares in Nonindicted Co. 2 and the theory of large-scale loss incurred under the said contract”. On September 24, 2009, the Defendant respondeded to the purport that “the negotiation for acquiring shares in Nonindicted Co. 2 is underway, and the performance guarantee was paid, but the corporate value assessment was not finalized, and thus the conclusion of the share acquisition contract is delayed.” The Defendant is scheduled to enter into the contract immediately after the completion of the corporate value assessment report.”

B. Whether the Defendant embezzled 33 billion won

위 기초사실 및 위 각 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 피고인은 공소외 1 주식회사를 인수할 당시 신용불량 상태여서 피고인이 차명으로 보유하고 있는 공소외 21 주식회사 명의로 이 사건 양수도계약을 체결하는 등 자금여력이 전혀 없었음에도 아무런 자본 없이 공소외 1 주식회사를 인수하려 시도하였고 결국 인수대금 420억 원 중 피고인이 실질적으로 부담한 돈은 전혀 없는 점, ② 피고인이 이 사건 양수도계약 체결 이전인 2008. 8.경부터 공소외 2 주식회사의 대표이사 공소외 22와 지속적으로 공소외 2 주식회사에 대한 투자에 관하여 논의하는 등 공소외 2 주식회사와 관계를 맺어오고 있었고, 이 사건 양수도계약 체결 당시에도 피고인이 먼저 공소외 3 측에게 공소외 2 주식회사의 지분 30%를 공소외 1 주식회사에 귀속시키겠다고 제안하였던 점, ③ 피고인은 검찰에서 ‘당시 공소외 2 주식회사가 재정난으로 인하여 곤란을 겪고 있었기 때문에 제가 공소외 1 주식회사로 하여금 공소외 2 주식회사의 지분을 취득하도록 하고, 공소외 1 주식회사가 공소외 2 주식회사에 투자를 하도록 하는 것으로 공소외 1 주식회사 인수전략을 세운 것이다.’라고 진술하였고, 또 ‘내가 공소외 3 측에 공소외 2 주식회사를 핸들링할 수 있다고 이야기하였다.’라고 진술하고 있는바, 피고인은 처음부터 이 사건 양수도대금 중 330억 원을 공소외 1 주식회사의 자금으로 지급한 후 공소외 1 주식회사로 하여금 아무런 대가 없이 공소외 2 주식회사 지분을 취득하게 한 후 다시 공소외 1 주식회사의 자금을 이용하여 공소외 2 주식회사를 지원하려고 의도하여 결국 피고인은 위 330억 원의 지급을 면하고 공소외 1 주식회사로 하여금 공소외 2 주식회사의 경영을 정상화하기 위한 비용을 부담시키려고 계획을 세운 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 공소외 3은 ㉠ 피고인과 이 사건 양수도계약을 체결하는 과정에서 이미 부도난 공소외 2 주식회사의 지분을 공소외 1 주식회사에 귀속시키는 것에 대하여 의문을 제기하였고, 이에 피고인이 공소외 1 주식회사 인수 후 바로 약 250억 원의 전환사채를 발행하여 투자받을 예정이고 위 돈을 공소외 2 주식회사에 투자하여 공소외 2 주식회사를 정상화시키겠다고 함에 따라 2009. 5. 19. 작성된 부속합의서 제12조에 ‘ 공소외 21 주식회사가 공소외 1 주식회사에 사모방식에 의한 신주인수권부사채 발행을 통해 250억 원 규모의 투자유치를 진행할 시 공소외 15 주식회사는 이에 협조하기로 한다.’라는 내용의 조항을 기재하였고, ㉡ 피고인으로부터 ‘피고인이 공소외 2 주식회사의 지분 30%를 보유하고 있다.’라는 말을 듣고 기존에 피고인이 새시대회계법인을 통하여 하려던 기업가치평가업무도 국내에서 가장 규모가 큰 회계법인인 삼일회계법인에 위임할 것을 제안하는 등 공소외 1 주식회사가 적정한 가격에 공소외 2 주식회사를 취득할 수 있도록 조치를 취한 것으로 보이는 점( 공소외 3이 공소외 2 주식회사의 기업가치평가와 관련하여 삼일회계법인의 회계사 공소외 17에게 이 사건 양수도계약 체결 전인 2009. 5. 28.까지 평가보고서를 달라고 재촉하기는 하였으나 공소외 2 주식회사의 가치평가에서 가치를 부풀리거나 허위로 가치평가를 하도록 사주하였다고 볼 자료는 없다), ⑤ 피고인은 검찰에서 ‘내가 공소외 22에게 공소외 1 주식회사를 인수한 다음 공소외 2 주식회사에 투자를 해주겠다는 취지로 이야기하면서 우선 공소외 1 주식회사 인수계약 성사를 위하여 내가 공소외 5 명의로 공소외 2 주식회사의 지분 30%를 보유하고 있는 것으로 하여 그 부분을 넘기는데 협조를 해달라고 한 사실이 있다.’라고 진술하고 있고, 공소외 3에게 ‘피고인이 공소외 2 주식회사의 지분 30%를 공소외 5 명의로 보유하고 있다.’라는 취지의 약정서도 작성하여 주는 등 공소외 3을 속여가면서까지 이 사건 양수도계약을 체결하려고 하였던 점, ⑥ 피고인이 이 사건 양수도계약 체결 후에 공소외 2 주식회사 지분 30%를 공소외 1 주식회사에 귀속시키지 못한 이유에 관하여 보면, 피고인의 입장에서는 공소외 2 주식회사의 지분 30%를 공소외 1 주식회사에 귀속시켜야 330억 원을 공소외 3에게 지급한 행위가 비로소 정당화되는 것이므로 공소외 2 주식회사의 기업가치평가를 받는 것은 아주 중요한 일임에도 피고인은 삼일회계법인 측에 공시용 DART 파일을 교부하여 달라는 요구를 한 적이 없고, 수사기관에서도 ‘삼일회계법인으로부터 그러한 투자확약 요청을 받은 사실은 있으나, 그 당시 공소외 1 주식회사가 그런 자금을 제공할 여력이 없었기 때문에 과거의 것 그대로 해달라고 하였다.’라고만 진술하고 있을 뿐이며, 한편 피고인은 이 사건 양수도계약이 체결된 후에도 수차례에 걸쳐 공소외 2 주식회사 측과 주식양수도계약을 체결하는 등 공소외 2 주식회사의 지분 30%를 취득하기 위하여 시도한 것에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 최초 공소외 2 주식회사의 경영이 악화된 것을 이용하여 무상으로 공소외 2 주식회사의 지분 30%를 공소외 1 주식회사에 귀속시키려고 계획하였다가 공소외 2 주식회사 측의 반대로 인하여 위 계획이 무산된 것이 주된 이유인 것으로 보이는 점, ⑦ 피고인은 공소외 3이 공소외 1 주식회사의 자금을 공소외 8 주식회사나 공소외 9 주식회사에 대여하는 방식으로 횡령하였다가 이 사건 양수도계약 체결 직전에 위 금원 상당을 사채업자로부터 차용하여 일시적으로 공소외 1 주식회사에 입금한 것이라고 주장하고 있으나, 공소외 3이 공소외 1 주식회사의 자금을 공소외 8 주식회사나 공소외 9 주식회사에 대여한 내역을 보면, 공소외 8 주식회사의 경우 공소외 1 주식회사가 2008. 11. 4.부터 2009. 5. 15.까지 13회에 걸쳐 약 257억 원을 대여하였다가 2009. 2. 25. 대여금 중 1억 원, 2009. 3. 31. 52억 원, 그 후 2009. 5. 27. 및 같은 달 28. 2일에 걸쳐 나머지 대여금을 회수하였으며, 공소외 9 주식회사의 경우 공소외 1 주식회사가 2008. 11. 10.부터 2009. 5. 8.까지 8회에 걸쳐 약 125억 원을 대여하였다가 2008. 12. 29. 대여금 중 504,219,178원, 2009. 1. 22. 4,500만 원, 2009. 3. 31. 26억 원, 2009. 4. 22. 4,500만 원, 그 후 2009. 5. 27. 및 같은 달 28. 2일에 걸쳐 나머지 대여금을 회수하는 등 수시로 대여하였다가 다시 회수하는 과정을 반복한 것을 알 수 있는바, 만일 공소외 3이 위 돈을 횡령한 것이라면 공소외 1 주식회사에서 특별히 자금을 필요로 하는 일도 없었던 상황에서 이미 횡령한 자금을 굳이 수시로 입출금한다는 것은 쉽게 납득하기 어렵고, 공소외 3이 피고인과 이 사건 양수도계약을 체결하기 위하여 협상을 하던 2009. 5.경에도 대여가 이루어지고 있었으며( 공소외 3이 피고인으로부터 양수도대금 420억 원을 받기로 한 상황에서 굳이 위 돈을 대여하는 방법으로 횡령하였다가 나중에 사채업자로부터 차용하여 이를 다시 공소외 1 주식회사에 입금하는 복잡한 절차를 취할 이유가 없다), 공소외 3은 공소외 8 주식회사나 공소외 9 주식회사에 위 각 금원을 대여하고 담보를 제공받았다고 주장하며 그 구체적인 내역을 진술하고 있는 것(증거목록 순번 64, 65번)을 보면, 공소외 3이 위 돈을 횡령하였다고 보기 어려운 점, ⑧ 피고인은 공소외 3에게 지급한 공소외 1 주식회사 자금 330억 원에 관하여 아무런 처분권한이 없었다고 주장하고 있으나 ㉠ 피고인은 이 사건 양수도계약을 체결하기 이전부터 공소외 3과 사이에 공소외 1 주식회사가 보유한 자금 330억 원을 공소외 2 주식회사의 공소외 5 명의 계좌 등을 통하여 공소외 3에게 지급하기로 합의하였고, ㉡ 비록 공소외 3이 공소외 1 주식회사의 계좌에 입금된 돈 중 330억 원에 대하여 지급통제 조치를 취하는 등 공소외 1 주식회사로부터 위 330억 원을 지급받기까지의 일련의 실행행위를 주도적으로 처리하기는 하였으나 이는 공소외 3이 위와 같은 피고인과의 합의에 따라 위 330억의 지급을 확보하기 위하여 필요한 조치를 취한 것으로 보일 뿐이며, ㉢ 이 사건 양수도계약을 체결하면서 공소외 1 주식회사의 자금 330억 원으로 양수도대금을 지급하는 주체는 양수인인 피고인인바, 피고인의 동의가 없었다면 위 330억 원을 공소외 3이 지급받는 것은 불가능하였으므로, 피고인이 위 330억 원에 대하여 아무런 권한을 갖고 있지 않았다고 볼 수 없는 점, ⑨ 무엇보다 공소외 1 주식회사의 계좌에 있던 330억 원이 결국 아무런 대가 없이 공소외 20 주식회사에 대한 피고인의 채무변제에 사용된 것은 분명한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 양수도계약이 체결될 당시 공소외 1 주식회사가 330억 원의 현금을 소유하고 있었다고 할 것이고, 피고인은 공소외 1 주식회사의 실질적 운영자로서 위 돈을 보관하고 있던 중 공소외 3에게 양수도대금 중 일부인 330억 원을 지급하기 위하여 공소외 20 주식회사로부터 대출받은 330억 원의 대출금채무 변제를 위하여 위 공소외 1 주식회사 소유의 330억 원을 임의로 사용함으로써 위 돈을 횡령하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

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

Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (Embezzlement, Selection of limited imprisonment), Article 20 (4) 1 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with External Audit, Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of each crime to the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with heavier punishment)

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years but not more than 17 years;

[Special Person] Where a large number of victims (shareholders, etc.) has been caused, or where a serious damage has been caused to the victim.

[Extent of Recommendation] Embezzlement/Misappropriation crime group, Type 5 (at least 30 billion won), aggravation area, imprisonment with labor for not less than 7 years but not more than 11 years

[Scope of modified Recommendations] Aggravation of sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes, aggravation of sentence of concurrent crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for at least seven years (a concurrent crime between a crime for which no guidelines for sentencing have been set)

[General Person] In the case of embezzlement crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime in order to take over Nonindicted Co. 1 by using the funds of Nonindicted Co. 1 without capital, and the nature of the crime is very poor, and the Defendant does not seem to be seriously against the Defendant’s acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 1 by deceiving Nonindicted Co. 3, i.e., proving that there was no particular benefit from taking over Nonindicted Co. 1 by deceiving Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 1 was eventually delisting due to the instant crime, and thus, a large number of small shareholders were considered to have been damaged. There was no measure to recover the damage of Nonindicted Co. 1.

[General mitigated] The defendant does not have the same criminal power and has no record of punishment exceeding fine, and the defendant shows his attitude of reflecting the violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies.

[Determination of Sentence] Other 6 years of imprisonment with prison labor which is less than the scope of the revised recommendation, taking into account the various sentencing conditions shown in the trial process of this case

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

Judge Han Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)

1) The method of dividing a subordinate company into an independent corporation, together with the transfer of technology.

2) The electronic publication system of the Financial Supervisory Service (DART): Internet electronic document format that can be shown in data Aalysis, Retrivial and Telecommunications.