2019No2665(a)

(b) A evidence concealment teacher;

(c) Destruction;

(d) Concealment of evidence;

1.(a) A

2.c.(d) B

3.c. D. C.

Defendants and Prosecutor

The order of merit (prosecution), compensation for damage, Kim Ho-gle, and Yang Ho-sung (Public trial)

Law Firm ASEAN (for defendant A and C)

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Justice Lee Jong-chul, and Justice Ansan

Attorney Jeong-soo (for the defendant A)

Attorney Or Association (for the defendant A and B)

Law Firm LBnB Partners (Defendant B)

In the case of Attorneys Kim Han-dae, Kim Jong-soo, Kim Jong-soo, and Han-chul

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2019Da1354 Decided August 23, 2019

January 31, 2020

All appeals by the defendants and prosecutor against the defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and C

1) Legal principles

A) misunderstanding of legal principles as to the subject of the crime of destroying and concealing evidence (defendants)

The actual subject of liability due to the manufacture and sale of humidifier disinfectant is not the Defendants, but the J Co., Ltd., a legal entity (hereinafter referred to as the “J”). The act of destroying and concealing the destruction of evidence and the concealment of the second and second destruction of evidence (hereinafter referred to as the “the act of destroying and concealing the evidence of this case by adding up the destruction of evidence 1 and the second destruction and concealment of evidence”) recorded in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below is the subject of the J, and the Defendants cannot be the subject of independent crime since they committed the act of concealing the destruction of evidence in accordance with the decision of the J as a member or an institution of the saidJ.

In addition, the destruction and concealment of evidence in this case would have destroyed and concealed evidence related to the violation of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, which is one of his criminal cases, through executives and employees. Thus, even if it falls under the act of destroying and concealing evidence concerning the crime of occupational injury and death, only the part of the act of destroying and concealing evidence concerning the crime of occupational injury and death cannot be punished separately.

B) Contributory or co-principal (Defendant A)

Defendant A evidence to Defendant B, C,O, P (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B, etc.”)

It does not induce the crime of destruction or concealment, but it constitutes a co-principal since the destruction or concealment of evidence of this case was conducted in collusion with Defendant B, etc. As long as Defendant A constitutes a co-principal, Defendant A does not constitute a crime of destruction of evidence because he/she destroyed evidence of his/her criminal case.

Since 2011, the J has been engaged in the process of destroying and concealing materials related to humidifier disinfectant at the company level. Defendant B, etc. had the criminal intent as to the act of destroying and concealing evidence, recognizing such circumstances before February 11, 2016. Defendant A is merely merely merely merely an approval that Defendant B, etc. had already developed on February 11, 2016 after receiving a report on the act of destroying and concealing evidence. Accordingly, Defendant B, etc. did not pass a resolution to commit the act of destroying and concealing evidence of this case only upon Defendant A’s instruction.

When Defendant A instructed Defendant B, etc. to prepare countermeasures against the prosecution investigation on February 2, 2016 in preparation for the prosecution investigation, in order to induce Defendant A, etc. to destroy and conceal evidence, it is necessary to revise the indictment, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant A’s order to prepare the above countermeasures has the strength of making Defendant A resolve the destruction and concealment of evidence.

At the time of original adjudication, the second act of destroying and concealing evidence stated in the facts constituting the crime has already been committed by the defendant A before the defendant A's instructions were given.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendants (the imprisonment of two years and six months, the imprisonment of one year, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service order of 300 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair form of punishment)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c) Prosecutors;

1) Fact-finding (not guilty part)

In light of the objective evidence related S, the entry of the O’s work pocket book on May 16, 2016, the relevant information rearrangement document prepared by AE on July 2016, the P andO’s statements, and the appearance of documents at the time of seizure, it can be sufficiently recognized that some of the documents related to S was actually destroyed.

According to the direction of Defendant A, the O’s statement that partially discarded the file files of “S” related documents is reliable in light of the entries in the business pocket book on May 16, 2016, the AE’s relevant information rearrangement document on July 2016, the P’s statement, and the external appearance of the relevant documents at the time of seizure.

The discarded materials are part of the past materials of the J and Research Institute related to the “S” and materials that J directly manufactured and sold humidifier disinfectant containing CMF/MIT ingredients in around 1997. Thus, it is an important evidence of criminal cases against the manufacturers and sellers of humidifier disinfectant.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendants is too uneasible.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A and C

A. As to the principal offender of the crime of destroying and concealing evidence (Defendant A, C)

1) Relevant legal principles

A juristic person is merely a subject of a private legal obligation and has no criminal ability (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Do2595, Oct. 10, 1984). A juristic person is an act through a natural person who is an agency. As such, even if a natural person commits a criminal act as an agency of a juristic person, the person who is an actor is liable for criminal liability for such criminal act. However, only if the law specifically provides for the achievement of its purpose, it may be punished by a fine not only for the juristic person to which the legal effect belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do1483, Feb. 8, 1994).

2) As to the subject of criminal liability due to the manufacture and sale of humidifier disinfectant

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, separate from the fact that the rights and duties under private law due to the manufacture and sale of humidifier disinfectants belong to the J as a juristic person, criminal liability resulting in the death or injury of consumers in breach of occupational duties, such as neglecting the hazard of substances used as raw materials of humidifier disinfectant and the inspection of the safety of products, etc., shall be borne by natural persons, such as management or working-level personnel, who are not juristic personsJ but actually involved in the manufacture and sale of humidifier disinfectants.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that the act of destroying and concealing evidence of this case was the subject of criminal liability due to occupational or fatal crimes cannot be accepted, premised on the premise that the J is the subject of criminal liability due to occupational or fatal crimes, that the act of destroying and concealing evidence of his criminal case cannot be accepted. Based on the same logic, the Defendants’ assertion that the act of destroying and concealing evidence of this case committed by the Defendants is merely an act of destroying and concealing evidence of this case, and

3) As to whether the destruction or concealment of evidence in the instant case constitutes a J-self’s act relating to a violation of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising

Article 19(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising provides that a corporation shall be punished directly by a fine in cases where there is a negligence of neglecting the supervision of an executive officer or employee on his/her duties concerning an act, such as unfair labeling and advertising. As such, in cases of a crime of violating the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (1) stating that a human safety-related information is omitted, reduced, or discarded in labels of humidifier disinfectant products, the corporation shall be the subject of criminal liability to the extent that a fine is imposed in accordance with the said joint penal provision.

However, in such a case, in light of the legal principles as stated in the above paragraph (1), the Defendants’ act of destroying and concealing evidence in this case is merely an independent criminal act, and cannot be deemed as the J itself’s act to conceal evidence related to a crime of violation of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising.

4) Sub-committee

The Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.

B. As to the assertion that it does not constitute a teacher (Defendant A)

1) The judgment of the court below

Even if Defendant A did not specify and instruct specific methods or objects of destruction and concealment of evidence, Defendant B, etc. prepared countermeasures against destruction and concealment of evidence in accordance with the direction, and Defendant A approved the concealment of evidence by ordering the reported and the execution of the reported and the execution of the report, thereby inducing Defendant B, etc. to resolve and implement the crime.

In addition, if Defendant A received the above countermeasures from Defendant B, etc., and ordered Defendant B, etc. to consider or not implement the part concerning the concealment of evidence, Defendant B, etc. did not perform the work such as replacement of hard disks and e-mail removal, etc. In this respect, Defendant A, etc. passed a resolution on the execution of destruction and concealment of evidence.

In addition, even if Defendant B, etc. prepared countermeasures, including the content of destruction and concealment of evidence, in accordance with the Defendant A’s above policy, even if the J employee deleteds materials related to the destruction and concealment of evidence which remains in the company from before 2016 under the Defendant A’s approval, it cannot be said that Defendant A had already had the criminal intent to destroy and conceal evidence without Defendant A’s instruction or approval.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) Relevant legal principles2

The act of instigating a teacher refers to having a principal offender pass a resolution on a crime, and if it is possible to have the principal offender pass the resolution on the crime, there is no restriction on the means to commit the crime, and there is no need to do so explicitly and directly. The act of instigating a principal offender is a crime that constitutes the crime, and there is no strict proof in order to acknowledge this. However, in a case where the defendant denies the facts of the crime, it is possible to prove it by means of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the nature of an object. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts that have considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of the facts by using the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1252, Feb. 25, 2000).

Meanwhile, in a case where the principal began to commit the crime, whether the resolution was derived from the principal’s act of aiding and abetting the principal’s act ought to be objectively determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the relationship between the principal and the principal, the content and degree of the principal’s act, the process leading the principal to the crime, the existence of other causes for the principal to prevent the principal from committing the crime, even if the principal did not commit the act of aiding and abetting, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2744, Sept. 12, 2013).

B) the facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) The trend of J following the announcement of the epidemiological investigation by the Ministry of Health and Welfare on August 2011

(1) After the epidemiological investigation by the Ministry of Health and Welfare concerning humidifier disinfectant on August 31, 201, J shall be issued on August 31, 201

The Court decided to recover products sold by convening an emergency response committee and transfer the services related to humidifier disinfectant to the legal department in charge of legal affairs in preparation for legal disputes with H (Court record 613,736 pages);

(2) Accordingly, theO, who is an employee in charge of legal affairs, shall be from each department of J to the humidifier disinfectant.

The relevant data were gathered, and some departments deleted the data after being delivered to them (Evidence Record 9514 pages).

3. ‘D' sold by J at the time shall not be included in products subject to a collection order issued by the Ministry of Health and Welfare.

In addition, there was no discovery of waste fiberation in humidifier disinfectant using CMIT/M IT as a raw material (trial record 671, 683), and in the white paper of the humidifier disinfectant Health Damage Case published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare on December 2, 2014, "D" had been suspended by deeming that the level of harm is low compared to other products (trial record 697 pages).

(2) Preparation of documents regarding countermeasures taken on February 11, 2016 and approval of Defendant A

① A special investigation team for damage caused by humidifier disinfectant was established at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office around January 2016, the investigation of the manufacturer and seller of humidifier disinfectant using PHMG as a raw material was initiated first.

(2) On February 2, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court under the direction of ascertaining the trends of the prosecutor's office.

After an interview with the Prosecutor's Special Investigation Team DH by the Prosecutor's Office, the contents of the interview were reported to the company (360 pages of the trial record), and thereafter, the defendant B, C, and P prepared countermeasures against the prosecution's investigation in the future.

(3) Defendant B, etc. shall separately keep any internal information unfavorable to the company after censorship thereof.

On February 11, 2016, including the contents of deletion measures, the countermeasures against the humidifier disinfectant case (hereinafter referred to as the "measures") were completed and reported to the Defendant A, and the Defendant A approved after reviewing the contents of the countermeasures.

(3) Implementation of the countermeasures taken on February 11, 2016

① According to the contents indicated in the countermeasures taken on February 11, 2016, Defendant B, etc. deleted the data and e-mail containing the keyboard (D, CM IT, mDS, S, etc.) related to humidifier disinfectant from R Research Institutes, J business and marketing teams, CR3), V, etc., and proceed with the replacement of the HV disc, if necessary.

(2) In addition, in order to prepare for the investigation by the prosecution, request the AL law office to provide advice, and

Around July 2016, the court conducted a digital forensic inspection of the J's computer server with the approval of Defendant A (Evidence Records 8583 pages).

(4) The organization, operation and termination of the AC TFT;

① On June 2016, according to Defendant A’s instruction, ACFT was organized in preparation for the investigation and investigation by the prosecution regarding humidifier disinfectants. ACFT, other than Defendant B, C,O, P, consists of those affiliated with the J Publicity Team, CR Team, and R Research Institute (Evidence Record 8133 pages).

② The name of AC TFT was issued with the name “AC” in front of the DJ, and a separate building, other than the J head office, was leased for a short term of four months (Evidence Record 8406 pages), and the name of the leased was disguised for the performance of duties with DI in preparation for IPO (Evidence Record 8408 pages).

(3) AC TFT is industrial accident to each department in preparation for the investigation, hearing, etc. of the company.

With collection and collection of all materials related to the time of delivery or manufacture and sale of humidifier disinfectant, the data was concentrated by means of deletion of the data in the existing location.

(4) Upon dissolution of ACFT around October 2016, Defendant B, etc. submitted to the investigation of the State.

The remainder of the Hadrid data and electronic data other than the fee were disposed of in a lump sum, and some important data were released from outside of the company and stored (Evidence Record 8811 pages).

C) Part of the teacher for the crime of destroying and concealing evidence

In full view of the following circumstances, including the grounds stated by the lower court, which could be inferred from the above facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant A, etc. passed a resolution and implementation of the crime of destroying and concealing the first destruction of evidence in this case by ordering Defendant B, etc. to implement the response plan reported by Defendant B, etc. on February 11, 2016.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of the crime of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant A.

① Since the epidemiological investigation was announced by the Ministry of Health and Welfare around August 201, there exists no circumstance in which data relating to humidifier disinfectant was deleted within the J. However, considering that “D” which was sold at the time was not included in the product subject to the collection order and was transferred from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office on February 2, 2016, which is a raw material to reveal the harmfulness of human body of CMIT/MIT, it seems to be a series of measures taken in the process of transferring all humidifier disinfectant operations to the legal department and collecting data from each department, rather than the response that was premised on the commencement of an investigation. Furthermore, it seems that the possibility of the commencement of an investigation in accordance with the responsibility for the manufacture and sale of humidifier disinfectant within the J has been specifically reduced within the scope of the J, was established by the special investigation team for the damage caused by humidifier disinfectant in the prosecution around January 2016, and theO was consulted with DH in the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office on February 2, 2016.

Therefore, prior to 2016, the J has already deleted data relating to humidifier disinfectants.

The circumstance that there was a fact that Defendant A had been done is not a reason to prove that Defendant B, etc. had had the criminal intent to destroy and conceal materials related to the manufacture and sale of humidifier disinfectant in preparation for prosecution investigation.

② Defendant B was present as a witness in the court of the court below and “O H on February 2, 2016.”

Even after the interview, while the J judged that it is not still subject to investigation, the company did not take an instruction and atmosphere that it needs to take action at the time level. In particular, the Defendant A thought that the issue of humidifier disinfectant was boomed, and that theJ thought that it was boomed, and that the issue of humidifier disinfectant was boomed. Defendant A tried to take more countermeasures than 322,323 of the trial record, and we tried to comply with the purport of the Defendant B’s statement. In light of the purport of the Defendant B’s statement, Defendant A, a representative director, unlike other officers and employees of the J at the time, was likely to start an investigation due to the manufacture and sales power of humidifier disinfectant, and that there was a concern about such concern, and Defendant B, etc., as well as other materials that were disadvantageous to the company, had caused Defendant B, etc. to take active measures against the manufacture and sale of humidifier disinfectant, namely, materials that were disadvantageous to the company.

③ Although the countermeasures taken on February 11, 2016 were discussed by Defendant B, etc., it seems that it was merely a presentation after specifying the countermeasures according to Defendant A’s suspicion (Defendant B created the process of checking internal information in preparation for the investigation, such as the search and seizure of the prosecutor’s office, and deleting unfavorable materials, etc. in preparation for the investigation by the prosecutor’s office.

The purpose of A president was not to do so, but to delete materials unfavorable to J according to the procedures determined by A president. The evidence record was 7944 pages).

Defendant B, etc. implemented the destruction and concealment of evidence as stated in the countermeasures approved by Defendant A, and reported the progress to Defendant A at any time (the trial record 278 pages).

④ All of Defendant B, etc., basically under Defendant A’s approval and instruction

There was awareness that the act of destruction and concealment was performed. Defendant B, etc. does not seem to have carried out the act of destruction and concealment of evidence of this case even without Defendant A’s approval or instruction of execution.

Therefore, the approval and execution instruction of Defendant A, the representative director, can be deemed to have decided on the execution of the destruction of evidence of this case by Defendant B, etc. and provided a critical motive and cause for committing the crime.

⑤ The act of deletion of data and e-mail related to humidifier disinfectant was conducted within the scope of company, other than the business department in the J, the CRM department, and the R Research Institute, V, and production plant. The arbitrary removal or destruction of data produced by the company was in violation of the J’s regulations on the preservation of documents in the company (see, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail 499). Rather, the act was conducted under the active cooperation of the person in charge of each department. The scope and methods of destruction and concealment of evidence was all impossible unless Defendant A’s instructions were given by the representative director.

(6) Defendant A’s defense counsel asserts that the act of ordering Defendant B, etc. to prepare countermeasures against the occurrence of a crime on February 11, 2016 is necessary to change the facts charged in the instant case or that the said order has the physical properties to the extent that it would cause the destruction of evidence and harboring crime. However, as seen above, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant A caused the destruction of evidence and harboring act by approving the countermeasures against the destruction of evidence and harboring act on February 11, 2016 and ordering the implementation thereof. Since the indictment of this case and the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment are also stated, the aforementioned assertion by the defense counsel is without merit.

D) Part of the teacher to commit the second destruction and concealment of evidence

Like the foregoing, based on the facts acknowledged in relation to AC TFT, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the competent court are comprehensively taken into account: (a) destruction and concealment of evidence of the second instance case (a) destruction and concealment of evidence after the completion of the investigation of evidence around October 2016).

The crime also can be fully recognized that Defendant B, etc. passed a resolution and conducted the crime in accordance with Defendant A’s instruction. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the establishment of the crime of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence and harboring this part is just, and there is no error of law as alleged by Defendant A.

(1) AC TFT is the representative of the manufacturer and seller of other humidifier disinfectant in the prosecution around June 2016.

As high-Robbery investigation is being conducted by binding the death, etc., and the National Assembly organized a special investigation committee of the National Assembly to conduct a fact-finding investigation on the damage of raw materials to the humidifier disinfectant products, the process of verifying the harmfulness of raw materials and the fact-finding on the occurrence of damage to the humidifier disinfectant products were deepened, it was newly organized under the direction of Defendant A to respond more systematically and systematically than before.

2C TFT manufactures or manufactures the launch time of humidifier disinfectant scattered in each department in the Company;

When collecting materials related to sales, the companies are selected with favorable and unfavorable materials, and the unfavorable materials among them are prepared to be destroyed in a lump sum upon the completion of the investigation, etc., but it seems that Defendant A was willing to start with the direction of the organization of ACFT.

(3) AC TFT following the completion of the investigation of state affairs on October 2016 shall be merged with or created in the course of business.

On October 31, 2016, the document reported to Defendant A that the document’s Had Kad Kad Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had

④ Around October 2016, P made a statement that “after the completion of AC TFT all unnecessary materials were discarded, and some important materials were left within the company and stored outside the company” (Evidence No. 9577, No. 345,538), and Defendant B made a statement that it was in compliance with the direction of Defendant A (Evidence No. 309, Evidence No. 8785).

(5) All Defendant B, etc. are to perform their duties under the approval and instruction of Defendant A.

Defendant B, etc., without Defendant A’s approval and execution instruction, cannot be seen to have carried out the act of concealing destruction of evidence. Accordingly, Defendant A’s approval and execution instruction constituted a critical motive and cause that led Defendant B, etc. to commit the act of concealing destruction of evidence.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below

Based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the instant facts charged that the Defendants destroyed the materials related to the “S”.

① In light of the fact that the files related to “S” remain without being destroyed until the time of search and seizure by the prosecution, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said files have been actually destroyed as in the facts charged.

(2) The O’s statement alone cannot determine whether documents actually destroyed are any documents, and whether such documents can be used as evidence in a criminal case.

③ The statement that Defendant A instructed the destruction of the file file files related to “S” is difficult to believe because it is inconsistent with the statements of Defendant B, C, and P, and there is a circumstance that Defendant A acted on the premise that Defendant A did not instruct the destruction of the file files.

④ It is difficult to view that Defendant A included “S”-related files in the subject of destruction of evidence that Defendant A instigated. Even if Defendant A comprehensively ordered the destruction of evidence including the said files, there is no evidence to prove that theO started the commission of the destruction of evidence according to the actual direction, and thus, Defendant A may be punished in accordance with preparation or conspiracy pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Criminal Act. The crime of destroying and concealing evidence is not a provision to punish preliminary conspiracy.

B. Judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, including the grounds presented by the court below, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was actually destroyed to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that part of the SS-related Hadck's material was actually destroyed. As a result of a reasonable logical reasoning, this part of the charges that Defendant B and C destroyed the relevant material by destroying the relevant material of SS cannot be acknowledged as it is.

Furthermore, as long as there is no act of destroying evidence or result, regardless of whether Defendant A ordered the destruction of the above materials, there is no room to establish the crime of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence in this part. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts as claimed by the prosecutor.

1) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor

The evidence presented by the prosecutor to the effect that some of the files related to ‘S' was destroyed by the actual destruction of evidence, there are the O and P's statements, the O's work pocket book dated May 16, 2016, the relevant information organized by AE around July 2016, and the external appearance of documents at the time of seizure.

2) Determination on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor

A) A statement

O made a statement that "S-related data was not immediately discarded, stored in the prosecutors' office, and then they were discarded at any time," and that "it was no memory that would have been destroyed," and that "it was discarded before Defendant A reported the press articles referred to by S around May 2016 and ordered the destruction of evidence to be destroyed (Evidence No. 5944 of the record)." However, in the court of original instance, the court of original instance stated that "S-related data was not destroyed by direct destruction, and it was ambiguous that "the P was actually destroyed by the delivery to P." (No. 413 of the trial record) and stated that "It was known that it was destroyed due to the destruction to P." (No. 419 of the trial record).

As such, it is difficult to recognize that part of the material related to “S” has been actually discarded, because it is not clearly stated when and how part of the material related to “S” has been destroyed, and there is no conviction as to whether the material was actually discarded.

B) P’s statement

P The prosecutor's office stated that "S data file files were stored in the legal office glicks" and O

Although the prosecutorial statement stated that the file file was destroyed by order (Evidence No. 5979 pages), it was the same as before the court of original instance that "O was present in the court of original instance and delivered it to the strawer, and it was not memory or memory that actually reversed. It was the same as it was not immediately executed after receiving an order." (No. 539 pages of the public trial record) and reversed the statement as to whether to destroy the file file. In particular, as to the prosecutorial statement, the document was written in the form that "the prosecutorial office made an inquiry, and confirmed the completion of crushing by delivering a written compromise of documents," which was written in the form that "the prosecutor made an internal report at the time of questioning by the prosecutor, and confirmed the completion of crushing by delivering documents to the prosecutor's office." (No. 564 of the public trial record). In other words, it appears that part of the P/S statement was not sufficient to recognize that the P/S statement was not related to the P/S statement.

C) Entry in the business pocket book on May 16, 2016 of theO

On May 5, 2016, 16, theO received the direction from the President (Defendant A) to review whether there is no problem of destruction of evidence with respect to “S”-related data, and on which 20 years ago written the statement to the effect that “If the data are deemed naturally deleted due to misappropriation, it does not constitute destruction of evidence.” In light of the above contents, it may be said that the Defendant’s order destruction of “S”-related data and review whether the crime of destruction of evidence was established after the occurrence of destruction of evidence.

However, according to the above O's statement, theO knew that the material was discarded after it was transferred to P to the disposal of the material, and that it was not known whether P was actually discarded, and theO seems to have disposed of the material according to its instructions without confirming whether the material was actually discarded. If there are such circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that part of the material was actually destroyed solely on the content of the above business pocket book.

D) Documents prepared by AE around July 2016 to arrange relevant information.

AE of the Daejeon R Research Institute prepared documents for the adjustment of relevant information around July 2016, 2016

At the beginning, it was stated to the effect that S file file data was delivered to the law firm, and that it was confirmed by the law firm, and that it was destroyed.

However, according to the process of the preparation of the above documents, AE prepared the contents delivered by the legal team as to whether or not the data were discarded when reconcepting the information about 'S' before the investigation of the state affairs around July 2016, and as to the business pocket book of the O on May 16, 2016, P was considered to have been discarded after the transfer of the data related to 'S' to P at the time. Therefore, the content of the above documents stated by AE appears to be merely a document written after delivery of the contents known at the time when the above documents were actually discarded, separate from whether or not the documents were actually destroyed, it seems that AE was a document written by delivery of the contents known by the O or P, who is an employee in charge of the state affairs, and ultimately, it is insufficient to accept that the part of 'S' data was actually destroyed.

E) The external form of documents discovered at the time of search and seizure by the prosecution

Even if the relevant file file files were separated at the time of search and seizure by the prosecution, it cannot be concluded that the external appearance of the documents at the time of search and seizure alone was actually destroyed, as long as it cannot be ruled out that theO could be simply separated in the process of carrying out and keeping the data externally after the completion of AC TFT.

(iii) Other circumstances;

A) The “S”-related data serves as evidence that J directly manufactured humidifier disinfectants. This is merely a sale of a humidifier disinfectant product at the time and its importance was very important as evidence as it constitutes a material contrary to the J’s response policy. Accordingly, both the and P also stated that the data was obtained by maintaining security under the Defendant A’s direct order. Considering the importance of the pertinent data, it is difficult to understand that theO and P were unable to clearly memory even after the actual destruction of the said data.

B) Since the O's delivery to P of the material related to 'S' to P, the material was stored in P's wife for a considerable period of time prior to the prosecution's search and seizure. If a part of the material was destroyed in this process, as alleged by the prosecutor, even if it is impossible to prove the content of the material specifically, only a part of the material was destroyed due to any kind, and the circumstances leading up to partial destruction, such as how the material was selected, should be reasonably explained through the evidence. However, the prosecutor did not explain this point.

C) ACFT shall destroy and dispose of most of its data in accordance with its policies after dissolution.

The important materials were taken out from the outside of the company and concealed them in the wife, and the report was completed on October 2016 that "the destruction of all the off-line data was completed (Evidence No. 4947 pages). Thus, it is reasonable to see that the existence of the “S” related data was clearly verified in the process of individually confirming data to distinguish the data to be discarded from the data to be stored outside the company (Evidence No. 4947 pages). Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that the statement of the fact that the “S” related data was stored in its wife is difficult to believe, and that some of the data was discarded.

D) Furthermore, as recognized earlier, theO appears to have confirmed the existence of “S”-related materials at the time of shipping them out to the outside of the company, ② P did not have the O responsible for management of important materials such as S materials, and the important Hadcams were intended to directly manage them as much as possible (564 pages of the trial record) in the original judgment (3) theO stated that it separately provided the original materials as favorable materials for the first time when the prosecutor’s search and seizure was conducted, together with S-related materials at the time of the prosecutor’s search and seizure, with the fact that theO stated that it was intended to separately use the original materials as favorable materials for the last time (344 pages of the trial record and 6037 pages of the evidence record).

4. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendants and the prosecutor are generally considered as circumstances that the lower court has already taken full account of the Defendants’ punishment while determining the Defendants, and there is no change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing after the lower court was sentenced.

Considering the serious damage caused by humidifier disinfectant and the social impact caused thereby, detailed facts and responsibility for the process of manufacturing, selling, and distributing humidifier disinfectant should be thoroughly examined, and, if any, serious sanctions should be imposed on the discovery of responsible materials. most of the materials destroyed and concealed by the Defendants are the overall contents of the humidifier disinfectant products manufactured and sold by J. The materials appear to constitute essential materials to clearly clarify the facts about the process of the delivery of the humidifier disinfectant products and the scope of the responsibility of the J executives at the time of the manufacture and distribution of the products. Accordingly, it cannot be denied that the Defendants’ act caused certain obstacles to the discovery of substantial truth related to humidifier disinfectant caused by the instant crime by the Defendants. In other words, the Defendants’ act was conducted in the outer awareness of the suffering suffered by the consumers, and the destruction and concealment of evidence was very organized, planned, and professionally conducted within a very systematic and professional scope.

In particular, even though Defendant A was fully aware that he had ordered the employees under his command and supervision as the representative director of J to commit the destruction and concealment of evidence, Defendant A is continuously responsible to Defendant B, etc., who is an employee, and there is a need for strict punishment corresponding thereto.

Defendant B delivered Defendant A’s intent or instruction to a working person who directly performs destruction and concealment of evidence while comprehensively taking overall control of the humidifier disinfectant response work performed from around 2016, and thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B’s role and responsibility in the crime of this case is merely passively performed as an intermediary.

On the other hand, it is necessary to consider that all the Defendants were the first criminal without criminal record, and that in the case of Defendant B and C, it was difficult to think that they actively suspended or prevented the crimes against the direction of Defendant A, the representative director.

In addition, in full view of all the circumstances and sentencing guidelines, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendants cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the Defendants is too heavy or unhued. Accordingly, each of the grounds for unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor are without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals by the defendants and the prosecutor against the defendants are without merit, and they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The number of judges transferred to judges

Judges Lee Jae-chul

Judges Kim Jong-Un

1) [The Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising]

If the representative of a corporation (including an unincorporated organization; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) under Article 19, or an agent, employee or other servant of the corporation or an individual commits a violation under Article 17 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such violator be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions: Provided, That this shall not apply where such corporation or individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such

2) In many theories and judicial precedents, the most basic sign recognizing teachers' act is the causal relationship between the teacher's act and the principal offender's act of committing the crime. However, in order to prevent the possibility that the scope of the teacher's punishment might be unfairly expanded, the specific nature of the crime is required in the teacher's act (in addition, the German theory requires the defendant to be specific in relation to the interpretation of the teacher's act. In addition, in relation to the interpretation of the teacher's act, "psychological contact", "control of the criminal conduct plan" or "control of the motive for committing the crime", "influence of the motive for committing the crime" (Article 31(1) of the Criminal Act, "the interpretation of the teacher", "DG, and Article 26 of the Criminal Law"), and even according to any of the above signs, according to the circumstances, the act of aiding the destruction and concealment of evidence of this case is sufficiently established.

3) Clatership management team: A department in charge of customer consultation and clean management as its main duties;

4) The lower court stated that the witness AI and Z had no discussion about response to the investigation agency at the emergency countermeasures conference conducted after the epidemiological investigation was announced by the Ministry of Health and Welfare on August 201 at the lower court’s court court’s court court court’s court (see, e.g., 619, 661 of the trial record). In U.S. prosecutorial investigation, U.S., the president of the R Research Institute stated that the R Research Institute instructed the R Research Institute to find data related to humidifier disinfectant or did not have requested such data (Evidence Records 798 pages).

5) The correct name is the ‘Special Committee on Investigation of the Truth of the humidifier disinfectant Accident in the National Assembly, the remedy for damages, and the prevention of recurrence'.

6) In order for a teacher to be established, the principal offender’s act and the principal offender’s act must be committed. Thus, the establishment of the principal offender constitutes part of the elements of the principal offender and constitutes the principal offender’s act of committing the principal offender, which is a prerequisite for the establishment of the principal offender’s act of committing the principal offender (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1252, Feb. 25, 200).

7) P appears to have failed to recognize the existence of the material at the time, stating that “after being put in and kept in a gnds, it was almost little thought of the existence of the material, and even when being investigated, it was not mentioned or left in this material,” (565 pages of trial record).

8) On February 12, 2016, 2016, and 12, the statement was made to the effect that the Defendant B and the Defendant A was informed of the fact that the data was found before the business trip, and at the same time, the content to delete the computerized data related to the S was already determined at the meeting with Defendant B, etc. prior to the business trip. (The 353 pages of the trial record) is not consistent with the front and rear of the statement itself.