beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant A, B, and D against the defendant corporation is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for three years, Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants A, B, and D (the Defendant A’s imprisonment for three years, the suspended sentence of one year in October, and the Defendant D Company’s fine of 20 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C (1) The crime of false entry of an audit report under Article 20(3)2 of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies (hereinafter “Act on External Audit”) is an intentional crime established only when the auditor recognizes that the entry is false, as well as subjectively, that the entry is false.
However, the defendant did not have any such false perception.
In other words, around April 2, 2009, when the Defendant entered appropriate opinions in the audit report on the financial statements of D(State) in 2008, the Defendant determined that (a) in the case of loans to Q Q, there is a possibility of sufficiently recovering 350,000 shares of AF (State) shares offered as security by the said company, and in the case of loans to O(State), since the above company's gross profit rate and net profit rate from 2006 to 2008 gradually increased, the Defendant determined that there is a possibility of sufficiently recovering the improvement of the financial structure and the occurrence of profits in the future. Accordingly, according to the above determination, the Defendant concluded that there is no need to set the bad debt allowances for each of the above claims.
(B) An offense of altering an audit protocol under Article 20(2)2 of the External Audit Act is established only where an unqualified person substantially alters the details of the audit protocol.
However, the defendant is not the person authorized to prepare the audit report on the above audit report and is not the subject of alteration. Since the audit report maintains the same content and only some expressions and related materials have been supplemented, it cannot be said that it was altered. Even if it constitutes an alteration, the defendant belongs to the audit team.