Defendant

Gangwon Fisheries Ghana

Attorney Kang Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in this case, it is not guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation).

From October 31, 2001 to March 8, 2004, the Defendant worked as the representative director of EMS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ES”), a KOSDAQ-listed corporation, and was in charge of exercising overall control over the operation of EMS, such as fund execution, personnel management, etc.;

1. In collusion with Nonindicted Party 1:

On September 201, Non-Indicted 1, the actual owner of the CCB B BV (hereinafter “CB”), took over the management right of IMS on or around September 2001, and thereafter, the Defendant, who was working for the planning of CCB, was recorded as the representative director of EMS, Non-Indicted 9, and Non-Indicted 10, who was his part of Non-Indicted 1, as the director of EMS, and kept the seals of directors in the company. Non-Indicted 1 instructed the Defendant to execute the funds as instructed by him, and prepare the minutes of the board of directors; the Defendant, in accordance with Non-Indicted 1’s instruction, will use the funds of EP by offering ES’s funds as security, etc. when the CCB BBP takes out a loan from a financial institution.

On November 21, 2001, at the point of the territory of the Republic of Korea located in the territory of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, in the course of business, the amount of KRW 1.6 billion deposited in the regular deposit account (Account Number omitted) in the name of the victim EMS in Korea, while Nonindicted Party 1 instructed the Defendant to provide the above amount of KRW 1.6 billion of the fixed deposit deposit in the name of the Korea Bank for c c k k k k k k k k k k k k, and the Defendant provided the above amount of KRW 1.6 billion to the Korea Bank at will, according to Nonindicted Party 1’s instruction, provided the above amount of KRW 1.6 billion as security against the above k k k k k k k k k k k k's obligation to the Korea Bank, and embezzled it by providing it as shown in the attached list of crimes.

2. In borrowing KRW 200 million from the foreign exchange bank for the purpose of purchasing the Defendant’s house at the same location in Gangdong-gu Seoul on February 19, 2003, the foreign exchange bank provided at will KRW 200 million funds of KRW 250 million owned by the Defendant’s private loan as security on April 9 of the same year to lend KRW 50 million from the foreign exchange bank to the Defendant-friendly non-indicted 11 at the same location on April 19, 2003. In borrowing KRW 50 million from the foreign exchange bank account in the name of Eul-gu (Account Number 2 omitted), the foreign exchange bank (Account Number 2 omitted) provided as security and embezzled the Defendant’s private loan amounting to KRW 250 million in total.

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 12, 7, 13, 9, 10, 14, and 15; the police interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 1 on Nonindicted 1

1. The written statement of the defendant;

1. Transferable deposit certificates, each complaint letter, minutes of the board of directors, confirmation certificates, lists of bearer certificates of deposit, list of securities for security, list of investigation reports (a certified transcript of the register of the corporation), the details of the defendant's embezzlement, changes in the deposit related to the camby, details of the provision of security related to the camby, the fact-finding inquiry statement of the representative director's deposit provision, and the inquiry inquiry inquiry inquiry

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 (Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 3(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, but it appears to be a clerical error in light of the facts charged), Articles 356, 355(1), 30(1), 356, and 355(1)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) with higher punishment]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Consideration of Sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Reexamination of Grounds for Sentencing below)

The defendant and his defense counsel held that the crime of embezzlement was not committed by the defendant considering the following facts: (a) the defendant provided the defendant as security for personal loans, such as the name of the purchase price for BIM's funds; (b) the non-indicted 16, a director in charge of finance affairs, was made in accordance with the Eul's proposal; (c) the defendant officially entered in the account book of BIM and obtained the board of directors' regular approval; (d) around March 2004, in order to prevent IMS's damages, the defendant prepared a notarized document stating that he will immediately repay IMS after the completion of LIM's loan; and (e) the defendant created a collateral security right under the name of BIMS with regard to LIM's loan site; and (e) the market price at the time of L.C. was more than 70 million won; and (e) it was not anticipated that it would cause damage to A.S.

However, in a case where the representative director arbitrarily disposes of the company’s property for private purposes, such as offering it as collateral for a third party’s financing, regardless of whether there was a resolution by the board of directors on such disposal, the crime of embezzlement cannot be exempted. In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intention of disposal, such as the case of holding another’s property in breach of his/her duties for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, and even if there is an intention of returning, compensating for or preserving it later, it does not interfere with the intention of unlawful acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005, etc.).

According to the above evidence, the defendant, without the resolution of the board of directors, offered as security the defendant's personal loan amount of KRW 250 million from the foreign exchange bank in order to use the defendant's personal loan as loans to Y 11, as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, without the resolution of the board of directors, [the defendant asserts that there was a resolution of the board of directors in this court, but the defendant stated that there was no consistent resolution of the board of directors at the time of the initial statement at the prosecutor's office (the investigation record, page 753, page 1018), and even if the resolution of the board of directors was made, it cannot be exempt from the liability of embezzlement in light of the above legal principles as seen earlier, since the defendant's personal loan to the foreign exchange bank was executed after the termination of the deposit at the time of the above IM 204 and the defendant's loan was made at the latest 30,004.

Of the facts charged of this case, the defendant conspired with non-indicted 1 on January 12, 2004, he received 7 billion won in blank promissory notes (bill number: 18778264) issued by CCK Co., Ltd. as collateral from the above savings bank in collusion with the non-indicted 1. The defendant, the representative director of ES, was asked from non-indicted 1 to ask for endorsement in the above promissory notes. After thoroughly examining the ability to repay debts, such as the financial situation of CCK, which is the issuer of the bills to be offered as collateral, and thoroughly examining the ability to repay debts, and even if CCK and CPC do not have the ability to repay debts, it is likely that CCK will not be able to repay debts, thereby doing so, the defendant would not be able to incur damages to CM's debts, despite the fact that CCK's loan will not be able to repay debts, and thus, CMM will not be able to perform its duties.

In a case where the representative director of the company, upon offering the company's property as a collateral for a third party and replacing the already established collateral, if the value of the newly provided collateral is higher than the value of the existing collateral, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the company has suffered property damage equivalent to the amount of the guaranteed debt, out of the increased value of the above method, unless there is a special circumstance. However, if the value of the newly provided collateral is smaller or equal than the value of the existing collateral, it shall not be deemed that the company has suffered property damage (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7027, Nov. 9, 2006, etc.)

However, according to the above evidence: (a) Nonindicted Party 1’s statement and entry of Nonindicted Party 7’s witness 2, Nonindicted Party 3’s statement and statement of Nonindicted Party 3, Nonindicted Party 7’s explanation statement, credit review operation committee’s minutes, and credit review management committee’s note 2, which were issued by Nonindicted Party 2, were stated in blank 2, and (b) Nonindicted Party 2’s new statement and statement that it was difficult to return 2,000,000,000 won to Defendant 2, which were issued by 3,000 S.M. 1’s new statement and statement of 2,000,000,000 S. 2, which were issued by 3,0000,0000,000 S. 1’s new statement and statement of 2,000,0000,0000 S. 2,000,000,000,000.

Therefore, the above facts are as follows: (a) in the case of the issuer of a promissory note, the issuer of the promissory note shall be deemed as the primary debtor, with unlimited, unlimited, and final obligations; (b) in the case of the endorser, the responsibility of the endorser is minor; and (c) in the case of the endorser, the former Defendant cannot be deemed as null and void by the legal judgment, even though the issuance of the minutes of the board of directors or supplementary rights to the two promissory notes issued by the former Defendant was not made on the part of the issuer; (b) even if the issuance of the promissory note was not made on the part of the former Defendant, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of offering the two promissory notes in blank of the issuance of IMS as the collateral was embezzlement or breach of trust, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of endorsement on the Promissory note in this case, which had already been offered as collateral, was for the cancellation of the trust of trust as well as for the cancellation of the issuance of IMS’s blank.

Thus, this part of the facts charged is not guilty in accordance with Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it does not constitute a crime or there is no proof of a crime.

The crime of this case was committed in collusion with the non-indicted 1, who is responsible for executing and managing the company's finance fairly and transparently as the representative director of the victim AIM, in collusion with the non-indicted 1,50,000 won of IMS assets at will as security for IMS assets, and embezzled the amount equivalent to 250,000,000 won of IMS assets as security for the defendant's personal loan, because it provided as security for the defendant's personal loan, and most of the embezzled amount was not recovered (the part provided as security in relation to the defendant's personal loan was recovered, but only the part provided as security in relation to the IMS loan was repaid only about 1,70,000 won).

On the other hand, in relation to the provision of IMS's security for the loans, the defendant committed the crime by Non-Indicted 1's instruction, which has been the actual owner of management rights, which led to the crime. However, the defendant does not seem to have made personal profits. After that, the defendant sold IMS and tried to recover its assets with the funds, in relation to the defendant's personal loan's provision of security, the defendant repaid IM equivalent to the amount of his embezzlement to IM and recovered its losses, and the defendant did not have any specific punishment power other than the amount punished as one fine. [On the other, on October 13, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Seoul East District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2006No2477 delivered on July 27, 2006). The defendant's family decision and the defendant's family decision were divided into the investigation agency's age of self-denunciation and the defendant.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Han-soo (Presiding Judge)