Defendant

Kim Dok Kim

Attorney Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The defendant is innocent.

The facts charged are as follows. From April 29, 2003 to January 23, 2005, the defendant served as the head of the planning and coordination office of the Financial Supervisory Service, and from January 24, 2005, the defendant retired on May 23, 2007. However, the above planning and coordination office of the Financial Supervisory Service was an institution that directly supervises competent financial institutions in accordance with the laws and subordinate statutes, such as "inspection of pending issues and measures against financial institutions located in its jurisdiction", and the head of the planning and coordination office of the Financial Supervisory Service is Grade I of the Financial Supervisory Service, and the head of the planning and coordination office of the Financial Supervisory Service is a public official who is unable to work for a non-profit-making private enterprise more than a certain size closely related to the affairs of the department within three years before his retirement without the approval of the competent public service ethics committee. Nevertheless, on November 24, 2004, the defendant complies with the above employment restriction regulations of the Financial Supervisory Service 205.

However, solely on the circumstance that the Defendant’s ○○ support under the control of the Financial Supervisory Service planning and coordination bureau working for the Defendant inspected whether the Defendant complied with the regulations such as internal control of the sales store on the ○○○ branch of △△ Financial Securities Company, it cannot be deemed an enterprise closely related to the business of the department to which the Defendant belonged. Moreover, considering that the Defendant requested the public service ethics committee to verify whether the employment was restricted in accordance with the relevant regulations and was not notified that the employment was restricted prior to the employment, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant perceived that the Defendant was employed

Therefore, the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

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

Judges Choi Byung-hee