Defendant 1 and one other

Freeboard (prosecutions) and Noh Jeong-ho (Trial)

Law Firm Rois et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a year.

A penalty of KRW 90 million from Defendant 1, and KRW 825 million from Defendant 2 shall be additionally collected.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection amount.

Defendant 2, until September 21, 2009, served as the chief director of the school juristic person of Nonindicted 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1”) and Defendant 1, from November 24, 2009, took charge of all the affairs of the juristic person on behalf of the chief director of the said juristic person and preside over all the affairs of the juristic person on behalf of the chief director of the said juristic person. As the chief of the board of directors presides over the resolution procedure on matters concerning the selection of officers and the appointment and dismissal of employees of the facilities installed by the

1. Defendant 2

Defendant 2, along with Nonindicted 5’s spouse Nonindicted 5 (Death on September 10, 201), who was the principal of the ○○ High School, received an illegal solicitation from Defendant 1 to the president of the school foundation around January 29, 2009, in response to the request for election from Defendant 1 to the president of the school foundation around February 19, 2009, KRW 30 million around April 20, 2009, KRW 40 million around May 15, 2009, KRW 30 million around May 10, 2009, KRW 200 million around July 10, 2009, and KRW 1.5 million around September 28, 2009.

2. Evidence of breach of trust by Defendant 1

Defendant 1 made an illegal solicitation requesting Defendant 2, etc. to be elected as president of the school juristic person at the same time and place as in the preceding paragraph, and delivered Defendant 2 a sum of KRW 1.65 million as in the preceding paragraph.

3. Property in breach of trust by Defendant 1

A. On January 11, 2010, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from the president of Nonindicted Corporation 1 in the Gangwon-gu ( Address 1 omitted), Nonindicted Party 6, the principal of the ○○ High School, through the principal of Nonindicted Party 10, who applied for the employment screening of the instant school, to the effect that “Nonindicted Party 10 may be paid as much as Nonindicted Party 2 as Nonindicted Party 2, who would have employed Nonindicted Party 10 as a post office teacher,” and on February 18, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 50,000,000 from Nonindicted Party 2 at the Defendant’s house located in the Defendant’s office located in the Seocheon-gu ( Address 2 omitted) around 18:0, 2010, KRW 50,000,000 from Nonindicted Party 2.

B. On June 2010, the Defendant received an unlawful solicitation from the president of Nonindicted Corporation 1, in the office of Gangwon-gu ( Address 1 omitted), to the effect that Nonindicted Party 1’s mother who applied for the employment screening of employees at the above school △○○○○ High School through Nonindicted Party 3, the Defendant received from Nonindicted Party 7 to the effect that “Nonindicted Party 11 would pay money under the name of the Development Fund if he/she had passed Nonindicted Party 11.” On June 24, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 20 million in total from Nonindicted Party 7 to KRW 40 million from the president of the above office of the board of directors on June 24, 2010.

C. On December 2, 2010, at around 19:30, the Defendant received an illegal solicitation from Nonindicted 4, who was in office as an assistant principal at the time of the Defendant’s house located in Jeju-si ( Address 2 omitted) to appoint the principal of ○○ High School as the principal of ○○ High School, and received cash KRW 20 million in that place.

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Part of the witness’s statement in the second trial record

1. Part of the statements made by Nonindicted 6 and 3 in the third trial records

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 12 in the fourth trial record

1. Part of the statements made by the witness Nonindicted 7 and 2 in the fifth trial records

1. Some statements made by the Defendants in the suspect interrogation protocol of each prosecutor about the Defendants

1. Part of the prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 4, 6, 7, 2, and 3

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 12

1. Some statements made in each police protocol against Nonindicted 4, 7, 2, 6, and 3

1. Police seizure records;

1. Each investigation report (the result of analyzing the attachment of the articles of incorporation of the school foundation of the non-indicted 1 corporation, the attachment of the register of the school foundation non-indicted 1 corporation, the specific results of the funds for the sale of private teaching institutes following the execution of a warrant for search, seizure and verification, the specific amount of the funds for the sale of private teaching institutes according to the result of the analysis of seized articles, the investigation following attachment

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

A. Defendant 1: Article 357(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of receiving property in breach of trust

B. Defendant 2: Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (a)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (Defendant 1);

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Collection of additional dues (the defendants);

According to the latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Code (the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant 2 and the deceased non-indicted 5 are acknowledged to have jointly used the amount of KRW 1.65 million received from the defendant 1 while living together as a couple. As such, if it is impossible for the defendant 2 and the deceased non-indicted 5 to determine the amount received respectively, the amount to be collected from the defendant 2 shall be KRW 825 million (=650 million x 1/2)]

1. Ad hoc payment order:

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The part on acceptance of money and valuables among the Defendants

A. Judgment on Defendant 2’s assertion

1) The assertion

Defendant 2 was in office as the chief director of a nominal non-indicted 1 corporation, and the deceased non-indicted 5 actually exercised his authority as the chief director and carried out business affairs, and entered into a contract with Defendant 1 and the acquisition of the management and operation rights by transfer of the non-indicted 1 corporation. Thus, Defendant 2 did not participate in the process of concluding the above contract or receiving

2) Determination

A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances are recognized:

① From July 11, 1957 to September 21, 2009, Defendant 2 has been serving as a director of Nonindicted Corporation 1, and from January 9 to September 21, 2008 to September 21, 2009, Defendant 2 has served as the chief director.

② Defendant 1 paid the acquisition price of the management and operation right of Nonindicted Corporation 1 in the presence of Nonindicted Party 5 and Defendant 2 at the deceased Non-Indicted Party 5’s house in December 2009.

③ After receiving the transfer proceeds of the management and operation rights of Nonindicted Corporation 1 from Defendant 1, the deceased Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2 prepared a loan certificate with Defendant 2 (300 million won on January 29, 2009, KRW 300 million on February 19, 2009, KRW 400 million on April 20, 2009, KRW 300 million on May 15, 2009, KRW 200 million on July 10, 2009) and delivered it to Defendant 1. The respective loan certificates and receipts were prepared by Defendant 2 or deceased Nonindicted 5. In addition, Defendant 1’s signature and seal in the “transfer and acquisition contract” column prepared in around 209, and Defendant 2’s signature and seal affixed thereon.

④ At the time of concluding a contract for the transfer of the management and operation rights of Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2, the deceased Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2 were economically difficult due to the deceased Nonindicted 5’s hospital expenses, the disbursement of educational expenses for children, etc., and most of the transfer proceeds received from Defendant 1 were used as children’s educational expenses, the deceased Nonindicted 5’s hospital expenses, and the old age living expenses.

B) In full view of the above recognition situation and Defendant 2’s position as the director of Nonindicted Corporation 1 and the chief director of Nonindicted Corporation 1 for about one year and three months for about 50 years, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 2 entered into a contract with Defendant 1 on the transfer of management and operation rights of Nonindicted Corporation 1 and received KRW 1.65 million from Defendant 1 as the transfer price, and Defendant 1 received KRW 1.65 million from Defendant 2 and the transfer price. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant 2 and the defense counsel is without merit.

B. Determination of the Defendants’ assertion

1) Whether Defendant 2’s person handling the affairs of Nonindicted Corporation 1 constitutes Defendant 2

A) The assertion

When Defendant 2 appoints or selects the chief director or the chief director as the body of Nonindicted Corporation 1, it is deemed that the organization of Nonindicted Corporation 1 is in charge of “self-management” for Nonindicted Corporation 1, and it does not deal with the affairs entrusted by Nonindicted Corporation 1.

B) Determination

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in this court, the deceased non-indicted 5, who was in office as a director of the non-indicted 1 corporation from the date of the establishment of the non-indicted 1 corporation until September 10, 201, was in office as the principal of the ○○ High School and exercised the authority to recommend directors, and to appoint executives and employees, and thus, has been operating the non-indicted 1 corporation and the ○○ middle school and the ○○ High School. The directors of the non-indicted 1 corporation are generally appointed to the deceased non-indicted 5 as the deceased non-indicted 5 and the ○○ High School and the ○○ High School. Accordingly, if the deceased non-indicted 5 and the 2nd meeting of the board of directors recommend the defendant 1 as the director and the chief director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, it is natural that Defendant 1 is elected as the director and the chief director of the non-indicted 1 corporation on the recommendation of the deceased non-indicted 5 and the chairman at that time

In addition, according to the articles of incorporation of Nonindicted Corporation 1, the president of Nonindicted Corporation 1 shall represent Nonindicted Corporation 1 and have the authority to exercise overall control over the affairs of Nonindicted Corporation 1, and is the person who has the authority to convene the board of directors in order to deliberate and decide on matters such as appointment and dismissal of executive officers, including the president, rather than the person who is in the position to exercise voting rights at the board of directors, and is in the position of the president of the board of directors called up. In addition, affairs to recommend and elect the next president by the deceased Nonindicted Corporation 5 and Defendant 2 shall represent Nonindicted Corporation 1 in the future and be in the position

(2) In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 is in the position to handle the affairs of Nonindicted Corporation 1 because the affairs recommended and selected by Defendant 2 as the chief director are closely related to the original affairs entrusted by Nonindicted Corporation 1, and thus, Defendant 2 is in the position to handle the affairs of Nonindicted Corporation 1. Therefore, this part of the Defendants and defense counsels

2) Whether the case constitutes an illegal solicitation

A) The assertion

Defendant 1’s request for the election of Defendant 2 and the deceased Nonindicted 5 as president was not made, and even if the solicitation was recognized, Defendant 1’s request for the election of Defendant 2 does not constitute an illegal solicitation because the transfer contract of management and operation rights, which is the Private School Act upon the replacement of president, is valid. As such, Defendant 1’s request for the election of Defendant 2 does not constitute an illegal solicitation.

B) Determination

(1) First, as to the existence of solicitation, Defendant 1 entered into a contract on the management and operation of Nonindicted Corporation 1 and its affiliated school with Defendant 2 and Defendant 5, taking into account the following: (a) the signature and seal of Defendant 1 in the transferee column; and (b) the signature and seal of Defendant 2 in the transferor column; and (c) when the transfer value of the above contract is agreed upon smoothly, the transfer of all rights to the president is included therein (Article 5); and (d) the statement in the investigation agency and the court and investigation agency, Defendant 1 entered into a contract with Defendant 2 and the deceased Nonindicted 5 on the management and operation of Nonindicted Corporation 1 and its affiliated school; and (e) requested Defendant 2 and the deceased Nonindicted 5 to elect himself as the chief director of the Nonindicted Corporation 1. Accordingly, this part of the Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Next, we examine whether the case constitutes an illegal solicitation.

(A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the deceased non-indicted 13 contributed to the property held by the deceased non-indicted 5 as well as the deceased non-indicted 5, and established the non-indicted 1 corporation and the ○○○ middle school and the ○○ high school. The deceased non-indicted 5 was in office as the principal of the ○○ high school for about fifty (50) years since the establishment of the non-indicted 1 corporation, and actually exercised the final decision-making authority as to the overall affairs of the non-indicted 1 corporation, including the power to appoint executives and staff, as the chief director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, and the defendant 2 was in office as the chief director of the non-indicted 1 corporation from the establishment of the non-indicted 1 corporation to September 21, 2009, from January 9, 2008 to September 21, 2009.

The founder of the Private School Act establishes the physical foundation and educational ideology of the school foundation through the contribution of property and the preparation of the articles of incorporation, but there is no legal right to directly participate in the operation of the school foundation and the management of the school after the establishment of the school foundation (the founder may participate in the operation of the school foundation as an executive of the school foundation). Since the founder’s property contributed to the private school foundation is donated for the purpose of education, the founder may not assert any right to the substance related to the property or property (the school foundation or the school). In addition, since the proprietor of the private school or the private school is not the founder of the school, but the school foundation or the school foundation or the board of directors of the school, the transfer of the right to operate the school foundation

However, the transfer of the right to manage and operate a non-indicted 1 corporation and its affiliated school that the deceased non-indicted 5 had exercised as the president or the president by having the deceased non-indicted 5 elected Defendant 1 as the president with Defendant 2 is nothing more than transferring the right to operate a profit-making corporation by transferring the shares owned by the large shareholder of the profit-making corporation, which conflicts with the essence of the non-profit incorporated foundation. In addition, the transfer of the right to manage and operate the above is inconsistent with the purpose of the establishment of the non-indicted 1 corporation, which intends to conduct the middle and high-class general education and the commercial specialized education based on the educational ideology of the Republic of Korea based on its property

(B) In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is recognized that the deceased Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2 used most of the transfer proceeds received from Defendant 1 as educational expenses for children, the deceased Nonindicted 5’s hospital expenses, and the old age living expenses, not for Nonindicted Corporation 1. According to these facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the deceased Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2 transferred the rights to manage and operate the Nonindicted Corporation 1 and their affiliated schools to Defendant 1 in order to recover property contributed to Nonindicted Corporation 1.

(C) As to the motive for acquisition of Nonindicted Corporation 1, Defendant 1 stated to the effect that “a person disposes of any funeral home which is not operated by the investigative agency, and another person acquires the funeral home to carry out the land development project and the educational project.”

However, according to evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, ① Defendant 1 was given a loan of KRW 1.3 billion from a financial institution, KRW 30 million from a branch, KRW 50 million from a third party, and KRW 1.65 million from a transfer of the right to manage and operate Nonindicted Corporation 1 by borrowing KRW 50 million from a third party, and he was unable to obtain a loan again to the extent that he would have received a loan to repay the interest on the loan after he was appointed as the chief executive officer of Nonindicted Corporation 1. ② Under such circumstances, Defendant 1 instructed the principal of ○○○○○○○ High School after he was appointed as the chief executive officer to collect money in return for the employment of teachers. Defendant 1 received KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 2 through Nonindicted 6, 200, KRW 300 from a third party, KRW 270,000 from a third party through Nonindicted 3, and KRW 1.4 million from a school to a third party.

In light of the above circumstances and the fact that it is difficult to obtain the management and operation rights of Nonindicted Corporation 1 by simply borrowing a large amount of KRW 1.65 million solely with the aforementioned motive, Defendant 1, who operated the Samsung Electronic Agency, the funeral home operation, and the pentae-lease leasing business, could not engage in a profit-making business as a non-profit corporation, and even if he assumed office as the president of Nonindicted Corporation 1, could not receive remuneration. Considering that it is difficult for Defendant 1 to obtain the management and operation rights of Nonindicted Corporation 1 by taking over the management and operation rights of Nonindicted Corporation 1 and taking office as the president of Nonindicted Corporation 1, he would have been trying to acquire financial profits by exercising the right to appoint teachers and staff other than the right to appoint teachers and

(D) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the deceased non-indicted 5 and Defendant 2 received the management and operation right of non-indicted 1 from Defendant 1 in cash or check, and instead of preparing a receipt or receipt certificate in relation to the receipt of the transfer price, Defendant 2 prepared a loan certificate (30 million won on January 29, 2009, KRW 300 million on February 19, 2009, KRW 40 million on April 20, 2009, KRW 300 million on May 15, 2009, KRW 300 million on May 15, 2009), and delivered it to Defendant 1.

(E) In full view of all the circumstances acknowledged as above, Defendant 1’s solicitation for Defendant 5 and Defendant 2 to elect himself as the president is against the social rules and the principle of good faith as a procedure for acquiring the right to manage and operate Nonindicted Corporation 1’s corporation. Accordingly, this part of the Defendants and defense counsels’ assertion is without merit.

2. The part on acceptance of money and valuables between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2

A. The assertion

Defendant 1 received KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 2, but did not first intervene in the employment of a teacher or demand the money in advance, and received the said money after Nonindicted 10 was employed as a teacher. Thus, Defendant 1 did not receive money from Nonindicted 2 in return for an illegal solicitation.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, Defendant 1 may fully recognize through Nonindicted 6 that Defendant 1 received money from Nonindicted 2 for solicitation that goes against social rules or the principle of good faith. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and defense counsel’s assertion is without merit.

1) The regular teachers of ○○○ Middle School are appointed through the primary document examination and the secondary examination, but the final decision-making authority on appointment was made on Defendant 1, the chief executive officer of Nonindicted Corporation 1.

2) From September 1, 2008 to February 28, 2010, Nonindicted 6 worked as a visiting school at ○○○ middle school. Nonindicted 2 was appointed as a sports teacher on March 1, 1981 and continued to work at △△△△ middle school located in Gangwon-gun, and Nonindicted 2’s father and descendant 10 worked as the ○○○ middle school fixed-term teacher from September 1, 2007, and was appointed as the ○○○○○ middle school fixed-term teacher on March 2, 2010. Meanwhile, from around March 3, 1983, Nonindicted 2 had a pro rata with Nonindicted 6 who had worked as ○○○ school teacher on a nearby school, and Nonindicted 2 changed his work as ○○○ middle school for a few times to Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 10 for a certain period.

3) Nonindicted 6 heard the horses from Nonindicted 2 to the effect that “If Nonindicted 10 is employed as a school teacher, Nonindicted 6 may pay KRW 30 million under the name of the school development fund,” and reported this to Defendant 1. Accordingly, Defendant 1 instructed Nonindicted 6 to receive KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 2. Thereafter, Nonindicted 2 instructed Nonindicted 6 to pay KRW 50 million on February 2010, Nonindicted 2 paid the horses that Nonindicted 6 should pay from Nonindicted 6. Nonindicted 2 paid KRW 50 million to Defendant 1’s house. Nonindicted 2 paid KRW 50 million in cash on February 6, 2010, which was before Nonindicted 10 was appointed as a school teacher.

4) On December 14, 200, Defendant 1’s pocket book (No. 681,781 of the Investigation Records) stated that “(209 was omitted)’s students were born by Nonindicted Party 6’s parents upon their request, and Nonindicted Party 6’s children were well aware of his father’s relationship with Nonindicted Party 4’s vice-principal,” “ until December 31, 200,” “(209 omitted) 3,03,00 art teachers were employed,” and “Nonindicted Party 6 was employed by Nonindicted Party 6’s request by the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the government of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch.

3. The portion of money and valuables received between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 7

A. The assertion

Defendant 1 received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 7, but did not first intervene in the employment of the teaching staff or demand the money in advance, and Nonindicted 11 received the said money after being employed as the teaching staff. Thus, Defendant 1 did not receive the money in return for an illegal solicitation from Nonindicted 7.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, Defendant 1 can sufficiently be recognized through Nonindicted 3 to have received money in return for a solicitation that goes against social rules or the principle of good faith and good faith. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and the defense counsel’s assertion is without merit.

1) An employee of ○○○○ High School is appointed through the primary and secondary interview, but the final decision-making authority on appointment was made on Defendant 1, the chief executive officer of Nonindicted Corporation 1, who is the chief executive officer of Nonindicted Corporation 1.

2) On May 1, 1973, Nonindicted 3 was employed as an employee, and worked at the school belonging to Nonindicted Corporation 1. From around 1999 to June 30, 201, Nonindicted 3 was employed as the head of △○○ high school as an educational administrative officer in 1972. Since Nonindicted 7 was appointed as a public official in 1972, Nonindicted 7 was working in the △△ High School established by Nonindicted Corporation 15, the Private School Act, and since 1999, Nonindicted 7’s work as the head of the ▽▽△△△△ in the above school, and is in charge of overall administrative affairs, such as the school’s budget and accounting. Nonindicted 11 was employed as a school’s employee. Meanwhile, Nonindicted 7’s wife passed passed the recruitment of ○○○ High School as an employee on June 21, 2010 and was appointed as an employee on July 1, 2010. Meanwhile, Nonindicted 3 was holding Nonindicted Party 3’s meeting in England around 199.

3) Prior to Nonindicted 3’s announcement of Nonindicted 7’s application for Nonindicted 11 before Nonindicted 7’s application, Nonindicted 3 made a phone call to Nonindicted 7 to confirm whether he/she applied for Nonindicted 11, with the knowledge of Nonindicted 11’s application before the date of Nonindicted 3’s announcement of Nonindicted 7’s application for an official recruitment of ○○○○○○ High School △△△△○○○○○○○○ and an investigative agency (on June 16, 2010). After Nonindicted 11’s announcement on June 21, 2010, Defendant 1 instructed Nonindicted 7 (Nonindicted 11) to ask him/her whether he/she can pay KRW 30 million out of the school development fund, and to deliver such instructions to Nonindicted 7.”

4) On the day following the date Nonindicted 11 passed from the investigative agency to this court, Nonindicted 7 received a call from Nonindicted 3 to determine whether to pay KRW 20 million as the school development fund, and stated that, for the purpose of the development of the school, “Nonindicted 11 is a school where the school will work, and the school is financially difficult,” Nonindicted 7 stated that Defendant 1 paid KRW 20 million to Defendant 1 as the school development fund. However, Nonindicted 7’s annual average income is KRW 60 million, and Nonindicted 11’s annual average income is KRW 30 million as the administrative staff of the private school, and Nonindicted 7 merely paid KRW 20 million as the school development fund, which is a significant amount in light of the income level of himself or Nonindicted 11.

5) In addition, since Nonindicted 7 worked as an employee of a private school for more than 40 years, it was well aware that Nonindicted 1 corporation should receive a receipt of KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 1 in order to benefit from the accounting procedure for the school development fund (a separate Do development fund account, etc.) and income deduction. However, Nonindicted 7 did not request Nonindicted 3 to issue a receipt of KRW 20 million on June 24, 2010, which was not based on the accounting procedure for the school development fund on June 24, 2010, before the full-time appointment of Nonindicted 11 as an administrative employee, but rather based on the accounting procedure for the school development fund, and sent it in cash to Defendant 1 at the president of Nonindicted 1 corporation office. After that, Nonindicted 7 did not confirm whether the above KRW 20 million was treated as the school development fund, and did not request Nonindicted 3 to issue a receipt of KRW 20 million.

3. The portion of money and valuables received between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 4

A. The assertion

Defendant 1 was paid KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 4, but the above KRW 20 million was borrowed from Nonindicted 4 three times each time from Nonindicted 4 to KRW 60 million and repaid KRW 40 million. As such, Defendant 1 did not receive money in exchange for an illegal solicitation from Nonindicted 4.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above 20 million won is not a loan, but a loan is made to Defendant 1, who was appointed as the principal of ○○○ Middle School, by Nonindicted 4, who had the final authority to make a decision on appointment, made an implied solicitation for appointment as the principal of ○○○ Middle School, and the above solicitation is contrary to social rules and the principle of good faith. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and defense counsel’s arguments are without merit.

1) The principal of the ○○○ Middle School is appointed by the chief director following the resolution of the board of directors of Nonindicted Corporation 1. Therefore, the final decision on appointment is made against Defendant 1, who is the chief director of Nonindicted Corporation 1.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Nonindicted 4 and 16’s wife are acknowledged to have leased KRW 20 million to Defendant 1 and his wife, and KRW 20 million on December 5, 2011. Each of the above amounts was paid by account transfer (it was transferred from Nonindicted 4’s account to Defendant 8’s wife from Defendant 16 to Defendant 1’s account), and Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 8 received KRW 40 million on November 2, 2011 for repayment of each of the above loans. However, Defendant 1 did not receive KRW 20 million on June 11, 201 and KRW 40 million on the grounds that each of the above loans was received before the loan was received. Defendant 20 million on December 21, 201, asserting that Defendant 1 had not been charged with the above loans and KRW 40 million on December 24, 2012.

3) As to the circumstances in which Nonindicted 4 and Defendant 1’s house incheon directly found with the wife Nonindicted 16 and paid KRW 20 million in cash, Nonindicted 4 made a statement to the police that “it was friendship with Defendant 1, who frequently met with the husband and wife, but Defendant 1 lent money upon Defendant 1’s request,” and that “it was difficult for Defendant 1 to ask Defendant 1 to ask for the payment of money.” However, the prosecutor made a statement to the effect that “it was lent in cash due to Defendant 1’s difficulty in questioning with the husband and wife.” However, the prosecutor made a statement to the contrary that “it was difficult to think that the account number was remitted through a passbook, and it was directly obtained due to Defendant 1’s upper end.”

4) As to the circumstances in which Nonindicted 4 was unable to receive the above KRW 20 million, Nonindicted 4 made a statement to the police that he did not receive the payment of money from the police. He did not receive the payment of money until now, and that he did not receive the payment of money from the branch. However, the prosecutor made a statement to the effect that “I would not pay the money to the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the local government.”

5) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 received KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 2 in return for the employment of Nonindicted 10 as a teacher, and Nonindicted 11 received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 7 in return for the employment of Nonindicted 10 as an employee, and then written “Nonindicted 105,00 art workers and Nonindicted 112,000 in one’s pocket book” as “Nonindicted 105,000 art workers and Nonindicted 112,000 in one’s pocket book” (Article 682, 782 of the Investigation Records). However, Defendant 1 also written “12/2,00 in two assistant principals of Nonindicted 4” (Articles 682, 782 of the Investigation Records).

6) On December 2, 2010, Nonindicted 4 delivered KRW 20 million to the Defendant, and on March 1, 2011, Nonindicted 4 was appointed as the principal of ○○○ Middle School.

The purpose of private schools is to ensure that both the national and public schools and the founding entities are in charge of the same public education as those of national and public schools. The purpose of educational activities conducted at private schools is to ensure the achievement of individual achievement by students who will be in the future, and to grow up and develop in order to possess quality, ability, knowledge, and human resources as the leading station of the future society. Due to the character of such private schools and the public nature and public interest of educational activities conducted at such private schools, it is necessary to establish and operate a school juristic person, the president, executive officers, employees, and teachers and staff members, and to conduct educational activities in good, sound, sound, high level, and morality.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s act, as the chief director of Nonindicted Corporation 1, committed a large amount of KRW 1.65 million with the deceased Nonindicted Corporation 5, and Defendant 1 transferred the right to manage and operate Nonindicted Corporation 1, 00, 000 and intended to recover property contributed to Nonindicted Corporation 1 after Defendant 2 transferred the right to manage and operate ○○ Middle School and ○○ High School, ○○○ High School and ○○ High School, is an act of seriously damaging

In addition, as in the instant case, if the founder of a school grants the right to manage and operate the school foundation and the private school in return for the return of the donated property after the establishment of the private school by contributing the property to the school foundation, the founder or the transferee of the right to manage and operate the school foundation or the right to manage and operate the invested property or the right to manage and operate the private school only through a blood proposal to collect the proceeds of the transfer of the invested property or the right to manage and operate the property without any limit to the purpose of the establishment of educational activities, and the damage therefrom will

In addition, Defendant 1 received a large amount of money and valuables worth KRW 90,000 in return for the employment and promotion of the principal of the teachers and staff, which is essentially prejudicial to the fairness and transparency of the employment process of private school teachers and staff and seriously prejudicial to the social trust in the employment process of the teachers and staff.

Therefore, Defendants cannot be exempted from the punishment corresponding thereto due to extremely poor nature of the crime. However, considering the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment against the Defendants, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all of the sentencing factors in the trial process of the instant case, such as the following:

Judges Shin Young-chul