logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012.09.28 2012노2648
공직자윤리법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles ① Article 24-2 of the Public Service Ethics Act provides that “When a person subject to disclosure, etc. fails to sell or trust the stocks held by him in violation of the provisions of Article 14-4(1) or 14-6(2) without justifiable grounds, etc., the term “stocks held by him” includes “stocks held by an interested person” in addition to stocks held by the person subject to disclosure of information.

② Furthermore, the term “holding” of the above provision is in fact its meaning and it includes “the exercise of de facto influence on the disposal of the shares, regardless of the ownership of the shares, and the involvement in the decision making process.” As such, the term “holding” of D’s shares 40,000 shares of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant shares”) ought to be deemed as shares owned by the Defendant.

B. In full view of the circumstances leading up to the acquisition of shares in the name of misunderstanding D, the source of funds, the management status of shares, the exercise of voting rights, the process of title trust, etc., the shares in this case are the shares owned or owned by the defendant since the defendant can exercise substantial influence over disposal

2. Determination

A. On the grounds of its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that Article 24-2 of the Public Service Ethics Act only applies to the case where a person, etc. (Defendant) subject to disclosure of his/her own shares does not sell or trust in blank the shares held by him/her, and does not interpret a provision that imposes punishment including the case where the shares held by an interested party (Defendant D) are not sold or trusted in blank, and that the concept of possession does not extend to the case where a person may actually affect his/her voting rights due to a personal friendship relationship, such as marital relationship, without any contractual relationship. Thus, the instant shares cannot be deemed as shares owned by the Defendant.

arrow