A. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, 2014Do15377

B. Violation of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment

(c) Violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act;

1. (a) A;

2. A. (c) B

Defendants and Prosecutor

Law Firm (LLC) C

Attorney D, E

Seoul High Court Decision 2014No597 Decided October 31, 2014

April 26, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (excluding the part arising from the F employment) among the instant facts charged against Defendant A.

The Court determined that the case was.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to indirect transactions through conversion into the world and loans among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on credit extension under Article 34(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 38(1) of

3. As to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendants on the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to indirect transactions through purchase of commercial papers and loan among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there was no proof of the relevant crime.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, such determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the proviso of Article 34(2) of the

4. Conclusion

All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Jong-il