Defendant 1 and five others

Jeon Ho-cheon

Attorney Park Sung-chul et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for six years, by imprisonment for one year and six months, by imprisonment for defendant 4, by imprisonment for two years and six months, by imprisonment for six months, by imprisonment for six months and by imprisonment for five years, respectively.

The number of detention days prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be 231 days per defendant 1, and 181 days shall be included in the above punishment against defendant 4.

However, the execution of each sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, for one year for Defendant 6, for Defendant 5, and for two years for Defendant 5.

Of the facts charged in this case, there is a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the manipulation of stock prices of the stock company (name omitted), a violation of the obligation to report stocks held in bulk, and a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act against Defendant 2, a violation of the Commercial Act, a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act against Defendant 4, a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), a violation of the Act on the Control of Illegal Check, such as a violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), a violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Of the facts charged in this case, the prosecution against Defendant 1 on the violation of the Labor Standards Act against Nonindicted 25, 26, 27, and 28, and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the number of tax invoices, such as the attached Table 15, 16, and the attached Table 15, and 16, and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against Defendant 1, 2, and 4 at par value of KRW 600,000,000 and face value of KRW 2,50,000 shall be dismissed.

Defendant 1 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and a fine of 5 million won at the Seoul District Court on February 27, 1996 and completed the execution of the sentence on April 16, 199, and was the chairperson of the non-indicted 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "non-indicted 1 corporation") who was a listed corporation of the Korea Stock Exchange operating the business of manufacturing and selling motor vehicle parts, and Defendant 2 was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of the sentence for 2 months at the Suwon District Court on December 28, 2004 and the above judgment on January 5, 2005 became final and conclusive from March 21, 200 to June 9, 2003 and from November 29 to March 11, 2003 to June 3, 200, the representative director of the Korea Non-indicted 1 corporation, who was the representative director of the Korea Stock Exchange on March 20, 2003 to March 11, 2004.

1. A. Defendant 1 and 4 conspired with the co-defendant 4 (hereinafter “non-indicted 4”) and the co-defendant 13 (hereinafter “non-indicted 13”) prior to the separation of the pleadings that were the outside directors of the non-indicted 1 company before the separation of the pleadings that were the auditor of the non-indicted 1 company;

around March 2003, in providing capital increase equivalent to KRW 6,189,997,00 (hereinafter “first capital increase”) with a third party allocation method, for KRW 5,99,99,500 among them, Nonindicted Company 1’s KRW 6,189,97,00 (hereinafter “first capital increase”), the fact is that the fund was deposited in a separate zone for capital increase and then the fund was withdrawn immediately after the registration of capital increase was made, and there was no intention or purpose to procure the fund, notwithstanding the fact that there was no intention or purpose to obtain the fund increase

around March 25, 2003, the Financial Supervisory Commission made a false entry into the securities registration statement stating that “The class and number (1,125,454 shares in registered ordinary shares), the issue value of new shares (5,500 won), the fund for the purpose of raising funds, 6,154,97,000 won, and other 35,00,000 won,” with respect to material facts in the securities registration statement;

B. Defendant 1 and 4 in collusion with Nonindicted 4, 13, and 14:

(1) On April 11, 2003, when offering the first capital increase, Nonindicted Co. 1’s KRW 5,99,99,50 among them, deposited the funds of KRW 2.880,000,000,000 and KRW 300,000,000 from Nonindicted Co. 14 to the payment account of Nonindicted Co. 1’s share capital opened at the upper Dong branch of the NAF at once, and the said bank’s completion of the capital increase by obtaining a certificate of deposit of share capital from the said bank on April 14, 203 and by returning it to Nonindicted Co. 14; and

(2) On the same day, in the above temporary light, the Suwon District Court, as mentioned above, made a constructive payment of KRW 5,99,99,500 of the share capital of Nonindicted Company 1 to KRW 6,189,97,00,000, and upon the increase of KRW 34,545 and 189,97,50,00, the total amount of the shares and capital of Nonindicted Company 1, the above registered public official shall submit documents necessary for the registration of capital increase, such as the "certificate of capital increase", to the registered official who is unaware of the fact, and shall make the above registered official enter false facts in the above commercial register, which is the original copy of the notarial deed, by having the above registered official keep the above commercial register, stating the false facts as above, at the same time.

C. Defendant 1 and 4 conspired:

The purpose of this Act is to induce another person to trade, even though no person intentionally makes a false representation on important facts in the sale and purchase of the securities concerned with the intention of inducing anyone to trade such securities market,

On May 13, 2003, through the electronic disclosure system of the Financial Supervisory Service, the Governor made a false representation as to the material facts by publicly announcing the false fact to the effect that “Notwithstanding the fact that an investment of KRW 1.5 billion was made in the Agregator, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Agregator”) which is an electrical automobile-related company, the Agregator, i.e., the Agregator, i., the Agregator manufacturer, i.e.

D. In collusion with Non-Indicted 9 (hereinafter “Non-Indicted 9”) joint Defendant 1, who was the representative director of Non-Indicted 1 Company, before separation of pleadings, Defendant 1 conspireds with the non-Indicted

No person may spread false facts with a view to obtaining unjust profits in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of securities, with the intention to prevent the opposite trade of the shares of Nonindicted Party 1 that Defendant 1 offered to another person as security or to increase the market price of the shares of Nonindicted Party 1 held by Defendant 1;

On May 20, 2003, notwithstanding the absence of the intent or ability to manufacture the electric motor vehicle as the company’s facilities or capital, etc., the following facts are disseminated by intentionally inserting false facts by inserting an advertisement to the same effect eight times as shown in the annexed Table 1, from that time, from that time to June 20, 203, including a false advertisement stating that “the manufacture and marketing of the electric motor vehicle for eight months” was inserted in the newspaper (name omitted).

E. Defendant 1 and 4 conspired:

D. roads as referred to in subsection (d) above;

Around July 28, 2003, although the facts did not create conditions for operating the container business for the first time in high seas with the extractions of maizes, (i) published an advertisement to the effect that “the container business for the first time in high seas” is “the business with an extractions of maizes” in the newspaper, and (ii) published an advertisement to the same effect six times from that time until August 5, 2003, as shown in [Attachment 2] list of crimes, the advertisement intentionally disseminates false facts;

F. Defendant 1 and 4 in collusion with Nonindicted 9, 4, and 13:

around July 2003, Nonindicted Company 1 offered capital increase in an amount equivalent to KRW 9,99,99,660 (hereinafter “second capital increase”) by method of allocating a third party from Nonindicted Company 1 (hereinafter “second capital increase”) and there is no intention or purpose to raise funds, such as the foregoing (A).

around July 23, 2003, the Financial Supervisory Commission submitted the securities registration statement with the second capital increase, stating that “The class and number of new shares (10,309,278 shares in registered ordinary shares), the issue value of new shares (970 won), the fund for the purpose of financing 3,500,000,000,000 operating funds, 6,464,99,660 won, and other 35,000,000 won” is false as to material matters in the securities registration statement;

G. Defendant 1 and 4 conspired with Nonindicted 9, 4, 13, and 14:

(1) Around July 31, 2003, when offering second capital increase, Nonindicted 14 and other company’s funds were deposited into the account for payment of Nonindicted Company 1’s stock price established at the upper Dong branch of the NAF at once, and the said bank received a certificate of payment of stock price from the above bank and completed the registration of capital increase, and subsequently withdrawn the total amount and returned the shares to Nonindicted 14 and others.

(2) Notwithstanding the absence of any change in the number of shares and the total amount of capital by making the best payment of the share capital of Nonindicted Company 1 at the above temporary border and the Suwon District Court’s Ansan registry, the said fact of mistake shall be entered in the said commercial registry, which is the original copy of the authentic deed, and such fact shall be entered in the authentic deed, and the said registry shall be kept in the commercial registry stating the false fact shall be

H. Defendant 1 and 4 in collusion with Nonindicted 9 and 4:

around October 2003, Nonindicted Company 1 offered capital increase equivalent to 18 billion won (hereinafter “third-party capital increase”) by means of a third party allotment from Nonindicted Company 1 (hereinafter “third-party capital increase”). Notwithstanding the absence of the intent or purpose of funding as set forth in the foregoing A, the said paragraph does not have any intention or purpose.

around October 13, 2003, the Financial Supervisory Commission made a false statement as to the material facts in the securities registration statement stating that “The type and number of new shares (registered common shares 36,00,000 shares), the issue value of new shares (500 won per share), the facility fund for the purpose of raising funds, the operating fund of KRW 16 billion, the KRW 189,000,000,000,000 won, and other KRW 11,00,000,000,000,000 won per share)”

I. Defendant 1 and 4 conspireds with Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 29, 30, 31, and 32, who are the bonds company, in sequence:

On October 22, 2003, the Suwon District Court's Ansan registry office intended to make the disguised payment of the share capital as above, and in fact, the public official in the name-unregistered is required to submit documents necessary for the registration of capital increase with respect to the registration of capital increase, such as a certificate of the custody of the share capital, to the public official in charge of the above registration, and on the same day, make the public official in charge of the above registration enter false facts on the total number of issued shares and the total amount of capital of the above non-indicted 1, into the commercial register, which is the original notarial deed, and at the same time, exercises the right to have the public official in charge keep the commercial register stating such false facts

(j) Defendant 1:

In order to provide capital increase in the manner of the best payment, in order to prevent the decline in the stock price caused by the sale of stocks of Nonindicted Co. 10 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 10”) and Nonindicted Co. 1, which were managed by Nonindicted Co. 11 before the separation of stocks or pleadings issued through the capital increase, etc., Defendant 1 made a false public announcement of large-scale supply contract with Defendant 4, and Nonindicted Co. 10 made a request through Nonindicted Co. 12 to dispose of stocks of Nonindicted Co. 1 and to support the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1 through Nonindicted Co. 12, and Nonindicted Co. 11 (the written indictment appears to be a clerical error, but it appears to be a clerical error) in sequence with Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 10, etc. to sell high-priced stocks through the accounts managed by Nonindicted Co. 1, 10, etc., and to sell them from October 20 to 130, 203, and 308.

(i)to attract sale on the securities market;

(A) On October 27, 2003, at the office of Nonindicted Company 1 located in Ansan-si (detailed address omitted), the Financial Supervisory Service made a false representation as to material facts in the sale of securities by publicly announcing the conclusion of a false supply contract with the content that, notwithstanding the fact that the contract for the motor vehicle parts was not entered into with the non-SS Korea at the time, the supply quantity of 8,00 and the contract amount of 12 billion won (amended to KRW 1.2 billion after the job) was entered into; and

(B) On October 27, 2003: 14:56:29, at the time of the cross-defluence in the name of the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the immediately preceding contract was concluded with the account in the name of the Red Turkey of Hyundai Securities, which was managed by Nonindicted 10, and 25 won with the highest of 70 won compared to the counter-party 16:5,000 shares of Nonindicted 1, and all of the orders issued for purchase of Nonindicted 1’s shares from 12:59:56 to 28 October 2003 on the same day, as shown in the list of crimes of Attached 3, all of which were eight times in the same manner as shown in the list of crimes of Attached 3, 203, the immediately preceding contract of 2,46,000 and the counter-party purchase orders are made to mislead or change the market price, as the trading price of each securities was made.

(C) On October 24, 200, at the same place as 11:47:00 on October 24, 2003, in order to create the appearance of the purchase tax superior advantage without the intention to purchase with the bank account in the name of Hong Turkey managed by Nonindicted 10, the immediately preceding contract was ordered to purchase KRW 20,000 of the shares of Nonindicted 1 and KRW 540 of the other 20,000, compared to the lower 20, compared to the lower 20, as shown in the separate sheet of crimes No. 4, from October 28, 2003, all orders to purchase 4,480,000 shares in the same way as shown in the separate sheet of crimes No. 4, the sale and purchase transactions of each securities take place, or cause a change in the market price, as it misleads the fact that the sale and purchase transactions of each securities were sexually active, or there is a change in the market price;

(2) The purpose of misunderstanding that the trading of Nonindicted Company 1’s stocks is booming or allowing another person to make a wrong judgment.

(A) On October 27, 2003: (a) orders for purchase of 100,000 shares from the account under the name of Non-Indicted 11 in the school guarantee right managed by Non-Indicted 9:19:56 Non-Indicted 10 on October 27, 2003; (b) orders for purchase of 10,000 shares for the same price as 9:23:22 on the same day; and (c) orders for sale of 4,000 shares for the same price were issued at the same price; and (d) from that date to 14:11:43 on the same day all as shown in the attached Table 5 List of Crimes No. 120,720 shares were entered into by the same method on the same 19 occasions; and (d) make a fictitious transaction that does not aim

(B) On October 27, 2003: (a) Nonindicted 11:44:23:23, and Defendant 1 issued an order to sell 550,000 shares of 30,000 won with an account in the name of the Hyundai Securities Rorse, a calculating entity; (b) Nonindicted 11:44:28 on the same day, Nonindicted 10 was managed; and (c) he received an order to purchase 191,850 shares at the same price in the name of Hong Turkey, a calculating entity, for the same price; and (d) thereafter, the full amount of 191,850 shares was concluded at the same price from that time until October 28, 2003; and (e) was conspired in advance by having all 79 shares of 4,016,610 shares in the same manner as indicated in attached Table 6 daily table;

2. Defendant 1:

The actual manager who employed 24 full-time workers and operated the manufacturing company of Nonindicted Co. 33 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 33”) in Goyang-si (detailed address omitted);

The retirement allowance of 20,094,150 won of non-indicted 34 employed by the above company from March 30, 1992 to March 28, 2002, was not paid within 14 days from the date on which the cause for payment occurred without any agreement on extension of the due date between the parties concerned, and the total amount of 156,364,90 won of the retirement allowance of 19 workers as stated in the annexed Table 7, as stated in the annexed Table 7, shall not be paid within 14 days from the date on which each cause for payment occurred without any agreement on extension of the due date between the parties concerned;

3. On January 2004, when the Financial Supervisory Service filed a complaint with the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office for a charge of violating the Securities and Exchange Act, it tried to escape from China to be exempted from punishment, but it was already prohibited from departing from Korea due to the prohibition of departure, it was forged by lending the resident registration certificate of Nonindicted 35, who is a private village resident, and obtained a passport in the name of Nonindicted 35 using it, and decided to depart from Korea abroad;

A. In collusion with Nonindicted 36:

On January 2004, Defendant 1 lent Nonindicted 35’s resident registration certificate to Nonindicted 36, which was lent by Defendant 1, for the purpose of exercising at the white village bank located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul. Nonindicted 36 deleted Nonindicted 35’s photograph printed on the above resident registration certificate in an irregular manner at the location of the bits of the date on January 2004, and printed Defendant 1’s photograph and forged one copy of the resident registration certificate issued by Hongcheon-do, Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon-do, a public document;

B. In collusion with Nonindicted 37:

Around 10:00 on February 3, 200, 200, 2. 10:00 Eul-ro, Seoul Jung-gu, 101-15, and Nonindicted 37, who was asked by Defendant 1 to obtain a passport using the above forged resident registration certificates, shall enter the personal information of Nonindicted 35 on the paper of the passport application form kept there, and in the photograph column, he shall prepare a passport application stating false facts with Defendant 1’s photograph attached thereto, and shall submit it to the Jongno-gu Office passport and the above travel agency for the purpose of allowing the public official in charge to enter false facts in the passport of Nonindicted 35. However, around 10:00 on February 5, 2004, it is not known that the photograph of the application form was different from that of Nonindicted 35, whose resident registration card was entered in the file, and it is not attempted.

C. In collusion with Nonindicted 36 and Nonindicted 37:

(a) exercise, at the same time and at the same place, a forged resident registration certificate, as described in paragraph (a) above, by presenting the above resident registration certificate to the Youngran as if it were true;

4. A. Defendant 1, 4, 2, and 3 conspireds with Defendant 3 to use the shares of Non-Indicted 5 Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “Non-Indicted 5”) located in China, in order for Defendant 3 to receive personal claims against Defendant 1, to transfer the shares of Non-Indicted 5 Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “Non-Indicted 5”) to himself, and Defendant 1, 4, and 2 to use the shares, etc. for Defendant 1’s personal repayment of the obligation.

around April 23, 2003, at the location of the Non-Indicted Party 1 located in Ansan-si (name omitted), Defendant 1, 4, and 2 violated their duties despite the fact that a person who has been operating a non-Indicted Party 1 and who has maintained and managed the company’s property and was not allowed to transfer the company’s property to a third party for personal repayment of the company’s obligation, and in violation of his duties, Non-Indicted Party 1’s equity and claim amounting to KRW 1,310,00,000 against Non-Indicted Party 5, including the shares in Non-Indicted Party 5 (52.8%) in Non-Indicted Party 1’s ownership in Non-Indicted Party 1’s non-Indicted Party 5 (52.8%) and then arbitrarily transferred to Defendant 3 for personal repayment of obligation to Defendant 1.

B. Defendant 1:

For the purpose of inducing transactions on the securities market;

As a listed corporation of the Stock Exchange, with respect to the restructuring of the Gyeonggi Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “KGK”), which was in the process of company reorganization as a listed corporation of the Stock Exchange, the company is changed to “KGKK Co., Ltd.”; hereinafter “KGK”), the three-day representative director’s new shares will be changed to the third party’s new shares issued through the IGK KGK’s KGK’s shares issued through the above new shares issued on April 22, 2003; the 20 million won from the KGK’s new shares issued through the above new shares issued by Nonindicted 18; the 13.4 billion won from the date of the above change to the 13.4 billion won from the date of the new shares issued by Nonindicted 2; the 13.5 billion won from the old KGK’s new shares issued on August 30, 2003; and the 201.

From 08:00 to 09:00 on September 1, 2003, at the same time as the date of the listing of new shares, at the same price equivalent to 1.4 billion won, such as bond funds, etc., 13 administrative accounts, such as Nonindicted 38 of the mobilization securities alternate branch offices, such as Nonindicted 38, etc. in the attached Table 8, in order to place an order to purchase high price of 3,300,520 won per share with an amount equivalent to 60% higher than 2,05 won per share of 3,307,200 won per share with a total of 407,200 shares traded and the base price of 09:0,000 won per share, thereby causing a change in the market price; and

5. Defendant 1:

Although the payment date of promissory notes and check bills issued under the name of the payment of goods, acceptance price of the company, technology development expenses, etc. from Nonindicted Company 1, it is difficult to settle the shortage of funds, the said promissory notes and check bills were forged at the financial institution’s prior report to the effect that the above promissory notes and check bills were forged. The receipt certificate of the complaint filed against the person who forged the above per unit number, etc. within 15 days after the report was submitted to the above financial institution. Thus, if the receipt certificate of the complaint filed against the above person who forged the above per unit number within 15 days after the report was submitted to the above financial institution, the above per unit number is insolvent. Thus, the above person who received the above per unit number, etc.

A. In collusion with Defendant 4, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 39, a director in charge of finance of Nonindicted Company 1, in collusion:

Notwithstanding the fact that around September 1, 203, non-indicted 40 is required to enter the above 20,000,000 won per 30,000,000 won per 20,000 won per 30,000,000 won per 20,000,000 won per 30,000,000 won per 30,000,000 won per 6,000,00 won per 9,000,000 won per 20,000,000 won per 30,000,000 won per 6,00,000 won per 9,000,000 won per 6,000,000 won per 9,000,000 won per 20,000 won per 30,000,00 won per 6,05,000 won per 20,000.

B. In collusion with Defendant 4 or Nonindicted 39:

around November 25, 2003, the fact that the defendant 1 delivered to the regular members of the Korean Bank without a name-free bank located in Jung-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of avoiding the present amount of the check, a false report is filed with the financial institution by submitting an accident report to the effect that the refusal of the present amount of the check would be different from the present amount of the check, and that the number of the check was forged or altered with the defendant 1, despite the fact that the defendant 1 delivered to the regular members of the Korean Bank without a name-free bank (the representative director of the non-indicted 1 Company 9, the representative director of the non-indicted 1, the check number of the non-indicted 9, the issue date of the non-indicted 26981, November 24, 2003).

C. In collusion with Defendant 4, Nonindicted 39, and Defendant 2:

(1) At the office of Nonindicted Party 1 on December 2003, Nonindicted Party 41, the head of the finance team, had Nonindicted Party 41, the head of the finance team, enter par value 372,00,000 foot Promissory Notes (the representative director of Nonindicted Party 1, the representative director of Nonindicted Party 9, and the serial number of the note number 073210, the date of issuance on August 20, 2003, and the date of payment on December 18, 2003), Defendant 1, together with Defendant 4, paid the acquisition price to the employees of the Defendant 1, who purchased them. However, for the purpose of having the Defendant subject to criminal punishment, the Defendant Nonparty 1, the head of the finance team, stated that “The Defendant 1 conspired to do so and did not obtain permission from the complainant, and submitted it to the public service center, stating that it was forged and issued in the column 300,000,000,000 won, respectively, and 2037.

(2) On December 2, 2003, the fact that Non-Indicted 41 was ordered to take the office of Non-Indicted 1, 200,231,000 foot promissory notes (non-Indicted 9’s representative director, non-indicted 1’s representative director, non-indicted 9’s note number, and the issue date September 2, 2003, and December 15, 2003) were delivered by Defendant 1 together with Defendant 4 for the cost of goods development. However, for the purpose of having a criminal punishment against Lee Jae-de, the defendant filed a complaint with the employees of this case without the consent of the complainant, with the intention of having the victim take the punishment against him, “The defendant issued a promissory notes with the face value of KRW 160,231,00,000 at face value, and submitted them to the public service center and presented it to him about 20,000,0000 to the new bank and made it false to use the promissory notes at the public service center on December 15, 20.”

(3) On December 24, 2003, as described in the above sub-paragraph (b) above, Nonindicted 41 made a false statement to the effect that “The defendant shall not obtain the consent of the complainant, and on November 24, 2003, the defendant shall make an employee of the public service center 01326981,00,000 won per face value 650,000,000 won per face value (the representative director of Nonindicted 1 Company, Nonindicted 9, and each check number 01326981, the date of issuance, and November 24, 2003) shall be subject to criminal punishment, and the defendant shall submit the false statement to the public service center 65,00,000 won per face value per check number, and shall be forged, and shall be presented to the public service center 30,000,000 won per face value per check number, and shall be presented to the public service center 650,000,000 won per real number of shares per bank.”

(4) On December 2003, in the office of Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 41, the fact that the Defendant had Nonindicted Party 41 enter the face value of KRW 1,063,717,246 in the office of Nonindicted Party 1, and the fact that the promissory note (the representative director of Nonindicted Party 1 Company 9, the representative director of Nonindicted Party 1 Company 9, and the serial number of the promissory note number of KRW 012597, November 17, 2003, and the date of issuance on November 18, 2003) was delivered as a collateral while borrowing money from more than 100,000,000 won, for the purpose of having the Defendant punished, the Defendant submitted a false statement to the public service center stating that “The amount of the promissory note is to be issued at KRW 1,063,717,246,000,000 to KRW 30,000,000,000).”

6. A. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired, Defendant 2, from June 3, 2003, opened the Korea Light Bank Doz points and the next department store representative director, and made check transactions in the name of Defendant 2.

around June 7, 2003, at the office of Ysan-si department store located in Ysan-si; Defendant 2 stated the check number 005261; Defendant 1 stated a copy of the check number per each check number; Defendant 1 stated 005261; Defendant 1 issued a check number per unit of the above bank in blank; Defendant 1 issued a check number per unit of the above bank in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul; Defendant 2 issued a check in blank as a security for debt against Defendant 5; on November 23, 2003, the above check number per unit was 829,50,000,000, and the date of issuance on December 23, 2003 (in case of a bill, it appears to be a clerical error; it appears to be a clerical error); and thus, Defendant 1 did not pay the check within the limit of deposit payment.

B. Defendant 6:

On December 24, 2003, the following facts were revealed: (a) before Defendant 6 becomes the representative director of Ysan department store office, Defendant 1 et al. issued the check of the number of shares as stated in the above paragraph (a) as debt security group against Defendant 5; (b) Defendant 1 et al. knew that there was a check of the number of shares which was paid by Defendant 1 to others, but has yet to be recovered; (c) upon the presentation of the above check of the number of shares, Nonindicted 3 et al. who is the payer of the said check of the company, the above check of the number of shares was set up, and (d) for the purpose of having Nonindicted 3, who is the payer of the said payment, ordered Nonindicted 42 et al. to offer this securities for the transaction of the goods price to Defendant 3, who is the planning office, and (d) before the commercial transaction was conducted, Defendant 1 et al. and Defendant 23, who made a request for the change of the number of shares issued by Defendant 3 and made it under the public service center.

7. A. Defendant 5:

From August 12, 2003 to August 28, 2003, through a total of 20 accounts, such as a total of 8,043,180 shares (name omitted) in the name of ELD investment securities, a total of 8,043,180 shares, and a total of 3,806,680 shares, the purpose of which is to attract transactions on the securities market in the course of selling 3,806,680 shares;

(1) On August 18, 2003, at the office of Defendant 5’s (trade name omitted) located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the (name omitted) shares of which are 1,050 won at the present price and 1,060 won at 1,060 won at the sale price and 1,000 won at 1,075 won at the sale price; 10,000 shares at 1,080 won at the sale price 2 at 1,080 won; 13,380 shares at 1,085 won at the sale price 3; 1,090 won at 1,090 won and 65,000 won at the highest price; 2.35,000 won at the highest price from 1,000 won to 30,000 won at the highest price or 4.28,000 won at the sale price immediately before 20,000 won;

(2) On August 20, 200, at the same place as 14:59:22 at the time of receipt of the closing price order, the immediately preceding conclusion is 20 won compared to the number of new accounts in the river, the number of 145 won compared to the number of 10,000 won per each of the highest 960 won compared to the number of 10,000 won per day, and the closing price has increased to 955 won on August 20, 2003, from August 27, 2003 to August 27, 2003, all of which are 325,50 won by the same method as the paper management orders written in the 10-day list as shown in the attached Table 10-day list.

making transactions with a change in the market price;

B. Defendant 1:

Around November 12, 2003, Non-Indicted Company 1 issued bonds worth KRW 3 billion with a non-guaranteed collateral and around that time deposited in Non-Indicted Company 1 and Defendant 1 kept in custody for business purposes, Defendant 1 purchased part of the above money as the payment for the check issued by Non-Indicted Company 3, and purchased 500 million won deposit certificates at the branch of the Non-Indicted Company 33 in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, with the above money, KRW 6 of the deposit certificate of KRW 500 million from Defendant 5, who is the bond company, and embezzled it with the above discounted amount of KRW 170 million using the money for the collection of the non-Indicted Company 3’s check issued by Non-Indicted Party 3 at will, around November 14, 2003, and embezzled it with the above discounted amount of KRW 2.8 billion from Defendant 5

8. A. Defendant 1 and 2 conspired,

Around January 2003, Defendant 1 had taken over the Korea Scream, and Defendant 1 had been issued a check of shares and continued to trade after changing the representative director of the Korea Scream account from around October 31, 2000 to Defendant 2 at the back-dong Enterprise Finance Branch of the New Korea-based Bank, a transaction from around October 31, 200, to Defendant 1 had been made.

Of December 2003, the bearer issued a check number of 150,000,00 cubic c. (the check number Ma is 083098, the date of issuance, January 6, 2004) and presented for payment within a lawful period of time, but the bearer did not pay for the shortage of deposits, as shown in the attached Table 11, 4 copies of checks as shown in the annexed Table 11, including that the bearer issued a check number of 150,000,000 cubic c. (the check number Ma is 083098, the date of issuance, January 6, 2004) and presented for payment within a lawful period of time, and the bearer did not pay for shortage of deposits

B. Defendant 1:

In fact, Defendant 1’s business operation was almost impossible due to extreme difficulties, and Defendant 1 was unable to settle the bills and checks issued in the name of the Republic of Korea Scream and Nonindicted Company 1, and thus, Defendant 1 was unable to settle the bills and checks issued in the name of the Republic of Korea and Nonindicted Company 1, and thus, it is impossible to settle the promissory note with the Republic of Korea, and thus, even if the funds were borrowed, there is no intention or ability to repay the funds.

(1) On December 24, 2003, Defendant 1 stated that “I would pay me check payment amount of KRW 270,000,000 in the face value of Nonindicted Company 1’s company’s face value (No. 0135400) as collateral because the company was in the insolvent crisis” at the office of Park Jae-in in Seoul (detailed address omitted), but Defendant 1 stated that “I would pay me if I would be able to prevent the payment of me check payment to be offered by the company as collateral, because I would have caused the default crisis, I would be able to obtain 270,000,000 won from the sexual morality and take it over (in the indictment, Defendant 4 who received the order of Defendant 1 to the victim sexual virtue,” but according to the written statement of prosecutor’s statement on Park Jae-il, it is recognized that “I would have a substantial disadvantage to the victim sexual virtue through Park Jae-il, without having undergone the same procedure as the defendant’s right of defense ex officio.”

(2) 2003. 12. 16.경 서울 중구 을지로 소재 쁘랭땅 백화점 지하 세비앙 커피숍에서, 피해자 임동경에게 “ 공소외 1 회사 발행 농협중앙회 마가 09714697호 액면금 3억 원권 당좌수표 1매와 한국아이스크림 발행 신한은행 자가 14144914호 액면금 2억 원짜리 약속어음을 담보로 줄테니 2억 원을 10일만 빌려달라”고 거짓말하여 이에 속은 임동경으로부터 178,000,000원을 교부받아 이를 편취하고,

9. A. Defendant 6:

Around January 28, 2004, the representative director of the above department store is Defendant 2. However, Defendant 1 is the actual issuer of the above department store, and Defendant 1 was well aware of the fact that there was a check number which was not yet recovered, despite the fact that Defendant 1 was well aware of the fact that there was a check number which was issued to another person, the board of directors of the above department store was set up at KRW 195,00,000 per face value (No. 05268 per check number, No. 195268, No. 260, Feb. 204; 20, No. 3004). Defendant 3 and Defendant 1, the actual issuer of the above department store, who was the head of the above department store, had Defendant 42, the planning director of the above department store, enter the above book number of KRW 20,000 in collusion with the public service center, which was set at KRW 305,000,000.

B. Defendant 1 in collusion with Nonindicted 23:

(1) On November 6, 2001, at the office of Non-Indicted 24 Co., Ltd. in Seoul (detailed address omitted), the fact is that there was no supply of goods or services to the personal information corporation located in Seoul (detailed address omitted), but there was no supply of goods or services in an amount equivalent to KRW 97,540,000, a tax invoice shall be issued as if the goods were supplied; and

(2) At the office of Nonindicted Co. 24 on the first half of the year 2002, the fact is that there was no supply of goods or services in the Muuk Co., Ltd. located in Seoul (detailed address omitted), but there was no supply of goods or services in an amount equivalent to KRW 215,00,000; and

[Defendant 1 and 2] (Defendant 1 and 2)

1. The respective legal statements of Defendant 1, 2, and Defendant 4, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 13

1. Legal statement of the witness Kim Jong-young;

1. Each of the statements made by the prosecutor's interrogation records (including the statement portion made by the defendant 1) against the defendant 1, 2, and 4, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 13 (including the part made by the defendant 1) of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2004 type 13786, 85913, 205 type 22517, 31510, 34580 (hereinafter "Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office 2004 type 13786, etc.") and Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office 205 type 51217, 51218 (hereinafter "Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office 2005 type 51217, etc.")

1. Statement of the answer to Nonindicted 14

1. The statement in the questionnaire (2) with respect to Nonindicted 9

1. Investigation report (The first and second capital increase report of Nonindicted Company 1) (2 rights 1112 pages or 1506 pages or 1506 of investigation records, including Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2004No. 13786), investigation report (Attachment to the first and second capital increase report of Nonindicted Company 1) (3 rights 1686 pages or 1694 pages or 1694 pages of the investigation records), investigation report (Attachment to the certified copy of the corporate register of Nonindicted Company 1) (3 rights 190 pages or 194 pages of the investigation records)

[Defendant 4] (Defendant 4)

1. The respective legal statements of Defendant 4, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 13

1. Legal statement of the witness Kim Jong-young;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the suspect against Defendant 4, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 13 (including the part of Defendant 1's statement) (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 51217 and other items bound to the investigation records)

1. The statement in the questionnaire (2) with respect to Nonindicted 9

1. In the investigation report (securities registration statement of Nonindicted Company 1’s primary and secondary capital increase with new and secondary capital increase), (5No. 1111 to 1506 of the investigation records), investigation report (Attachment to Non-Indicted Company 1’s first and second capital increase with new and outstanding capital increase), and statement of investigation report (Attachment to Non-Indicted Party 1’s first and second capital increase with new and outstanding criminal investigation records)

1. A copy of the register of the relevant company (which is 90 pages to 106 pages of the same investigation record);

[Attachment 1]

1. Each legal statement of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10

1. Each of the statements made by the prosecutor on the suspect interrogation of Defendant 1, Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 11 (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office No. 2004 type No. 13786, etc. which are bound to the investigation records)

1. Each public prosecutor's statement on his/her status quo and Kim Jong-hwan;

1. Each entry in an investigation report (Attachment of a detailed statement of transactions of stocks), (8: 74 pages 74 to 112 pages of the same investigation records), investigation report (Attachment of Publication Data on the Official Publication System of the Geumwon Internet) (Attachment of Publication Data on the same investigation records between 113 and 120 pages);

【Each Facts of No. 2 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 37 and Defendant 4

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor in the suspect examination protocol against the defendant 1 (those bound to the investigation records as provided in Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 40406);

1. Each entry in the calculation statement of average wages and retirement allowances (not less than 17 - 40 pages of the same investigation record), retirement certificate (not less than 41 - 59 pages of the same investigation record); and

[Each fact of No. 3 at the Time of Sales]

1. The legal statement of Defendant 1

1. Statement made by the prosecutor in the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 37 (those bound to the investigation records of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office No. 2005 type No. 42497, 45763);

【No. 4-A. Fact at the Time of Sales】

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant 1, 2, 4, and 3;

1. Some of the witness Nonindicted 4’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of defendants 1, 2, 4, and 3 [the protocol which is bound to the investigation records of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type 6855 and 68856 (hereinafter "Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office 2005 type 6855, etc.")]

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Defendant 2, 4, 3, and Nonindicted 4 (which was bound to the same investigation record)

1. Each statement of acceptance agreement and the statement of discharge of obligation (one right 8 to 11 of the same investigation record), each statement of the contract for the limited construction of Nonindicted Company 1 (1 right 12 to 14 of the same investigation record) in literature, etc.

[Each fact in Article 4-2(b)]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 12 (including the statement section of Nonindicted 18) (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 68855 et al. which are bound to the investigation records) on each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted

1. Statement of the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 18 (which was bound in the same investigation record)

1. Entry of the manipulation details of the new stocks of the KGGK (two thousand and seventy-six pages of the investigation records of the same case); and

【Each Facts of No. 5 at the Time of Sales】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each statement of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol (including each statement of Nonindicted 39 and 9) on Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 and Nonindicted 9 (including each statement of Nonindicted 39 and 9) (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 43088)

1. Each statement of the prosecutor's suspect interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 39 and Defendant 2 (which was bound in the same investigation record)

1. Statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 39 (including Defendant 4’s substitute part) (including that bound in the same investigation record)

[Each fact of No. 6 at the Time of Sales]

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. The defendant 6's partial statement

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on the accused 1 and 2 (including the statement made by the accused 6) (including the statement made by the accused 6) of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type 41946, 82478 (hereinafter "Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office 2005 type 41946, etc.")

1. Entry of each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 6 in each prosecutor's suspect (which is bound in the same investigation record)

1. Statement made by the prosecutor with respect to the defendant 2 (which is bound to the same investigation record)

[Each fact of No. 7 at the Time of Sales]

1. The respective legal statements of Defendants 1, 5, and 4

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendants 1, 5, and 4 (including each of the statements made by Defendants 4, 1, and Switzerland) (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 5970, 74815 (hereinafter "Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 5970, etc.")

1. The statement made by the public prosecutor on the current domicile (including the part in which the right to remain silent) is recorded;

1. Statement made by the police concerning the highest salary class;

1. Each entry of the current status of purchase orders issued by Defendant 5 (the 3rd page of the same investigation record between 116 and 118 pages) and the details of the order for provisional management (the 3rd page of the same investigation record) by Defendant 5;

[Each fact of No. 8 at the Time of Sales]

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant 1, 2, and 4

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendants 1, 2, and 4 (including the statement section of Defendant 1) (including the statement section of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type 41893, 41894, and 49250 (hereinafter "Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type 41893, etc.") that is bound to the investigation records of the Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office 2005 type 41893)

1. The entry of the public prosecutor’s statement concerning the one in prison; and

1. Statement made by the police concerning the police police officer's police officer;

1. Partial statement of the police concerning sexual ethics;

1. Each accusation note (the same investigation record 2/7 pages between 7/7/7, 15/20 pages between 15/20);

【Each Facts in Article 9 at the Time of Sales】

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant 1 and 6

1. Each statement of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant 1, 6, and non-indicted 23 (including each statement made by the defendant 6, 1, 2, and non-indicted 23) (including each statement made by the defendant 6, 2, 266, 72580, and 106747 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter "Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 71266, etc.")

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant 4 and 2 (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office No. 2005-type 41893, etc. 1st, 71, 72, 5th, 149, 150th, 150th, etc.);

1. Each description of criminal records (defendants 1, 4, and 2) (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005-type and 41893, etc. 88, 92, and 96);

1. In the investigation report (report on release of Defendant 1 of the suspect) (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 41946, etc. 271 pages of the investigation records);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

- Article 1-1 (A), (f), and (h) of the holding: Article 7 of the Addenda to each Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7025 of Dec. 31, 2003), Article 207-3 (2), Article 8 of the former Securities and Exchange Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

- The amount of each lump sum payment under Section 1-b (1) and (g) of the holding: Articles 628(1) and 622(1) of the Commercial Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

· The point of entry of each of the original notarial deeds in paragraphs (2), (g), (2) and (i) of Article 228(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Code

- In the event that each of the false entry in the notarial deed is exercised under section 1-b (2), (g), (2), and (i): Articles 229, 228(1), and 30 of the Criminal Code

(c) False indication for the purpose of manipulation of market price under section 1-C: Article 207-2(1)2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 188-4(4)2 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

- Article 207-2(1)2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 188-4(4)1 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, all of which include:

(j) The point of the market price manipulation of No. 1 of the ruling: Article 207-2(1)2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 188-4(1)1, 2, 3, 2(2)1, and 4(2)2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, collectively;

· The payment of each wage under Article 2: the main text of Article 112 and Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act

- Article 3-A of the ruling: Articles 225 and 30 of the Criminal Code

- Article 3-2(b) of the Decision: Articles 235, 228(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act

- Article 3-3(c) of the holding: Articles 229, 225, and 30 of the Criminal Code

- Article 4-1(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 of the Criminal Act

- Article 4-2(1)2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 188-4(2)1 of the Securities and Exchange Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, inclusive.

- Each of the points in paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Article 5-1: Articles 156 and 30 of the Criminal Code

· The fact that false reports are made to financial institutions under Section 5-B of the holding: Article 4 of the Illegal Check Control Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

- Section 6-A, Section 8-A, the fact that each check is defaulted: Articles 3(1), 2(2) and (1) of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

6-b. & 9-A. Each non-appeal under section 156 of the Criminal Code

· The market price manipulation under Section 7-A of the holding: In the aggregate, Articles 207-2(1)2 and 188-4(2)1 of the Securities and Exchange Act

Section 7-B of the holding: Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act;

· Each fraud in Section 8-b (1) and (2) of the holding: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Code

Article 9-2(4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7321, Dec. 31, 2004); Article 2 of the Addenda to the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7321, Dec. 31, 2004); Article 11-2(4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7321, Dec. 3

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

- Among the crimes of false accusation by the accusation petition filed on September 1, 2003 of Article 5-A of the judgment and the crimes of false accusation filed on September 19, 2003: The punishment for the crimes of false accusation as to the correspondence with a heavier judgment of each of the crimes committed on September 19, 203;

- Among the crimes of false accusation referred to in subparagraph 5(c)(1) of the judgment: Punishment for a crime of false accusation against Kim Jong-young with a heavier penalty

· Between the crimes of false accusation as referred to in Article 9-1(a) of the holding: Punishment as provided for in the crime of false accusation against Defendant 3 with a heavier judgment;

1. Selection of punishment;

Each crime other than the crime of forging a public document, the crime of uttering a forged public document, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation): Selection of

1. Aggravation of repeated crimes (Defendant 1, Nonindicted 38)

Article 35 (Limits on Violation of Punishment of Tax Evaderss Act in Case of Defendant 1)

1. Statutory mitigation (Defendant 2, 4);

Article 39(1) latter part of Article 39(1) and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act [The crime of false accusation (the crime of false accusation, etc. against Defendant 4) in which each crime and judgment in the market have become final and conclusive was likely to be tried at the same time at the same time in law, and it is recognized as reasonable in consideration of equity with

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant 2, 4);

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act [the former part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of false accusation against Defendant 4) which has become final and conclusive for each crime];

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants 1, 2, 4, 6);

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

- Defendant 1, 2, 4: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) with the largest punishment.

- Defendant 6: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in Article 9-1(a) of the Judgment with heavier punishment

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant 3);

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following statements in the grounds for sentencing)

1. Calculation of days of pre-trial detention (Defendant 1, 4);

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 2, 3, 6, 5);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Attention of the Reasons for Sentencing as follows)

[Defendant 1]

Defendant 1, as the president of Nonindicted Company 1, who actually manages Nonindicted Company 1, has a duty to maintain and manage the company’s property in good faith. However, Defendant 1’s act does not repent his fault, and instead Defendant 1 attempted to transfer the company’s property at will the amount of KRW 1.3 billion in order to pay his personal debt, Defendant 1’s arbitrary issuance of the bill and check of Nonindicted Company 1, and the amount of the check in excess of KRW 2 billion, thereby resulting in a large number of damages to the majority of the shareholders who own the shares of Nonindicted Company 1. Accordingly, Defendant 1 went bankrupt, and the amount of the reorganization claim is up to KRW 0 billion, Defendant 1 led to the instant crime. Nevertheless, Defendant 1’s act was not divided, and Defendant 1 attempted to transfer his liability to accomplices, and thus, it is inevitable to punish Defendant 1’s act corresponding thereto.

However, it is decided as per the Disposition in consideration of the fact that there was an agreement with some victims of the instant crime and the fact that the embezzled money was returned to Nonindicted Company 1.

[Defendant 2]

Although Defendant 2 had a duty to maintain and manage the company's property in good faith as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 company, the crime is not less than the nature of the crime, such as the arbitrary transfer of the company's property in the amount of KRW 1.3 billion for Defendant 1's personal debt repayment, and the check amount due to Defendant 2's violation of the Illegal Check Control Act exceeds KRW 2 billion, but the crime is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which could have been judged at the same time under the judgment and the judgment of the court. Defendant 2 does not appear to have acquired profits from the crime of this case as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 company, the degree of participation in the crime of this case is minor, Defendant 2 cannot be seen to have obtained profits from the crime of this case as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 company, and the health status is not good due to Defendant 2's physical disability 3, and most of his mistakes are ordered to suspend the execution of the sentence.

[Defendant 4]

Although Defendant 4, as the vice president of Nonindicted Company 1, has maintained and managed the company's assets in good faith, he would remarkably harm the company's capital adequacy by making an advanced payment of the shares issued with capital equivalent to approximately KRW 34 billion, Defendant 1's arbitrary transfer of the company's assets in the amount of KRW 1.3 billion to Defendant 1's personal debt repayment, thereby causing a large number of damages to the majority shareholders who own the shares of Nonindicted Company 1, the company becomes bankrupt, and the amount of the reorganization claim is ultimately up to KRW 00 billion, Defendant 4 actively participated in the crime of this case, and Defendant 4 is deemed to have committed the crime of Defendant 4 in light of the fact that Defendant 4 did not repent his mistake. Thus, the corresponding punishment is inevitable.

However, in consideration of the fact that each crime of judgment and each crime of false accusation, etc., which have become final and conclusive, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act which are likely to be tried at the same time, a sentence like the order shall be sentenced.

[Defendant 3]

Defendant 3 actively participated in the crime of this case to satisfy his claim and did not repent of his wrongs even though he was transferred the assets of Nonindicted Company 1. However, Defendant 3 does not have any past record of punishment, and Defendant 3 does not seem to have made significant profits from the crime of this case, in consideration of the fact that he did not have any past record of punishment, Defendant 3 will reduce the punishment and suspend the execution of the punishment and sentence the same as the disposition.

[Defendant 6]

Defendant 6’s crime of this case was committed with respect to the dismissal of lawful holders of the books in order to prevent the default of the following department stores. However, Defendant 6 did not have any criminal record of imprisonment without prison labor or more, Defendant 6 did not issue the above check, Defendant 6’s complaint against the check holders was withdrawn, and other accomplices were sentenced to suspended execution of the sentence, and sentenced to the same sentence as the order.

[Defendant 5]

Defendant 5’s crime of manipulation of market price of this case is an offender who causes many damages to many shareholders, and Defendant 5 led the crime of this case, etc. However, Defendant 5 did not have any history of punishment recently, Defendant 5 did not obtain profits from the crime of this case, Defendant 5 did not have any past history of punishment, and Defendant 5 did not separate one’s mistake. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the suspension of execution of punishment.

1. As to the crime No. 1 in the holding (Defendant 1, 4);

A. The assertion

First, Defendant 4 was unaware of the fact that the share capital for the first time is the fictitious payment, and Defendant 4 was only passive document work with respect to the second and third share capital for the second time, and did not actively conspired to make a disguised payment for the second and third share capital for the second time.

Second, with respect to the crime No. 1-C. of the holding, since Defendant 1 actually made an investment of KRW 600 or KRW 700,000,000 to the Agregnis, Defendant 1 and 4 do not make a false statement.

Third, with respect to the crime No. 1-d., in fact, Defendant 1 invested KRW 640,000 in Agregreger, and Defendant 1 entered into a purchase contract for electric vehicles in Agregrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgs

Fourth, with respect to the crime No. 1-e of the holding, Defendant 1 entered into a verbal contract with Nonindicted Company 1 on July 2003, 200 to purchase the portion of the tex container business from (ju) bathn, and was able to carry on the container business for non-indicted 1 in high seas, but it did not produce as the supply of pulp made of tex as raw materials was not properly carried out, and there was no intention of false advertisement, and Defendant 4 did not participate in the above false advertisement at all.

Fifth, with respect to the crime No. 1 (j) of the holding, false disclosure to the effect that the contract for the supply of false motor vehicle parts was concluded was made by Nonindicted 9, not by Defendant 1, but by Nonindicted 10, and there was no crime of price manipulation in collusion with Nonindicted 10.

B. Determination

(1) On the first argument

앞에서 든 각 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 1이 공소외 1 회사를 인수할 당시 공소외 1 회사는 재무제표상 당기 순이익이 1998년(22기) -3,253,153,000원, 1999년(23기) -4,737,338,000원, 2000년(24기) -1,417,405,000원, 2001년(25기) -982,486,000원, 2002년(26기) -160,139,000원으로 계속 적자상태였고, 이로 인하여 공소외 1 회사 약속어음은 제도권 금융기관에서는 어음할인이 거의 불가능하였던 점, ② 피고인 4는 피고인 1이 공소외 1 회사를 인수하기 이전에 피고인 1의 지시로 공소외 1 회사를 실사하여 이러한 공소외 1 회사의 자금사정을 잘 알고 있었다고 보여지는 점, ③ 공소외 4, 공소외 13은 피고인 1에게 ‘ 공소외 1 회사 무자본 인수합병, 인수후 가장납입 구도’를 제의하였고( 피고인 1, 피고인 4의 각 일부 법정 진술), 피고인 1이 이를 승낙하여 공소외 1 회사 인수자금 및 운영자금을 확보하기 위하여 공소외 1 회사를 인수하기 이전부터 공소외 1 회사 매도인측(한원그룹)에 대하여 1차 유상증자를 위한 이사회 결의를 요구하였는데, 당시 공소외 1 회사의 자본금은 73억 원에 불과하였고, 특별한 투자요인도 없었으며, 앞에서 본 바와 같이 5년 연속 적자 상태에서 공소외 1 회사에 투자할 투자자를 물색하기가 쉽지 않아 보임에도 불구하고, 1차 유상증자 규모를 6,189,997,000원의 거액으로 정한 점, ④ 공소외 1 회사 이사회는 2003. 3. 31. 피고인 2의 대표이사 결재사항 및 대표이사 직무사항 일체를 2003. 4. 1.부터 피고인 4에게 위임하는 내용의 결의를 하였고, 이에 따라 피고인 4는 대표이사인 피고인 2를 대신하여 사실상 공소외 1 회사 대표이사로서의 직무를 수행한 점(서울중앙지방검찰청 2005형제51217호 등 수사기록 6권 2461, 2462쪽), ⑤ 1차 유상증자와 관련하여, 피고인 4는 2003. 4. 11.(1차 유상증자 당일) 주금납입은행인 농협중앙회 상도동지점에서, 피고인 1, 공소외 4, 공소외 13, 피고인 2와 함께 사채업자 장문석 등을 만났고, 피고인 4는 피고인 1의 지시로 공소외 4의 1차 유상증자 유가증권신고서 작성 및 제출, 금융감독위원회에 대한 공시 등 업무를 도와주고, 서류 준비작업 등을 하였으며, 1차 유상증자 제3자 배정자 명단에 실제 주금을 납입할 의사가 없는 이유중 명의가 등재되도록 한 점(피고인 4의 일부 법정 진술, 같은 수사기록 6권 2369쪽), ⑥ 2·3차 유상증자와 관련하여, 피고인 4는 피고인 1의 지시로 유상증자 관련 서류를 준비하였고, 유상증자에 필요한 공소외 9의 법인등기부 등본, 사업자등록증 사본, 법인 인감도장, 공소외 9 개인 인감도장 등을 공소외 9로부터 건네받아 피고인 1에게 전달하여 주었으며, 특히 3차 유상증자에서 이유중, 구정화 명의로 배정된 공소외 1 회사 480만 주를 이유중, 구정화가 아닌 피고인 4가 인출하여 공소외 1 회사 어음결제금으로 일부 사용하고, 나머지는 수표 및 양도성예금증서 형태로 바꾸어 피고인 1에게 교부하였던 점(같은 수사기록 6권 2389쪽), ⑦ 공소외 1 회사는 위와 같이 계속 적자상태였고, 그 자본금도 73억에 불과하였으며 공소외 1 회사 발행의 어음의 할인도 쉽지 않은 상태에서, 1년이라는 단기간 내에 세차례에 걸쳐 합계 약 340억 상당의 유상증자의 자금이 정상적으로 납입될 수 있도록 투자자를 물색하는 것은 거의 불가능하다고 보이는 점, ⑧ 피고인 4 스스로도 이 법정에서, 2·3차 유상증자의 경우 주금이 가장납입된다는 사실을 알고 있었다고 진술하고 있는 점에 비추어 보면, 피고인 4는 1차 유상증자의 주금이 가장납입된다는 사실을 알았다고 보여지고, 2·3차 유상증자에 관하여는 주금이 모두 가장납입되리라는 점을 인식하고 있으면서도, 피고인 1, 공소외 4 등과 공모하여 위와 같이 이 사건 범행에 적극 가담하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, the first argument is not accepted.

(2) On the second argument

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., (i) around May 13, 2003, Defendant 1 invested only KRW 45 million in Switzerland from May 13, 200, and (ii) Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 4 to prepare documents for the disclosure of this case, and Defendant 4 appears to have been well aware of the practical affairs of Nonindicted Company 1 on behalf of the representative director from April 1, 2003, Defendant 1 followed Defendant 1’s order, (iii) Nonindicted 14 had been in possession of shares of Nonindicted Company 1, around March 14, 203, and had been in possession of shares of Nonindicted Company 1, and had been in control of their own shares, and (iii) Nonindicted 14 agreed that Defendant 2, including the Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 400, May 14, 200, Defendant 1 visited Defendant 304, respectively, with the aim of using Nonindicted Company 1’s new shares.

Therefore, the second argument is rejected.

(3) On the third argument

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, ① Nonindicted 3 was manufactured by the first 5-day office, the first 6-day office of Nonindicted 1 and the second 5-day office of Nonindicted 2, and the first 6-day office of Nonindicted 3, the first 5-day office of Nonindicted 1 and the second 5-day office of Nonindicted 2, and the second 6-day office of Nonindicted 3, the first 5-day office of Nonindicted 4, and the second 5-day office of Nonindicted 1 and the second 5-year office of which was located, were 400 million won, and the second 5-month office of Nonindicted 1 and the second 5-month office of which were 6-day office of Nonindicted 3, the second 1 and the second 5-month office of Nonindicted 3, the second 5-month office of which was located, and the second 9-month office of Nonindicted 2, which was located in the investigation for the first 9-month office of Korea.

Therefore, the third argument is not acceptable.

(4) On the fourth argument

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① Nonindicted Company 1 entered into a verbal contract with the Defendant on July 25, 2003, and entered into a regular contract on August 25, 2003, Defendant 1 asked Kim Jong-young to pay advertising expenses for Nonindicted Company 1 (the legal statement of witness Kim Young-young), ② Defendant 4 knew that Defendant 1 would promote the daily container business without high seas, and Defendant 1’s instructions approved the disbursement of large advertising expenses (30 million won) necessary for inserting the above criminal facts at Defendant 1’s order, and eventually, it was published the same advertisement as the above criminal facts (Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office 2005No. 51217, etc.). However, Defendant 1 conspired with the Defendant 20-day Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office 2469 on the ground that Defendant 1 did not receive any false information from the Defendant 1’s office’s 6-day Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office, but, in light of the fact that Defendant 4 had not received any criminal facts.

Therefore, the fourth argument is not accepted.

(5) On the fifth argument

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., (i) Defendant 1 sold 22 million shares of Nonindicted Company 1; (ii) there was a need to sell the above 22 million shares to raise operating funds of Nonindicted Company 1; (iii) the issuance price of Nonindicted Company 1 was 50 won per share; and (iv) the number of shares issued on October 17, 2003 was 50 won per share (Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office No. 2004 No. 13786; 70 per share); and (v) Defendant 1’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted Company 1 sold the above 22 million shares to Nonindicted Company 1; and (v) Nonindicted Company 2’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted Company 1’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted Company 3’s shares were 100 shares issued by Nonindicted Company 1 through the Nonindicted Company 3’s request for the above investigation by Nonindicted Company 1, 2000 shares was 4.

Therefore, the fifth argument is rejected.

2. On each of the crimes listed in the judgment No. 2 (Defendant 1)

A. The assertion

Since the actual manager of Nonindicted Company 33 is Defendant 4, Defendant 1 is not liable for delayed payment of wages.

B. Determination

An employer under Article 15 of the Labor Standards Act refers to an employer, a person in charge of business management, or a person who acts on behalf of an employer for matters relating to workers;

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., (i) Defendant 1 borne the acquisition fund of Nonindicted Company 3, (ii) procured the operating fund for Nonindicted Company 33, and (iii) made Nonindicted Company 37 take office as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 33, and (ii) Nonindicted 37 appears in this court that “When Defendant 1 talks with Defendant 1, 4, and 3, he was instructed by Defendant 4 that he would have been aware that he would have been in charge of the business of Nonindicted Company 33 in accordance with Defendant 1’s order, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 4 was liable to pay wages and retirement allowances to Nonindicted Company 33 as the business owner of Nonindicted Company 33, in light of the fact that Defendant 4 stated that Defendant 3 would have been in charge of the business of Nonindicted Company 33 in accordance with Defendant 1’s order.”

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is rejected.

3. A-based crime (Defendant 1, 4, 3) as shown in its holding;

A. The assertion

First, Defendant 3’s term “use” as stated in the above facts constituting an offense is not an expression of specific facts charged, but an indefinite concept that requires interpretation, and thus, criminal facts against Defendant 3 are not specified. Thus, Defendant 3 should be sentenced to a judgment dismissing prosecution.

Second, Defendant 3 had a claim amounting to KRW 2.485 million against Defendant 1, but, if Defendant 1 additionally lent KRW 600 million to Defendant 1’s acquisition fund, he additionally lent KRW 497 million to Defendant 1’s acquisition of all obligations. Defendant 1 was subject to the resolution of the board of directors and publication of Nonindicted Company 1’s company, and Defendant 1 was subject to the acquisition of shares and claims against Nonindicted Corporation 5 under the condition of offsetting KRW 1.310 million out of the above bonds with KRW 1.30 million. However, Defendant 3 was not subject to the resolution of the board of directors and publication of the above Nonindicted Company 1’s company, and the shares and claims against the said Nonindicted Corporation 5 were rarely valuable. Ultimately, Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 1 to transfer the shares and claims against the said Nonindicted Corporation 5, and thus, Defendant 3 did not commit the instant act in collusion with Defendant 1 in the course of business.

Third, Defendant 1, 4, and 3 are aware that the share of Nonindicted Company 1’s non-indicted 5 (52.8%) and the value of the claim are only KRW 40 million and KRW 600 million.

B. Determination

(1) On the first argument

The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act that stipulates the date, time, place, and method of crime to specify the facts charged is to limit the object of trial to the court, to specify the scope of defense against the defendant, and to facilitate the exercise of defense right by specifying the scope of defense. Thus, considering the nature of the indicted crime, it is sufficient to specify the date, time, place, method, purpose, etc. to the extent that it can distinguish the facts causing the public prosecution from other facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8077, Mar. 26, 2004). The prior meaning of "use" cannot be deemed as an indefinite concept necessary for interpretation, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the above facts charged were specified.

Therefore, the first argument is not accepted.

(2) On the second argument

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., Defendant 1’s lending of funds to Nonindicted Company 1, Defendant 3 demanded that Nonindicted Company 1 take over the above bonds from Nonindicted Company 1, and Defendant 1 would take over Nonindicted Company 3 on the condition that Nonindicted Company 1 would take over the above bonds, and Defendant 1 would not take over the bonds from Nonindicted Company 5’s local investment, and Defendant 3 would not take over or take over the bonds from Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 4, Nonindicted Company 4, Nonindicted Company 1, and Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 4, Nonindicted Company 5, Nonindicted Company 5, Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 1, and Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 5, Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 4, Nonindicted Company 1, and Nonindicted Company 5, Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 2, and Nonindicted Company 5, Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 2, Nonindicted Company 1, and Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 3, who stated that the above bonds were transferred to Defendant 1, Defendant 5000.

Therefore, the second argument is rejected.

(3) On the third argument

As seen later (the acquittal part 2-D. 2) is seen, it is reasonable to view the equity (52.8%) of Nonindicted Company 1’s non-indicted 5 Corporation and the value of the claim as KRW 1.31 billion.

Therefore, the third argument is not acceptable.

4-B. As to the crime (Defendant 1)

A. The assertion

Defendant 1 merely purchased KGKK in order to make profits simply, and did not purchase it in collusion with Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 19 in order to participate in the manipulation of the instant market price.

B. Determination

(3) On September 1, 203, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., (1) 2,05 won per share; (2,300 or 3,00 won per share; (3), Defendant 1, Nonindicted 12, and 14, etc. paid orders for purchase of the KGK shares at least 3,300 won per share; and (2) Defendant 1 purchased the 20% shares at the same time on September 1, 2003 using the borrowed account to the effect that “Non-Indicted 12 purchased the 3G KGK shares at the same time as the 20% market price,” and that “Non-Indicted 2 purchased the 2G KGK shares at the same time on or after the 200th anniversary of the opening of the 2G shares.” The public prosecutor demanded that the 20th day of the 20th day after the opening of the 1st day of the 20th day after the opening of the 3G shares.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is rejected.

5. As to each crime listed in Article 5 of the Judgment (Defendant 1)

A. The assertion

From the beginning, Defendant did not instruct the final holders of the above criminal facts to file a report on alteration or criminal complaint, and only received a report later.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, ① as the chairperson of Nonindicted Company 1, Defendant 1 actually operated Nonindicted Company 1, and Nonindicted Company 1 raised funds at a discount from Nonindicted Company 1’s company using the promissory note and the check number (Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office No. 205No. 199, 200), ② The promissory note and the check number are issued normally for the purpose of cash financing and the payment of goods (the same investigation record No. 223 pages). The issue value of Nonindicted Company 1 stated on Nonindicted Company 4 to the effect that Nonindicted Company 2 stated on Nonindicted Company 4’s order for payment of the above promissory note and the check number No. 1 to the effect that “On the grounds of the above date of payment, Nonindicted Company 1 submitted to Nonindicted Company 4 and Nonindicted Company 2, who stated on Nonindicted Company 4’s order for the above alteration of the check number for Nonindicted Company 1 to the effect that it would have been difficult for Nonindicted Company 1 to raise funds for the purpose of the investigation.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is rejected.

6. As to the crimes of subparagraph 6-b) and subparagraph 9-a (Defendant 6) of the holding;

A. The assertion

Defendant 6-B of the above crime No. 6-B. The number of units stated in the above crime was unaware of the fact that they were normally issued, and it was thought that the number of units stated in the above crime No. 9-A was normally issued but lost.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① Defendant 6 was working as the representative director of the next department store on October 7, 2003 at the request of Defendant 1, who is the actual manager of the next department store. Defendant 2, including the one of the preceding representative directors, received the above investigation records, including the one of the number of units, and the one of the number and the one of the number of promissory notes issued by Defendant 1, etc. (Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2005-type 41946, 192), ② Defendant 6 was asked to return the above investigation records to Defendant 1 on October 10, 203 (the above investigation records, including the one of the above 6 units units) and the one of the above 6 units units of shares, and Defendant 1 promised to return them, but the above investigation records, including the one of the above 6 units units of shares, were not returned to Defendant 1, and Defendant 2, including the one of the above investigation records, were not returned.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant 6's above assertion.

7. As to each crime listed in Article 8 of the Judgment (Defendant 1, 2)

A. The assertion

First, with respect to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act No. 8-A of the judgment, Defendant 2 did not enter the shares per unit stated in the above crime, and did not participate in the issuance of the above shares per unit.

Second, with respect to each of the frauds listed in Section 8-B(b) of the holding, although Defendant 1 borrowed money from Estude and Estude as stated in the above criminal facts, he did not have the intent or ability to repay it to Defendant 1, and therefore, he did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

B. Determination

(1) On the first argument

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as above, i.e., ① Defendant 2 was assigned to the position of the Korean Escream representative director from January 2003 to June 2004 upon Defendant 1’s request, the actual manager of the Korea Escream, and ② Defendant 2 did not take measures to prevent Defendant 1 from issuing the check number tickets, etc. in his own name, even though he fully aware that Defendant 1 could issue the check number, etc., and rather, Defendant 4 prepared and granted a power of attorney (in Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office No. 2005-type 41893, etc., five right 157) Defendant 1 issued the check number tickets as stated in the above criminal facts, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 2 permitted Defendant 1 to issue the check number in the name of the representative director of the Korea Escream.

Therefore, the first argument is not accepted.

(2) On the second argument

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① Defendant 1 was in charge of the business of raising necessary funds by issuing bills and checks from Nonindicted Company 1 and 2 as the actual manager of the said company. ② At the time of Defendant 1’s acquisition of Nonindicted Company 1, the cumulative amount as of the fiscal year 2003 was KRW 7 billion or KRW 8 billion, and the capital was also impaired, and Nonindicted Company 1’s promissorysory notes were impossible in the institutions with the right of delivery (the same investigation record 21 pages), ③ Nonindicted Company 1, Korea 200, KRW 100,000,000, KRW 60,000,000, KRW 6,000,000, KRW 10,000,000, KRW 6,000,000,000, KRW 6,000,000,00,000.

Therefore, the second argument is rejected.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

Defendant 1 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and a fine of 5 million won at the Seoul District Court on February 27, 1996, and the execution of the sentence was completed on April 16, 1999, and was the president of the non-indicted 1, who was a listed corporation of the Korea Stock Exchange, who was engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobile parts. Defendant 2 was sentenced to the imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years at the Suwon District Court on December 28, 2004 for 2 years from the date of the above judgment on January 5, 2005, and was sentenced to the suspension of execution for 2 years from March 21, 2003 to June 9, 203; from November 29, 2003 to March 11, 2004 to March 11, 204; Defendant 4 was the president of the Non-indicted 1, who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 20 years from the said judgment on October 13, 13, 20004.

A. (1) Defendant 2 in collusion with Defendant 1, 4, 4, and 13:

around March 2003, the fact that Nonindicted Company 1 offered capital increase by means of a third party allotment does not intend to raise funds by making the funds deposited in the separate account for temporary capital increase after having deposited the funds, etc. into the separate account for capital increase immediately after having completed the registration of capital increase, notwithstanding the absence of any intention or purpose to raise funds.

On March 25, 2003, when submitting to the Financial Supervisory Commission the securities exchange statement equivalent to KRW 6,189,997,000 for capital increase, false entry is made with regard to material facts in the securities exchange statement, stating that “the class and number (1,125,454 shares in registered common), the issue value of new shares (5,500 won), the operating fund for the purpose of financing 6,154,97,000 won, and other 35,000,000 won,”

(2) Defendant 2 in collusion with Defendant 1, 4, 4, 13, and 14:

(A) Around April 11, 2003, when offering capital increase of KRW 6,189,997,000, the capital increase of KRW 2,880,000 for Nonindicted Party 14 funds, including KRW 300,00,00,00 for capital increase of KRW 6,189,97,00 for capital increase, deposited the capital increase of KRW 2.88,000,00 for Nonindicted Party 1’s stock payment account at a Dondong branch of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of Korea as a temporary date, and completed the registration of capital increase with the above bank’s certificate of custody on April 14, 203, the payment of the capital is pretended

(B) On the same day, the above temporary border and Suwon District Court: (a) submitted documents related to the registration of capital increase with consideration, such as “certificate of capital increase”, to a registered official who is unaware of the fact that the number of shares and the total amount of capital of Nonindicted Company 1 were to be paid by the pretended payment of the shares of the said Nonindicted Company 1; and (b) made the above registered official enter false facts in the above commercial register, which is the original notarial deed, by having the said registered official enter the false facts in the above commercial register, which is the original copy of the notarial deed; and (b) exercised by allowing the said registered official to keep the above commercial register, which includes false facts at the same place.

B. (1) Defendant 1 and 4 in collusion with Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 13:

Around March 2003, in providing capital increase in an amount equivalent to KRW 6,189,97,00,000 out of the total amount of KRW 189,97,50,00 in a third party’s allocation method, the fact is that: (a) deposit of the corporate fund, etc. in a separate fund for capital increase with a lump sum and immediately after the registration of capital increase was made; and (b) there is no intention or purpose to raise funds, notwithstanding the fact that there is no intention or purpose to withdraw

On March 25, 2003, when submitting to the Financial Supervisory Commission the securities exchange statement equivalent to KRW 6,189,997,000 for capital increase, false entry is made with regard to material facts in the securities exchange statement, stating that “the class and number (1,125,454 shares in registered common), the issue value of new shares (5,500 won), the operating fund for the purpose of financing 6,154,97,000 won, and other 35,000,000 won,”

(2) Defendant 1 and 4 in collusion with Nonindicted 4, 13, and 14:

(A) Around April 11, 2003, when offering capital increase of KRW 6,189,997,00, among them, KRW 189,97,500 among them, the amount of capital increase of KRW 189,97,50 is deposited in the stock payment account of Nonindicted Co. 1 established at a temporary Dondong branch of the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation, and the completion of the registration of the capital increase by obtaining a certificate of stock payment custody from the above bank on April 14, 2003 after the completion of the registration of the capital increase, the payment for the capital increase of KRW 6,189,997

(B) On the same day, the above temporary border and the Suwon District Court: (a) had a registry official, as mentioned above, submit documents necessary for the registration of capital increase with consideration, such as “certificate of capital increase”, etc., to the registry official, who is unaware of the fact that there was no change in the number of shares and the total amount of capital, to enter false facts in the above commercial register, which is the original copy of the notarial deed; and (b) at the same time, had the registry official keep the above commercial register in which there was false facts as to the total number of shares generated and the total amount of capital of the notarial deed; and (c) exercised by having the registry official keep the above commercial register stating such false facts at the same place.

C. Defendant 4 in collusion with Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 9:

No one may spread false facts with a view to gaining unjust profits in connection with the sale and purchase or other trading of securities, but the intention of Defendant 1 to prevent the opposite trading of shares of Nonindicted Company 1 that Defendant 1 offered to another person as security or to increase the market price of shares of Nonindicted Company 1 held by Defendant 1.

On May 20, 2003, notwithstanding the absence of the intent or ability to manufacture the electric motor vehicle as the company’s facilities or capital, etc., the following facts are disseminated by intentionally inserting false facts by inserting an advertisement to the same effect eight times as shown in the annexed Table 1, from that time, from that time to June 20, 203, including a false advertisement stating that “the manufacture and marketing of the electric motor vehicle for eight months” was inserted in the newspaper (name omitted).

D. Defendant 1, 4, 2, and 3 conspireds with Defendant 1, 4, 2, and 3 to use the shares of Nonindicted Company 5 in the Chinese territory, which Defendant 3 owned by Nonindicted Company 1 for the purpose of realizing the personal claim against Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, 4, and 2 to use the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 for the repayment of the personal debt.

At around April 23, 2003, Defendant 1, 4, and 2, a person who managed Nonindicted Company 1 and maintained and managed the company’s property, and was not allowed to transfer to another person the company’s personal debt repayment for Defendant 1’s personal debt payment against Defendant 3, Defendant 1, 4, and 2, as indicated in attached Table 12, such as the shares in Nonindicted Company 1’s 6,875, 38,826 won in relation to the above Nonindicted Company 5, as indicated in attached Table 12, including the shares in, and claims against, Nonindicted Company 1’s 6,875, 38,826 won, arbitrarily transferred the shares and claims of Nonindicted Company 5 to Defendant 3, thereby causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to Nonindicted Company 1, and Defendant 3 gain property profit equivalent to, the same amount;

E. Defendant 1:

(1) In collusion with Defendant 5 on August 8, 2003, Defendant 1 and the president of the (name omitted of the company) had an intention to artificially support (name omitted of the company) the share price of at least 1,000 won (name omitted of the company) with the face value of 5,000 won, which is the standard for listing closure, is at least 20%, in collusion with Defendant 5;

From August 12, 2003 to August 28, 2003, through a total of 20 accounts, such as a total of 8,043,180 shares (name omitted) in the name of ELD investment securities, a total of 8,043,180 shares, and a total of 3,806,680 shares, the purpose of which is to attract transactions on the securities market in the course of selling 3,806,680 shares;

(A) On August 18, 2003, at the office of Defendant 5’s (trade name omitted) located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the (name omitted) shares of KRW 1,050 per 1,060 per 1,060 per 1,00 per 1,075 won per 1,000 per 1,080 per 2 price per 1,080 won per 1,080 won per 3 price per 1,080, 13,380 won per 1,085 price per 3 price per 1,09:65,000 won per 4 price per 65,00 won per 5,00 won per 5,00 won per 5,00 won per 50 won per 5,00 won per 5,00 won per 5,000 won per 1 price per 30,000 won per 28,000 won per 34,500

(B) On August 20, 200, at the same place as 14:59:22 at the time of receipt of the closing price order on August 20, 2003, the immediately preceding conclusion is 20 won compared to the number of 10 won compared to the number of 145 won compared to the number of 10,000 won compared to the number of 95 won compared to the number of 10,000 won for the other party's purchase orders, and the closing price has increased to 955 won on the same day from August 20, 203 to August 27, 2003, all of which are 325,500 as shown in the 10-day list of crimes, including the details of the provisional management orders as shown in the attached Table 10-day list.

transaction with a change in the market price;

(2) (A) If the principal and any specially related person hold more than 5 per cent of the total number of shares, or if the shareholding ratio has changed above 1 per cent of the total number of shares of the corporation, the change shall be reported to the Financial Supervisory Commission, etc. within five days from the date of the change

On August 14, 2003, by purchasing shares of 1,958,720 shares (name of a company omitted) and holding 2,440,810 shares (19.28%) including shares held during the period, and failing to report within the period, even though the cause for reporting occurred, and failing to perform all the obligation to report shares held in bulk for three occasions as shown in the separate sheet of crimes No. 13 until September 6, 2003, from that time, from that time to September 6, 2003;

(B) An officer or a major shareholder of a stock-listed corporation shall report to the Securities Futures Commission, within 10 days from the date of becoming an officer or a major shareholder, the actual exchange of the corporation’s shares held on his own account regardless of in whose name the shares are held, and, if there is a change in the number of shares held, by the tenth day of the month following

The purchase of shares of 1,958,720 shares on August 14, 2003 (name of a company omitted) shall be owned by 2,440,810 shares (19.28%) including shares owned until now, and shall be owned by a major shareholder, as shown in the list of crimes No. 14, and 5,602,370 shares (name of a company omitted) over two occasions from August 18, 2003 to September 1, 2003; and without reporting within the period of time the fact that the major shareholder was in the course of selling 8,043,180 shares and the fact that there is a change in the number of shares held by a major shareholder;

F. Defendant 1 and 4 conspired:

Around November 12, 2003, Non-Indicted Company 1 issued bonds worth KRW 3 billion with non-guaranteed bonds with the bonds guaranteed by Non-Indicted Company 1, and around that time deposited in Non-Indicted Company 1 and Defendant 1 kept in custody for business purposes, Defendant 1 had the intent to use part of the above money as the payment for the check for the issuance of the Korean ASEAN. On November 14, 2003, at the branch office of the Young-gu Seoul Central Bank of Korea, the above money purchased KRW 500 million with the above deposit certificate of KRW 6,000,000,000 from Defendant 5 who is the bond company, and embezzled it with the above discounted amount of KRW 1,50,000 from the above discounted amount of KRW 2.8 billion with the money for the collection of the defaulted bonds issued by Korea at will;

G. Defendant 4, in collusion with Defendant 1,

Around November 12, 2003, Non-Indicted Company 1 issued bonds worth KRW 3 billion with a non-guaranteed collateral and around that time deposited in Non-Indicted Company 1 and Defendant 1 kept in custody for business purposes, Defendant 1 purchased part of the above money as the payment for the check issued by Non-Indicted Company 3, and purchased 500 million won deposit certificates at the branch of the Non-Indicted Company 33 in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, with the above money, KRW 6 of the deposit certificate of KRW 500 million from Defendant 5, who is the bond company, and embezzled it with the above discounted amount of KRW 170 million using the money for the collection of the non-Indicted Company 3’s check issued by Non-Indicted Party 3 at will, around November 14, 2003, and embezzled it with the above discounted amount of KRW 2.8 billion from Defendant 5

H. Defendant 4:

(1) in collusion with Defendant 2 or 1;

Around January 2003, Defendant 1 had taken over the Korea Scream, and Defendant 1 had been issued a check of shares and continued to trade after changing the representative director of the Korea Scream account from around October 31, 2000 to Defendant 2 at the back-dong Enterprise Finance Branch of the New Korea-based Bank, a transaction from around October 31, 200, to Defendant 1 had been made.

On December 2003, the holder issued a check number of 150,000,00 cubic 150,000 won per face value (the check number Ma is 083098, the date of issuance, January 7, 2004) and presented a payment proposal within a lawful period of time, but did not pay for the shortage of deposits, as shown in the separate sheet of crime 11, 4 copies of the check, as shown in the separate sheet of crime 11, including that the holder issued a check number of 0,00,000 won and presented a payment proposal within a legitimate period of time, but does not receive a shortage of deposits;

(2) in collusion with Defendant 1:

In fact, the Defendants operated the Korea Scream and Nonindicted Company 1’s business so that it is almost impossible to operate the normal company. Defendant 1 was unable to settle the bills and checks issued in the name of the Korea Scream and Nonindicted Company 1, and thus, Defendant 1 is unable to settle the bills and checks issued in the name of the Korea Scream and Nonindicted Company 1, and thus, it is impossible to settle the promissory note with the Korea Scream and the Korea Scream and the Korea Scream. Thus, even if borrowing the money, notwithstanding the lack of intent or ability to repay

around December 24, 2003, Defendant 4, upon Defendant 1’s instructions, obtained 270,000,000 won from the sexual morality and acquired it by fraud to Defendant 4, who received Defendant 1’s instructions from Defendant 1, to the victim sexual ethics, stating that “I would pay for the check in order to prevent the settlement amount of the check (the note number No. 013540,000 won (the note number No. 013540) of Nonindicted Company 1’s face value as collateral because the company is in a default crisis.”

2. Determination

A. As to each of the above 1-A crimes

In order to constitute a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through functional control based on the intention of joint process, which is a subjective element. Here, the intention of joint process is not sufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to allow it without restraint, and it should be one to commit a specific criminal act with a joint intent, and it should be transferred by using another person’s act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004, etc.).

Defendant 1, 4, 2, and Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 13’s each legal statement, Defendant 1, 4, 2, and Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 13’s each protocol of examination of the prosecutor’s protocol (including the major part of Defendant 1) against Nonindicted 13, and Nonindicted 13’s each protocol of examination of the prosecutor’s protocol (including the major part of Defendant 1) of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office 2004 type No. 13786 and the Seoul Central Prosecutors’ Office 2005 type No. 51217, etc.) are written, investigation report (securities registration statement of Nonindicted Company 1’s primary and secondary capital increase), investigation report (2 right 112 type No. 13786, Nov. 12, 1506) (the transcript of the corporate register of Nonindicted Company 1).

According to each of the above evidence, Defendant 2 was the representative director of the non-indicted 1 company from March 21, 2003 to June 9, 2003, and the name of Defendant 2 was registered on the list of third party holders to receive the first capital increase, but Defendant 2 did not have the intent or ability to pay the stock price, and Defendant 2 did not actually pay the stock price; and ③ Defendant 2 did not pay the stock price at the same time at the Doo branch of the Doo branch of the NA which is the payment bank for the stock price (the first capital increase day) on April 11, 2003, together with Defendant 1, 4, and 4, and non-indicted 13.

However, according to each of the above evidence: (a) Defendant 2 goes to work for Nonindicted Company 1 only when Defendant 1 and 4 were the nominal representative director of Nonindicted Company 1 and did not reside in Nonindicted Company 1; (b) Nonindicted Company 1’s board of directors made a resolution on March 31, 2003 to entrust all of the matters subject to approval of the representative director and the representative director’s duties to Defendant 4 from April 1, 2003; and (c) accordingly, Defendant 4 did not attach the phrase “Defendant 2” on behalf of Defendant 2 in the draft on April 14, 2003 (Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office 205No. 2439, 2461, 2462). (c) Defendant 1’s board of directors’ resolution on the issue of new shares offering, including the name of Defendant 2 and the name of the representative director of the Seoul District Prosecutor’s office, which is not the first 30-1, 2013.

Therefore, the above recognized facts (i) cannot be deemed to have controlled the above crime by moving Defendant 2 to his own will by using each of the crimes of this case, including Defendant 1, 4, and Nonindicted 4, 13, etc. with joint intent. Thus, the above recognized facts (i) are insufficient to recognize the above facts charged by Defendant 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the defendant 2 is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. As to each of the above 1-B crimes

There is no evidence to prove the facts charged, and rather, the statement of prosecutor's statement about leapon and the statement of question answer against nives (Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office 2004 type No. 13786, etc.) can be acknowledged that Nonindicted 16, an officer of Hanwon Group, participated in the first capital increase with 34,545 shares issued and paid 189,997,50 won as shares, and paid 189,50 won as shares.

Therefore, since the above facts charged constitute a time when there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, it is necessary to pronounce innocence on Defendant 1 and 4 pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of the crimes of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, violation of Article 1-2(1) of the Commercial Act, violation of Article 1-2(2) of the judgment, and violation of the Commercial Act, and violation of Article 1-2(2) of the judgment, the judgment of innocence shall not be

C. As to the above 1-C. Crimes

(1) The argument

Defendant 4 was led by Nonindicted 9, and he has no relation to himself.

(2) Determination

There are statements made by Defendant 1 in the court, each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 1, and each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 4 on the suspect's interrogation protocol against Defendant 4 (which are bound to each investigation record of Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2004 type No. 13786, etc. and Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 51217, etc.).

In relation to Defendant 1’s above statement, it appears that Nonindicted 9 led to the electric vehicle mass advertising advertising as described in the above facts charged, and that Nonindicted 9 paid part of the funds deposited by Defendant 1 to the account in the name of Egyptian, as indicated in the above facts charged, as the advertising cost for the electric vehicle mass advertising as described in the above facts charged, it appears that Defendant 1 led the above advertising in Egyptian (Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office 2004No. 13786 et al.) (3) paid KRW 400 million in the above advertising cost by discounting or directly delivering Korean Egypt promissory notes (Seoul Central Prosecutors’ Office 2005No. 51217 et al.). In light of the following facts, it is difficult to view that Defendant 4 had no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 had already participated in the above affairs of Egyptian in the affairs of Egyptian, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 had already participated in the affairs of Egy Forest.

(3) Conclusion

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, the defendant 4 is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

D. As to the above 1-D. Crimes

(1) There are some statements made by each prosecutor's statement about the witness south-ho, south-ho, and North-ho, each of the evidences that correspond to or correspond to the above facts charged (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 68855, etc. which are bound to the investigation records).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the above statements made by the South-hing and the North-hing residents, Nonindicted Co. 1 entered into a joint investment agreement with the Chinese mechanical industrial gun on May 24, 1995, and the amount equivalent to 52.8% of the total capital of Nonindicted Co. 5 invested in the said Nonindicted Co. 5 (52.8%) and owned an amount equivalent to KRW 3,733,00,470, and KRW 3,13,000,000,000, such as short-term loans and short-term loans to Defendant 5 with respect to Nonindicted Co. 5. However, Defendant 3 acquired shares and claims of Nonindicted Co. 1 from Defendant 1 on condition of offsetting his personal claims against Defendant 1.

However, according to the statement by the South-ho, North-ho, and North-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, 1000 won (hereinafter referred to as "non-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, 1008"),

(3) Therefore, the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty of Defendant 1, 2, 4, and 3 pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts. However, as long as it is found that Defendant 1, 2, 4, and 3 was guilty of a single crime, the judgment of not guilty is not rendered separately in the text of the judgment.

E. As to each of the above 1-E crimes (Defendant 1)

(1) The argument

Defendant 1 attempted to accept (name omitted) but did not have committed the crime of manipulation of this case in collusion with Defendant 5, and since Defendant 1 was not Defendant 1 but Defendant 5, Defendant 1 did not have a duty to report the stock purchase of this case.

(2) Determination

Some of the statements made by the defendant 5, each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant 1 and the defendant 5 (including the statement made by the defendant 1), police interrogation protocol of the defendant 5, questions and answers to the defendant 5 (Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 2005 type No. 5970, etc.) are written as evidence consistent with or consistent with the above facts charged.

First, as to Defendant 5’s above statement, ① around December 202, along with Nonindicted 21 and Nonindicted 22, Defendant 5 lent a large amount of KRW 9.5 billion to the Chairperson of the Western Bureau (name omitted). Since (name omitted) the share price of KRW 1,00 is anticipated to incur severe damage if it was delistingd due to failure to maintain at least KRW 1,500, the need to support the ( name omitted) share price of KRW 500,00, while Defendant 1 renounced the acceptance of the (name omitted) obligation of KRW 1,00,00 if the (name omitted) share price of KRW 50,00,00 was discarded, Defendant 5 was unable to obtain an explanation from Defendant 15,50,000, and Defendant 1 was unable to obtain an explanation from Defendant 15,505,50,000,000 won (name omitted), Defendant 5’s account that Defendant 1 borrowed from all Defendant 5 and Defendant 15,500,00,00.

Second, according to the above statements by Defendant 1 at the prosecutor's office, if it is confirmed that Defendant 1 lent KRW 1 billion to Defendant 5 under the name of the market manipulation fund of this case and that Defendant 1 acquires (name omitted of the company), the defendant 1 is recognized as having given Defendant 5 the purchase of shares (name omitted of the company) through the market manipulation of this case, but it is difficult to believe the above statement by Defendant 5 for the above reasons. In a criminal trial, the conviction of Defendant 5 should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form a conviction, even if there is no suspicion of conviction against Defendant 1, it is inevitable to determine it as the profit of Defendant 1 (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2524, Nov. 10, 200), and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently in the above facts charged.

(3) Conclusion

Since each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, the defendant 1 is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

F. As to the above 1-f., the crime (Defendant 1, Defendant 4)

(1) The argument

First, with respect to the above 1-F crime, Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 used the above KRW 1,050,000 for the non-indicted 1 company, not as the recovery fund of the non-indicted 1 company's funds in the above facts charged, but as the non-indicted 1 company used the above KRW 1,000,000 for the purpose of the non-indicted 1 company, such as using the money borrowed from the non-indicted 1's life in the guarantee of the non-indicted 1 company as the recovery fund of the non-indicted 1 company's funds. Thus, Defendant 1 and 4 do not constitute embezzlement.

Second, with respect to the crime of the above 1-g, Defendant 4 did not know that Defendant 1 was arbitrarily used KRW 170 million out of the funds of Nonindicted Company 1, which Defendant 1 had been in his custody for business purposes, as the recovery fund of the checks issued by Nonindicted Company 33.

(2) Determination

(A) As to the above 1-2 crime

Some of the statements made by Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 4, each of the prosecutor's interrogation records (including each of the statements made by Defendant 4 and Chuncheon) (including each of the prosecutor's interrogation records attached to the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office 2005 type 5970 type 570 type 200), the prosecutor's protocol of statement on the Park real-time (including the part of the prosecutor's interrogation record) on the Park real-time, and the investigation report (including the part of the CD's statement on the whereabouts of KRW 1.55 million out of the CDs) are written as evidence consistent with or consistent with the above facts charged (one right of investigation records 232 type 241 type 1).

In full view of the above evidence: (a) around November 12, 2003, the non-indicted 1 company issued 3 billion won bonds with non-indicted 1 guarantee at the non-indicted 60 billion won; (b) around November 14, 2003, six copies of the above 3 billion won deposit certificate at the non-indicted 1 company; (c) the defendant 1 purchased the above 400 billion won and discounted the amount to 2.8 billion won from the non-indicted 64 billion won to the non-indicted 1 company; and (d) the defendant 1 transferred the above 1.5 billion won amount to the non-indicted 61 company's account at the non-indicted 40 billion won to the non-indicted 61 company's non-indicted 40 billion won to the non-indicted 50 billion won, and (e) the defendant 400 million won was not related to the above 1.5 billion won deposit account at the non-indicted 1 company's own account at the non-indicted 14.5 billion won.

(B) As to the crime of the above 1-2

On the other hand, there are some statements made by Defendants 1, 4, and 1, each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation (including each part of the statements made in the same investigation record) against Defendants 4 and 1 (including each part of the statements made in the same investigation record) as well as the prosecutor's protocol of protocol of interrogation of Defendants 4 and 1 (including each part of the statements made in the same investigation record), the prosecutor's protocol of statement of Park Jae-in (including the part of the statement made in the second right), and the investigation report (including the report related to the whereabouts of KRW 1.55 million out of the CD amount) (1st 232 pages to 241 pages of the same investigation record).

According to each of the above evidence, ① Defendant 1 as the president of Nonindicted Company 1 and was actually managing Nonindicted Company 1; Defendant 4 was the vice president of Nonindicted Company 1; ② Defendant 1, following consultation with Defendant 4 on November 12, 2003, issued bonds 3 billion won from Nonindicted Company 1 with non-guaranteed bonds as non-guaranteed bonds; Defendant 4 purchased a certificate of deposit using the above 3 billion won with Defendant 1’s instruction and delivered them to Defendant 1 (as for the same investigation record, 1 right 227, 228 pages).

However, according to the above evidence, the following facts are also acknowledged: (a) around November 18, 2003, Defendant 1 remitted to Defendant 4 only KRW 1,050,000,000 out of KRW 2.8 billion, which is the amount discounted by the above certificate of deposit; and (b) Defendant 1 arbitrarily used Nonindicted Company 3 for the collection price of the number of shares issued by Nonindicted Company 3 for the collection of the number of shares in default (as for the same investigation record, KRW 225,26), and (c) Defendant 1 remitted KRW 1,000,000 to Defendant 4’s above agricultural bank account on December 5, 2003.

Therefore, the above recognized facts (i) or (ii) alone cannot be deemed to have controlled the above crime by Defendant 4 by moving Defendant 1’s own intent to the commission of the crime of embezzlement of this case with joint intent. Thus, the above recognized facts (i) are insufficient to recognize the above facts charged by Defendant 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

(3) Conclusion with Defendant 1 (F)

Thus, the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act since there is no proof of facts constituting the crime. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of the crime of occupational embezzlement in the judgment of comprehensive crime, the judgment of innocence shall not be rendered separately.

(4) Conclusion with Defendant 4 (see, e.g., the above 1-1, e., Supreme Court Decision 201Do15

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the defendant 4 is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

G. As to the above 1-h (1) crime (defendant 4)

(1) The argument

Defendant 4, at the direction of Defendant 1 around March 2003, left the Republic of Korea Scream, and became Nonindicted Company 1, and all personal seal impressions and checks relating to the shares of the Republic of Korea Scream are transferred to a foreign exchange et al., and thus, the Korean Scream as indicated in the above facts charged after March 2003 is irrelevant to himself.

(2) Determination

Since each statement of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol and police interrogation protocol (Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office No. 2005 type No. 41893, etc. which are bound to the investigation records) against the defendant 1 and 2 as evidence consistent with or consistent with the above facts charged, the above evidence is examined in order.

First, in relation to Defendant 1’s above statement, in light of the purport that ① Defendant 1 stated to the effect that it was issued irrespective of Defendant 4, when it comes to this court, Defendant 1’s statement to the effect that it was issued in the above indictment; ② the transferability of the Korea ASEAN management director from January 2003 to May 2003, Defendant 4 maintained and managed the name cards necessary for issuing the Korea ASEAN Forest Management Director’s shares, corporate seal impressions, etc., but Defendant 4 kept and stored them in the Korean ASEAN Forest Office’s book, and Defendant 1 again managed them in the custody of Defendant 1 (the same investigation record5°139 pages). In light of the fact that Defendant 1 stated to the effect that “The transferability of the above statement was difficult to believe.”

Second, in relation to the above statements by Defendant 2, the purport that the contents of the above statements by Defendant 1 or Defendant 4 is deemed to have issued the check of shares as stated in the facts charged above is insufficient to recognize the above facts charged only with the above statements by Defendant 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

(3) Conclusion

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the court acquitted Defendant 4 under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

H. As to the above 1-h (2) crime (defendant 4)

(1) The argument

Defendant 4 does not know not only the fact that he acquired the money, such as the above facts charged, from the sexual ethics, but also the sexual ethics.

(2) Determination

The evidence that is consistent with or consistent with the above facts charged includes the statement of the police's statement on the sexual virtue and the statement of the accusation in the preparation of the sexual ethics.

On December 24, 2003, Defendant 4 borrowed the money by borrowing a promissory note from Nonindicted Company 1 as collateral because the company had defaulted on or around December 24, 2003, or ① Park Il-il is the preceding owner who is engaged in credit business, and Lee Sung-deok is the sole owner who raises funds to himself (5No. 169 of the investigation record). “Inasmuch as Defendant 1 actually runs the aforesaid investigation record, it is difficult for Nonindicted Company 1 to do so at his own request, and there is no other fact that the said promissory note at his own request makes it difficult for Nonindicted Company 4 to discount the number of shares of the above promissory note at the request of Defendant 4, “The bond market is narrow, Nonindicted Company 1, Korea 1, and Lee Sung-soo is the preceding owner who is engaged in credit business, and Lee Sung-soo is the first owner who is in charge of the investigation record, and there is no other evidence to believe that Defendant 1 is the first owner of the above investigation record or the second owner of the above investigation record.”

(3) Conclusion

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the court acquitted Defendant 4 under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. Defendant 1:

(1) The actual manager who had employed 24 full-time workers and operated Nonindicted Co. 33 (hereinafter referred to as “gold-gu oil business”) in Goyang-si (detailed address omitted).

In the above company, the employee, who was employed from March 30, 1992 to March 28, 2002, worked for non-indicted 25's retirement allowance of 9,584,120 won and non-indicted 26's retirement allowance of 3,381,080 won from December 26, 1996 to March 28, 2002, are not paid respectively within 14 days from the date on which the cause for the payment occurred without any agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties.

(2) The representative of Nonindicted Co. 43 located in Seoul (S. omitted) is a business operator who employs eight full-time workers and operates newspaper publishing business;

On November 1, 2002, no wage and retirement allowance of 21,515,180 won and the total sum of 18,351,720 won of wages and retirement allowance of non-indicted 28 retired workers on the same day with respect to non-indicted 27 who were retired from the said workplace on the same day are paid 39,86,90 won within 14 days from the date when the grounds for the payment occurred without any agreement on extension of the due date between the parties concerned;

B. Defendant 1, 4, or 2 conspired;

Around January 2003, Defendant 1 had taken over the Korea Scream, and Defendant 1 had been issued a check of shares and continued to trade after changing the representative director of the Korea Scream account from around October 31, 2000 to Defendant 2 at the back-dong Enterprise Finance Branch of the New Korea-based Bank, a transaction from around October 31, 200, to Defendant 1 had been made.

Around December 2003, at Defendant 1’s personal office of Seoul (detailed address omitted), each of the holders issued a check number of 600,000,000 cubic c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c

C. Defendant 1 in collusion with Nonindicted 23

(1) Around July 2001, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 24, 2001, the fact is that there was no supply of goods or services in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,101,310,000, in spite of the fact that there was no supply of goods or services to Taesungdong Co., Ltd., Ltd. located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and issued a tax invoice as if there was no supply of goods or services, and from around that time until July 2002, there was no supply of goods or services in an amount of KRW 5,291,265,00 in total, without supplying goods or services to 11 companies as shown in the separate crime list 15; and

(2) At the office of Nonindicted Co. 24 around July 2001, the fact was received 59 tax invoices, as shown in the annexed Table 16 from July 2002, as if the goods or services were supplied by the Dream company located in Ansan-dong without being supplied with the goods or services from the Dream company located in Ansan-dong, as if the goods or services were supplied in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,09,053,00,000, from that time, to July 2002, as shown in the annexed Table 16, as if the goods or services were supplied by eight companies without being supplied with goods or services.

2. Determination

A. As to each of the above 1-A crimes

However, according to Article 112(2) of the Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 7465, Mar. 31, 2005) which was effective on July 1, 2005, the above crimes cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 112(2). According to Defendant 1’s written application for non-prosecution of punishment (the filing of each trial record) submitted by his defense counsel, the worker Nonindicted 27 and Nonindicted 28, the worker Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 25, which was after the prosecution of this case was instituted, have been clearly withdrawn from their wish to punish each Defendant 1 on July 2005 after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, each of the above charges against Defendant 1 is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. As to each of the above 1-B crimes

The above crimes cannot be prosecuted against the will expressed by the holder of the check under Article 2 (4) of the Illegal Check Control Act. According to the statement of the written application for non-prosecution for criminal punishment (contested with each trial record) submitted by the defense counsel of the defendant 1, the final holder of the check number of 2,50,000 won (the check number Ma is 08319520, February 17, 2004) is the last holder of the check number of 2,50,000 won (the check number Ma, 00,000 won, 60,000,000,000 won, 200 won after the prosecution of this case against the defendant 1,4, and 2,000 won was instituted, each of the above charges against the defendant 28,50,000 won is dismissed, and each of the above charges against the defendant 20,75,000 won of the check number Ma30,000 won.

C. As to each of the above 1-C. Crimes

On the other hand, Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the facts charged shall be specified by specifying the time, date, place, and method of a crime." Thus, the prosecution without specifying the facts charged shall be null and void. The crime of issuing a tax invoice without transaction under Article 11-2 (4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be established for each tax invoice (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do3945, Nov. 24, 200; 82Do1362, Dec. 14, 1982). The facts charged against the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be issued 80 copies of the false contents, and the tax invoice shall be issued 59 copies of the false contents shall not be deemed to have been specified in the indictment. Thus, the prosecution procedure against the defendant in violation of Article 27 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be dismissed since all of the supply values of each tax invoice shall not be deemed to have been specified in the indictment.

[Attachment]

Judges, the highest perfecter (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea