Defendant 1 and 12 others

Stoppy et al.

Law Firm Won, Attorneys Yu Jae-woo et al.

1. Defendants 1 and 7 years of imprisonment, 3 years of imprisonment, 3 years of imprisonment, 5 (Defendant 4 of the judgment of a Supreme Court), 6 (Defendant 5 of the judgment of a Supreme Court), and 8 months of imprisonment, Defendant 7 (Defendant 6 of the judgment of a Supreme Court) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 15,00,00 won, 8 (Defendant 7 of the judgment of a Supreme Court) and 15,00,000 won, 15,00,000 won, 9 (Defendant 8 of the judgment of a Supreme Court), 10 (Defendant 9 of the judgment of a Supreme Court), 10 (Defendant 10 of the judgment of a Supreme Court), 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, 12 years and 12 (Defendant 10 of the judgment of a Supreme Court), and 10 years and 10 years of fine, 100, 200 won and 30 won of the judgment of a fine (Supreme Court).

2. In a case where the defendants did not pay each of the above fines, the defendants are confined to the defendant 7, 50,000 won for the defendant 12, 2,000,000 won for the defendant 13, and 1,400,000 won for the defendant 13 respectively for the period calculated by converting each of the above fines into each of the days.

3. However, the execution of each of the above imprisonment for a period of four years for defendants 2, 3, and 11 from the date this judgment became final and conclusive; for two years for defendants 5, 6, 9, and 10; for three years for defendants 8, 12, and 13, shall be suspended.

4. To order each of the defendants 2, 9, 10, and 11 to provide community service for 160 hours.

5. Of the facts charged in this case, on February 2, 2009 against Defendant 11, 12, and 13, the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act related to the allocation of capital increase to a third party to Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 1, 11, and 13; the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act related to the use of borrowed name equivalent to KRW 2,200,000 for preemptive rights of Nonindicted Co. 8 on July 13, 2009; the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act related to the use of borrowed name equivalent to KRW 2,20,000 for preemptive rights of Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 5 on December 29, 2009; the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to fraudulent transactions in the course of the merger of Nonindicted Co. 8

본문내 포함된 표 공소사실 판단 항 피해자 또는 대상 범행 피고인 피해액 또는 부당이익(원) 유죄부분 무죄부분 피고인 피해액 또는 부당이익(원) 3 공소외 2 주식회사(일람표 1) 횡령 피고인 1, 피고인 2 80,866,780,822 77,366,780,822 횡령3억 배임 일부 무죄(이유)(32억 원, 일람표 1 순번 95, 107~109) 공소외 4 주식회사(일람표2) 횡령 피고인 1,피고인 3 15,105,000,000 93억 6천만 횡령 7억 6천만 배임 일부 무죄(이유)(49억 8,500만 원, 일람표 2 순번 14~20) 공소외 5 주식회사(일람표 3) 횡령 피고인 1,피고인 2 17,303,447,153 전부 유죄 4 공소외 8 주식회사 배임 피고인 1,피고인 2 297억 전부 유죄 공소외 2 주식회사 357억 5 공소외 2 주식회사(2009. 2. 2. 3자배정 유상증자) 장내매수관련 시세조종, 위계, 부정한 기교 피고인 1,피고인 2,피고인 9,피고인 8(공소외 10) 944,338,799 피고인 1,피고인 2 944,388,799 피고인 9, 피고인 8 일부 무죄(이유)(2008. 11. 25. ~ 2009. 1. 13. 공범 범위 및 액수부분) 피고인 9,피고인 8 액수불상 유상증자 관련 부정한 기교, 거짓 기재(피고인 13 10억, 피고인 12 30억 차입, 차명 및 피고인 12 원금보장 30억 투자) 피고인 1,피고인 2,피고인 11,피고인 13,피고인 12 2,613,590,185 피고인 1,피고인 2 1,268,351,562 피고인 1, 피고인 2 일부 무죄(이유)(공범관계가 인정되지 않는 피고인 12 이득부분) 피고인 11, 피고인 13,피고인 12 전부 무죄(주문)(2009. 2. 3. 부정한 기교로 인한 범죄는 구 증권거래법에 의하여 죄가 되지 않고, 2009. 3. 3. 거짓기재로 인한 범죄는 증거 없음) 합계 피고인 1,피고인 2 3,557,928,984 피고인 1,피고인 2 2,212,690,361일부 유죄 일부 무죄(이유) 6 공소외 2 주식회사(2009. 6. 3. 공소외 10과 투자수익보장약정) 시세조종, 부정한 기교 피고인 1피고인 2(공소외 10) x 전부 유죄 7 공소외 4 주식회사(2009. 5. 20. 공소외 10 해외자본 10%관련 유상증자 참여) 위계, 거짓기재, 부정한 기교 피고인 1,피고인 2(공소외 10) x 위계, 부정한 기교 부분 유죄 거짓기재 부분일부 무죄(이유) 8 공소외 8 주식회사(2009. 6. 15. 실권주 피고인 13 차명인수) 거짓기재, 부정한 기교 피고인 1,피고인 11,피고인 13 37,800,255 전부 유죄 9 공소외 4 주식회사(2009. 8. 12. 실권주 40만 주 공소외 6 주식회사 차명 인수) 거짓기재, 부정한 기교 피고인 1,피고인 2, 25,809,133 전부 유죄 10 공소외 8 주식회사(2009. 7. 13. 신주인수권 22억 상당 피고인 13 차명행사) 거짓기재, 부정한 기교 피고인 1,피고인 11,피고인 13 x 전부 무죄(주문) 11 공소외 9 주식회사, 공소외 8 주식회사(2009. 10. 29. 공소외 9 주식회사 피고인 13 등 차명인수) 공소외 9 주식회사 차명인수관련 거짓기재, 부정한 기교 피고인 1,피고인 2,피고인 11,피고인 13 1,323,498,540 피고인 1,피고인 2,피고인 11 1,323,498,540 피고인 13 일부 무죄(이유)(전체 공모가 인정되지 않고 부당이익액도 일부만 인정됨) 피고인 13 837,274,540(1,348,750,000 차입금으로 인한 이익) 공소외 8 주식회사(공소외 10 등 주식매수청구권 관련 시세조종) 장내매수 관련 시세조종, 부정한기교 피고인 1,피고인 2,피고인 7,피고인 8,피고인 10(공소외 10) 4,925,697,622 피고인 1,피고인 2,피고인 7,피고인 8,피고인 10 액수불상 피고인 7, 피고인 8,피고인 10 일부 무죄(이유)(시세조종으로 인한 부당이득액 산정 불가) 합계 피고인 1,피고인 2 6,249,196,162 피고인 1,피고인 2 액수불상 일부 무죄(이유) 12 공소외 5 주식회사, 공소외 8 주식회사(2009. 12. 29. 합병과정에 차입하여 차명으로 참가) 거짓기재, 부정한 기교 피고인 1,피고인 2,피고인 11,피고인 5,피고인 6,피고인 13,피고인 12,피고인 4,피고인 7 8,281,883,155 피고인 1,피고인 2,피고인 11 7,799,042,615 피고인 4, 피고인 7전부 무죄(주문)피고인 1, 피고인 2,피고인 11, 피고인 5,피고인 6, 피고인 13,피고인 12 일부 무죄(이유)(전체공모관계 인정되지 않고 부당이익액 일부씩만 인정) 피고인 5 241,423,255 피고인 6 193,134,425 피고인 13 1,689,942,377 피고인 12 2,897,043,240

【Case 2010Gohap315】

The defendant is the representative of the non-indicted 8 corporation.

Around July 23, 2003, the Defendant, via Defendant 7, who is the Defendant’s branch of the Defendant, concluded that “In the event that there is a profit of more than 10% per month by investing in the shares designated by the Defendant in KRW 500 million, the Defendant would bring the profit as it is, and even if an investment loss is incurred, the Defendant would make up 10% of the principal as a monthly profit as well as the principal of the investment.” However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to fulfill the terms and conditions of compensation for loss to the investment amount as above, as seen above, to the victim. The Defendant was issued a security account in the name of the victim by deceiving the victim as above, and received KRW 50

【Case No. 2010 Gohap412】

1. Status of the Defendants

A. Defendant 1

Defendant 1, from October 2006 to the date, is serving as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 13, and from March 16, 2007 to the present date, from around August 29, 2008, Defendant 1 is serving as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8, a KOSDAQ funeral. From August 29, 2008 to the present date, Defendant 1 is serving as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 2, and from January 29, 2009 to the present date, Defendant 1 is serving as the director of Nonindicted Co. 4, and has overall control over the fund management and the company operation as the actual

B. Defendant 2

Defendant 2 serves as a director of Nonindicted Co. 2 from June 26, 2008 to the present date. From January 29, 2009, Defendant 2 served as an auditor of Nonindicted Co. 4 from January 29, 2009, and has overall control over the accounting and financial affairs of relevant companies except for Nonindicted Co. 4.

C. Defendant 11

Defendant 1, at the recommendation of Defendant 1 on April 2, 2007, was appointed as a registration director to Nonindicted Co. 13 on September 2008, Nonindicted Co. 2, 2008, around July 2009, Nonindicted Co. 9 and Nonindicted Co. 5 on September 2009. Defendant 11 had been working as the vice president of Nonindicted Co. 2 from August 29, 2008, and as the vice president of Nonindicted Co. 30 from March 30, 2009 to the vice president of Nonindicted Co. 8 (registration director) and has overall control over the business of acquiring and merging the company and raising related funds.

D. Defendant 3

Defendant 3 was employed as the head of the management planning office of Nonindicted Co. 2 from October 26, 2008 to February 2, 2009, and was in charge of investment affairs that take over emergency funeral and the listing company. The financial director of Nonindicted Co. 4 from March 2009 to December 29, 2009 are in charge of the accounting and financial affairs of Nonindicted Co. 25 as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 25 from December 29, 2009.

E. Defendant 7

Defendant 7 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months in the Seoul Eastern District Court on May 8, 2009 due to fraud, etc. and the decision was confirmed on May 16, 2009 and is still under the suspended sentence.

Defendant 7 served as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 5 from September 29, 2009, and around December 29, 2009, Defendant 7 has overall control over the management of the business portion of Nonindicted Co. 5 as the managing director of Nonindicted Co. 8 after the merger between Nonindicted Co. 5 and Nonindicted Co. 8.

F. Defendant 8

Defendant 8 was sentenced to two years of suspended execution for a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act by the Seoul Eastern District Court on July 9, 2008, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 16, 2008, and is currently under suspended execution.

Defendant 8 was in office as the head of Nonindicted Co. 13 from November 1, 2006, and was in office as the management director of Nonindicted Co. 3 from January 1, 2008 to January 1, 2009, and was in office as a management director of Nonindicted Co. 3’s management director from January 1, 2009 to work as a public relations director of Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 2, while serving as a public relations director of Nonindicted Co. 3’s financial affairs, personnel affairs, general affairs, and business promotion (IR) of Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 2.

G. Defendant 13

Defendant 13 is a bondholder who engages in credit business in the name of “△△△△△△△”.

H. Defendant 12

Defendant 12 established a non-indicted 54 corporation from around 2007 to engage in claims collection business. Defendant 12 is a bonds company that actually runs credit business by establishing a non-indicted 5 corporation from around December 2009.

A. Defendant 4

Defendant 4 is the corporate bonds company that actually engages in credit business while serving as the vice-chairperson of Nonindicted 56 corporation from January 2008.

(j) Defendant 5

Defendant 5 works as a director of Nonindicted Co. 57 from June 2005, and is in charge of managing subsidiaries, new businesses, and marketing.

(k) Defendant 6

Defendant 6, from April 25, 2005, is serving as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 49 from around April 25, 2005, and runs the business related to investment consulting and corporate acquisition and merger.

(l) Defendant 9

Defendant 9, from June 2005 to May 2009, was in charge of attracting customers from Nonindicted 125 securities to business employees, and currently, he traded shares at the home as an individual investor.

(m) Defendant 10

From July 2007, Defendant 10 traded shares as private investors in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter 2 omitted).

(n) Nonindicted 10

Non-Indicted 10 is the actual owner of the securities account in the name of Non-Indicted 7, Bitish Virgin Island located in Hong Kong, Non-Indicted 58, Non-Indicted 59, Non-Indicted 60, Non-Indicted 61, each of the domestic agents of the above corporations, and the actual owners of Non-Indicted 62, Non-Indicted 63, and Non-Indicted 64.

2. Circumstances of merger, acquisition, and governance of related companies;

around February 1, 2008, the non-indicted 13 corporation, the representative director and the majority shareholder (60%) acquired the non-indicted 8 corporation (12.51%), the non-indicted 8 corporation on KOSDAQ, while bearing the liabilities of KRW 16 billion (1.51%) around February 1, 2008. The non-indicted 8 corporation took over the non-indicted 2 corporation (43.07%), the non-indicted 2 corporation on KOSDAQ, the non-indicted 4 corporation (25.33%) the non-indicted 2 corporation on December 15, 2008, while bearing the liabilities of KRW 52.5 billion.

around July 29, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 8 took over (100%) Nonindicted Co. 9, a non-indicted 9, a non-indicted 1,350,000 won (1,300 million won) with the liability of KRW 1,350,00,000, and merged around October 26, 2009.

around September 25, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 13 took over Nonindicted Co. 5, a non-indicted 13, a non-indicted 13, a non-indicted 5, a non-indicted 5, (90%) while bearing the debt of KRW 8.1 billion (90%). Defendant 1, a non-indicted 1, a non-indicted 5, took charge of the debt of KRW 14.9 billion (5 billion) and offered capital increase with shares allocated to a third party of the non-indicted 5, and Nonindicted Co. 8 merged the non-indicted 5, around December 29, 2009.

Around November 17, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 2 took over Nonindicted Co. 25 (Defendant 125.12% as shares of 8.64% and Defendant 125.12%) as a funeral on the KOSDAQ, while bearing the liabilities of KRW 1 billion. Nonindicted Co. 25 took over Nonindicted Co. 24, a non-indicted Co. 25, a non-indicted Co., Ltd., a non-indicted 24, a non-indicted 18, 2009, while taking over the liabilities of KRW 8.620 million around November 18, 2009.

Defendant 1 established Nonindicted Co. 3 (Representative Director Nonindicted 70) as the subsidiaries of Nonindicted Co. 8.

Defendant 1 established Nonindicted Co. 6 (Representative Director, Nonindicted Co. 71 and Defendant 1’s high school), Nonindicted Co. 72 (Representative Director, Defendant 7), Nonindicted Co. 42 (Representative Director, Nonindicted Co. 11 and Defendant 1’s title), Nonindicted Co. 14 (Representative Director, Nonindicted Co. 71), and Nonindicted Co. 73 (Representative Director, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8’s director in charge of the finance), but the above five companies were Pacom which were used in financial transactions between the companies without real business activities.

Through the above merger and acquisition, Defendant 1 acquired management rights of seven emergency funeral services, including Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 4, and Nonindicted Co. 25, and four KOSDAQ funeral services, including Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 24, Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 72, Nonindicted Co. 42, Nonindicted Co. 14, and Nonindicted Co. 73.

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

(a) The background and conspiracy of crimes;

When Defendant 1 is unable to repay liabilities incurred in the process of repeated capital mergers and acquisitions, or when the share price of Nonindicted Co. 2, etc. falls, Defendant 1 was faced with a situation in which stocks offered as security to the bond company, etc. could lose management rights, and the debt redemption and the fund to be used for stock management was required. In addition, in the case of Nonindicted Co. 13, Nonindicted Co. 13, 8, and Nonindicted Co. 3, etc., a situation in which operating income was almost or almost insufficient, making it difficult to procure the

In such a situation, Defendant 1 withdrawn the funds of Nonindicted Co. 2, victim Nonindicted Co. 4, victim Nonindicted Co. 5, victim Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 72, Nonindicted Co. 42, Nonindicted Co. 14, Nonindicted Co. 73, etc. under the pretext of loans to unlisted companies, such as Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 24, who had a relatively sound financial structure, and was willing to use them for the purpose irrelevant to the above victims, and ordered Defendant 2 and 3 to execute the said funds.

B. Embezzlement and breach of trust of Nonindicted Co. 2’s funds

1) On October 7, 2008, Defendant 1 decided to repay KRW 1,00,000,000 that the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 2, who was under business custody, acquired Nonindicted Co. 13 Co. 8 with Nonindicted Co. 13’s funds, and decided to repay KRW 1,00,000,000 that he borrowed from the Es Savings Bank. Defendant 2, upon Defendant 1’s order, remitted the victim’s funds KRW 1,00,000,000 to Nonindicted Co. 3’s corporate account for short-term loans, and re-transfer them to the Es Savings Bank, and embezzled it by paying it to Es Savings Bank.

In addition, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired and embezzled the amount of money equivalent to KRW 7,36,780,82 of the victim's funds being kept in business for 103 times, such as the list of crimes (1 week 8) in attached Form 32,95, 107, 108, and 109, from that time to December 24, 2009 (excluding No. 32,95, 107, 109).

2) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, as an executive officer of the victim non-indicted 2 corporation, sufficiently examined the purpose and validity of the disbursement of the company’s funds, conditions for the provision of funds, etc. through internal procedures, such as the board of directors’ resolution, etc., and, despite the fact that there was an occupational duty to prevent the occurrence of damages due to the occurrence of reasonable claims, such as the provision of adequate collateral to recover the funds, etc., they conspired to do so on February 3, 2009, without taking reasonable measures to recover the amount of KRW 300 million from the funds of the non-indicted 2 corporation to the non-indicted 23 corporation, without taking reasonable measures to recover damages, such as the provision of adequate collateral, etc.

C. Embezzlement and breach of trust of Nonindicted Co. 4’s funds

1) On May 19, 2009, Defendant 1 decided to make early repayment of KRW 400,000 of the funds of Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 4 Co. 4, who was in the course of business custody, as KRW 400,000,00 for Nonindicted Co. 8’s bonds with warrants issued by Nonindicted Co. 8 (BW). Defendant 3, upon Defendant 1’s order, remitted KRW 400,000 to Nonindicted Co. 14 Co. 14 for short-term loans, and then re-transfer them to Nonindicted Co. 8’s account, and embezzled them as the repayment of principal and interest of the bonds with warrants

In addition, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 conspired and embezzled the amount of money equivalent to KRW 9,360,000,000 from that time to December 28, 2009, such as the list of crimes (excluding Nos. 8,9,12,14-20) in attached Form 15 times, from that time by December 28, 200.

2) Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, as executive officers of the victim non-indicted 4 corporation, sufficiently examined the purpose and validity of the disbursement of the company’s funds, conditions for the provision of funds, etc. through internal procedures, such as the board of directors’ resolution, etc., and, despite the fact that there was an occupational duty to prevent the loss of the company due to the occurrence of reasonable claims such as the provision of adequate collateral for the collection of the funds, etc., they conspired to do so on November 4, 2009 without taking reasonable measures for recovery of claims such as in violation of such occupational duty and lending the funds of non-indicted 4 corporation to non-indicted 24 corporation on three occasions, such as lending KRW 360 million in total to non-indicted 24,000,000,000 in three times as indicated in the list of crimes No. 2, 8,9, and 12, thereby gaining profits equivalent to the above amount and causing property damage equivalent to the above victim.

D. The embezzlement of funds for Nonindicted Co. 5

Defendant 1, who was under his business custody on September 30, 2009, decided to preserve the funds embezzled by Nonindicted Co. 5 Company 5,107,761,846 won prior to the funds of Nonindicted Co. 5 Company 5,107,761,846 won. Defendant 2, according to Defendant 1’s order, remitted KRW 5,107,761,846 to Nonindicted Co. 6 Company’s account for short-term loans, and embezzled again to Nonindicted Co. 2 Company account.

In addition, Defendant 1 and 2 conspired and embezzled money equivalent to KRW 17,303,447,153 of the victim's funds being kept in business from that time to November 30, 2009, such as the list of crimes (3) in attached Form 11.

4. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

A. As to the Promissory Notes Co. 2 (B/L No. 2 omitted)

On November 25, 2008, Defendant 1 agreed to the effect that “Non-Indicted 10 purchases approximately KRW 2 billion of the shares of Non-Indicted 2 Co. 10, regardless of the price fluctuation, Defendant 1 shall pay interest to the said principal and shall add a promissory note and a monetary loan contract in an amount equivalent to KRW 3.3 billion for the purpose of securing the said principal and interest.” Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to provide a promissory note issued by Non-Indicted 2 Co. 10 as security in accordance with the above agreement. Defendant 2 provided a victim’s promissory note (bill No. 2 omitted) issued by Non-Indicted 10 (bill No. 3. 2 billion won, issue date, Nov. 25, 2008) to Non-Indicted 10, and Defendant 1 gave a notarized monetary loan contract in an amount equivalent to KRW 3.3 billion.3 billion.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with the victim to cause damage to the company, such as causing the victim to bear unnecessary obligations not related to the operation of the company, even though there is a duty not to cause damage to the company, Defendant 1 and 2 violated the above duty, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 3.3 billion to the victim, and causing property damage to the victim to bear an equivalent amount of debt.

B. Regarding the number of shares per non-indicted 2 corporation (number 1 omitted) to (number 4 omitted)

As of February 2, 2009, Defendant 1 was faced with a situation in which it is impossible to raise all funds for capital increase with respect to the allocation of capital increase to a third party equivalent to KRW 13.9 billion to the third party, Defendant 1 promised to guarantee the principal instead of having Defendant 12 participate in capital increase with the borrowed name of Nonindicted 7.4, etc. by borrowing KRW 3 billion from Defendant 12 from Defendant 12, and Defendant 12 promised to guarantee the principal instead of having Defendant 12 participate in capital increase.

On February 2, 2009, Defendant 1 requested Defendant 12 to offer a loan of KRW 3 billion and the cash of KRW 3 billion as security, and ordered Defendant 2 to offer a victim non-indicted 2's check number as security, and Defendant 2 provided Defendant 12 with the victim's check number as security. Defendant 2 provided the victim's check number (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), (number 2 omitted) (number 3 billion of check number 31 March 31, 2009), (number 3 billion of check number), (number 4 omitted), (number 4 omitted of check number 4) (number 4 of each issue date) (number 31 March 31, 2009) as security.

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired with the victim to cause damage to the company, such as having the victim bear unnecessary obligations not related to the company operation, even though there is a duty to cause damage to the company, Defendant 1 and 2 violated the above duty, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 6 billion to the victim, and causing property damage to the victim, which caused the victim to bear an equivalent amount of debt.

C. As to the Promissory Notes Co. 2 (L/C No. 1 omitted)

On March 3, 2009, Defendant 1 agreed with Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 10 to the effect that “When Nonindicted 10 purchased approximately KRW 3 billion of the shares of Nonindicted 2 Co. 2, regardless of the price fluctuation, Defendant 1 paid interest in the said principal, regardless of the price fluctuation.” Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to provide a promissory note issued by Nonindicted 2 Co. 3 as collateral in accordance with the above agreement, with the payment of interest in addition to the said principal and interest amounting to KRW 4.95 million for the purpose of securing the said principal and interest.” Defendant 2 provided the promissory note issued by the victim Nonindicted 2 as collateral to Nonindicted 10, and Defendant 2 provided the promissory note (bill No. 1 omitted, KRW 4.95 million, KRW 4.955 million, KRW 3, 2009) issued by the victim to Nonindicted 10 as collateral. Defendant 1 notarized a loan for consumption of money equivalent to KRW 4.955 million.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 did not commit any act of causing damage to the company, such as causing the victim to bear unnecessary obligations not related to the operation of the company, etc., but in violation of the above duty, Defendant 1 and 2 obtained pecuniary gains from the victim by acquiring a claim equivalent to KRW 4.950 million against the victim, and suffered pecuniary losses from the victim to bear a debt equivalent to the same amount.

D. As to the Promissory Notes Co., Ltd. (The No. 3 omitted), and (The No. 4 omitted)

On November 25, 2008, Defendant 1 agreed to the effect that “Non-Indicted 10 and Non-Indicted 10 purchase approximately KRW 2 billion of the shares of Non-Indicted 2 Co. 2, regardless of the price fluctuation, Defendant 1 shall pay interest on the said principal and interest plus notarized a promissory note and a monetary loan contract in an amount equivalent to KRW 3.3 billion for the purpose of securing the said principal and interest.” In accordance with the above agreement, Defendant 1 provided a promissory note and a monetary loan contract in an amount equivalent to KRW 3.3 billion as security.”

On February 25, 2009, Defendant 1 agreed to purchase approximately KRW 3 billion of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 in the same manner as Nonindicted Co. 10 with the same manner as that of Nonindicted Co. 10, and according to the contents of the agreement, Defendant 1 offered as security a promissory note issued by Nonindicted Co. 2 and a monetary loan agreement equivalent to KRW 4.95 million.

Defendant 1, around March 2009, determined that the promissory notes issued as above could be problematic in the course of the accounting audit, and promised to offer the promissory notes issued by Nonindicted Co. 8 as collateral instead of withdrawing the promissory notes issued by Nonindicted Co. 10 and the said Nonindicted Co. 2.

Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to offer a promissory note issued by the victim as security to Nonindicted 10 in accordance with the above promise, and Defendant 2 offered to Nonindicted 10 a promissory note (bill No. 3 omitted) issued by the victim (bill No. 3, No. 331, Mar. 31, 2009) and (bill No. 4 omitted) (bill No. 4950,000, No. 4950, Mar. 31, 2009) issued by the victim on March 31, 209.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with the victim to cause damage to the company, such as having the victim bear unnecessary obligations not related to the operation of the company, but did not cause damage to the company. However, in violation of the above duty, Defendant 1 and 2 obtained pecuniary gains from the victim by acquiring the claim equivalent to KRW 8.25 million against the victim, and caused property damage to the victim by having the victim bear an equivalent amount of debt.

E. Regarding the party account (the check number 5 omitted) of Nonindicted Co. 8 and the party account (the check number 6 omitted) of Nonindicted Co. 2

Defendant 1, around April 2009, intended to sell the shares and bonds with warrants in an amount equivalent to KRW 4.3 billion held by Nonindicted Co. 13 and Nonindicted Co. 73 to Nonindicted Co. 76. However, it was difficult at the time to promptly receive KRW 4.3 billion due to the shortage of funds held by Nonindicted Co. 76.

Accordingly, Defendant 1: ① borrowed KRW 4.3 billion from Defendant 12; ② Nonindicted Co. 73 acquired Nonindicted Co. 35 billion in return for the payment of KRW 4.3 billion to Nonindicted Co. 35; ③ Nonindicted Co. 35 takes part in the capital increase of Nonindicted Co. 76 with KRW 4.3 billion; ④ Nonindicted Co. 76 takes part in the capital increase of KRW 4.3 billion in the capital increase; ④ Nonindicted Co. 75’s shares and bonds with warrants (BW) held by Nonindicted Co. 73 with KRW 4.3 billion in the capital increase; ⑤ Nonindicted Co. 73 decided to make a transaction by again redeeming the shares of Nonindicted Co. 75 and bonds with warrants (BW) with KRW 4.3 billion to Defendant 12. As above, when Nonindicted Co. 73 borrowed KRW 4.3 billion from Defendant 12, it decided to provide the shares of the victim Co. 8 and the bonds with warrants of Nonindicted Co. 2.

Accordingly, on April 6, 2009, Defendant 2 provided Defendant 12 with one copy of the check number (number 5 omitted), one copy of the check number (number 5 omitted), one copy of the check amount on April 6, 2009, and one copy of the check number (number 6 omitted), and 4.3 billion won of the check amount on April 6, 2009, which are irrelevant to Nonindicted Co. 2 and the victim Non-Indicted. 8 Co. 73 as security.

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not act in collusion with the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 and the victim Nonindicted Co. 8 to bear any unnecessary debt unrelated to the operation of the company, etc., but they did not act in violation of the above duty, thereby obtaining pecuniary profits equivalent to KRW 4.3 billion against the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 and the victim Nonindicted Co. 8, and causing pecuniary losses to make the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 and the victim Nonindicted Co. 8 bear any debt equivalent to the same amount.

F. As to the Promissory Notes Co. 2 (Bsory Notes No. 5 omitted)

On May 20, 2009, Defendant 1 agreed to provide Defendant 2 with a promissory note issued by Nonindicted Co. 2 as security by Nonindicted Co. 10 and Nonindicted Co. 10 on May 21, 2009, “on the face of Nonindicted Co. 4’s participation of approximately KRW 3 billion in the capital increase for new shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 4 on May 21, 2009 in the name of a foreign fund, Defendant 1 paid interest in addition to the above principal and interest regardless of the price fluctuation, and notarized a monetary loan contract with Nonindicted Co. 2’s promissory note in an amount equivalent to KRW 7.54 billion for the purpose of securing the above principal and interest.” Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to provide a promissory note issued by Nonindicted Co. 2 as security pursuant to the above agreement, and Defendant 2 provided the victim’s promissory note (bill No. 500 million won, issue date, May 20, 2009) (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 105 billion won”).

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 did not commit any act of causing damage to the company, such as causing the victim to bear unnecessary obligations not related to the operation of the company, even though there is a duty to do so, in violation of the above duty, they obtained pecuniary gains from the victim by acquiring a claim equivalent to KRW 7.54 billion against the victim, and caused property damage to the victim by having the victim bear an equivalent amount of debt.

G. As to the Promissory Notes Co. 2 (No. 6 omitted)

On June 3, 2009, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 agreed to provide Defendant 2 with a promissory note issued by Nonindicted Co. 2 as collateral in accordance with the above agreement that “on the face of Nonindicted Co. 10 purchased approximately KRW 600 million of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2; Defendant 1 paid interest in addition to the above principal regardless of the price fluctuation; and Defendant 1 notarized a promissory note issued by Nonindicted Co. 2 as well as a monetary loan contract for consumption; and Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to provide a promissory note issued by Nonindicted Co. 2 as collateral; Defendant 2 provided as collateral to Nonindicted Co. 10, 2009 the victim’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 10,000 won (bill number 6 omitted); Defendant 1 provided as collateral; Defendant 9330,000 won of the date of issuance; and Defendant 1 notarized a monetary loan of KRW 931,000.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with the victim to cause damage to the company, such as having the victim bear unnecessary obligations not related to the operation of the company, even though there is a duty not to cause damage to the company, Defendant 1 and 2 violated the above duty, thereby making the victim 10,000 won of the claim against the victim and causing property damage to the victim to bear an equivalent amount of debt.

H. Regarding the political party (number 5 omitted) to (number 9 omitted), the political party (number 10 omitted), the political party (number 10 omitted), and the (number 11 omitted) of Nonindicted Co. 8

As of September 28, 2009, Defendant 1 was faced with a situation in which it is impossible to raise all funds for capital increase with respect to capital increase to a third party equivalent to 18 billion won of Nonindicted 5’s capital increase, Defendant 1 decided to borrow KRW 6 billion from Defendant 12 to pay the capital increase in the name of nine persons, including Defendant 12 and Nonindicted 28.

On September 23, 2009, when Defendant 12 asked Defendant 12 to provide a loan of KRW 6 billion to Defendant 12, the Defendant requested the victim non-indicted 8 Co., Ltd. and the victim non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. to offer as security. Defendant 2 instructed the victim non-indicted 8 Co., Ltd. and the victim non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. to offer as security the check number as security. Defendant 2 offered the victim non-indicted 8 Co., Ltd. 8, the check number (number 5 omitted), (number 8 omitted), (number 8 omitted on September 23, 2009), (number 7 omitted), (number 9 omitted (amount of a check on September 23, 2009), and (amount of a check number omitted on September 23, 2009), the victim non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. 2’s number (amount of a check omitted on September 13, 2009).

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 did not act in collusion with the victim Nonindicted Co. 8 and the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 to bear unnecessary obligations unrelated to the operation of the company, etc., but they did not act in violation of the above duty, thereby obtaining pecuniary profits equivalent to KRW 6 billion from the victim Nonindicted Co. 8 and the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 2, and suffered pecuniary losses from the victim Nonindicted Co. 8 and the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 to bear an amount of debt equivalent to the same amount.

I. As to Promissory Notes Co., Ltd. (The Promissory Notes No. 7 omitted)

As of September 28, 2009, Defendant 1 was faced with a situation in which the total amount of capital increase is not available in relation to the third party’s allocation of capital increase for capital increase, Defendant 1 decided to borrow KRW 4 billion from Defendant 13 to use KRW 3.5 billion in the amount of capital increase in four borrowed names, such as Nonindicted 15, etc.

On September 24, 2009, the Defendant requested Defendant 13 to provide a promissory note issued by the victim non-indicted 8, a listed company, as a collateral in the process of requesting Defendant 13 to grant a loan of KRW 4 billion to Defendant 13. Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 13 to provide a promissory note issued by the victim as a collateral. Defendant 2 provided a victim’s promissory note (name 7 omitted) issued by the victim (value 7 of the Promissory note number (value 7 of September 24, 2009) (value on September 24, 2009)

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired to cause damage to the company by causing the victim to bear unnecessary obligations not related to the operation of the company, etc. notwithstanding the duty, Defendant 1 and 2 violated the above duty, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 4 billion to the victim, and causing property damage to the victim to bear the equivalent amount of debt.

(j) Regarding the check number table (number 3 omitted), (number 4 omitted), and the deed of promissory notes in the name of Nonindicted 2 Co. 8

Defendant 1 decided on September 28, 2009 to guarantee the principal and finalized profit and to participate in capital increase with respect to capital increase with respect to the allocation of capital increase to a third party equivalent to 18 billion won by Nonindicted 5 Co. 5’s KRW 18 billion.

On September 28, 2009, Defendant 1 requested Defendant 4 to provide the principal amount of KRW 1 billion to Defendant 4 as security, and a promissory note in the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2 and the victim Nonindicted Incorporated Company 8 (the amount of KRW 1.7 billion, the date of issuance September 28, 2009) as security. Defendant 2 provided Defendant 4 with a promissory note in the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 8 (the amount of KRW 1.7 billion, the date of payment September 28, 2009). Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to provide the victim with the check number as security. Defendant 2 provided the victim’s check number (the check number 3 omitted), (the check number 4 omitted), (the check number 4 omitted) (the amount of KRW 850 million on September 28, 2009, respectively).

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 did not commit any act of causing damage to the company, such as causing the victim to bear unnecessary obligations not related to the operation of the company, even though there is a duty to do so, Defendant 4 violated the above duty, thereby obtaining pecuniary gains equivalent to KRW 1.7 billion against the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 and the victim Nonindicted Co. 8, thereby causing property damage to the victim.

(k) Promissory Notes Co., Ltd. (Articles 4 and 4 omitted)

On October 7, 2009, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 agreed to the effect that “Non-Indicted 10 purchases approximately KRW 3 billion of the shares of Non-Indicted 8 Company, regardless of the price fluctuation, Defendant 1 shall pay interest to the said principal and shall add it to the promissory note of Non-Indicted 8 Company in an amount equivalent to KRW 4.95 million for the purpose of securing the said principal and interest.” According to the above agreement, Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to provide a promissory note issued by Non-Indicted 8 Company as security, and Defendant 2 provided a promissory note (bill number 4.95 billion won, issue date of Non-Indicted 7, 2009) issued by the victim to Non-Indicted 10,000 won (bill number 4.95 billion won, and issue date of Non-Indicted 10,000 won) as security, and Defendant 1 notarized a monetary loan loan contract in an amount equivalent to KRW 4.95 million.5 million.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 did not commit any act of causing damage to the company, such as causing the victim to bear unnecessary obligations not related to the operation of the company, etc., but in violation of the above duty, Defendant 1 and 2 obtained pecuniary gains from the victim by acquiring a claim equivalent to KRW 4.950 million against the victim, and suffered pecuniary losses from the victim to bear a debt equivalent to the same amount.

T. Regarding the political party account (number 12 omitted) to (number 13 omitted), the political party account account (number 1 omitted), the non-indicted 2 corporation (number 1 omitted), and the (number 2 omitted)

Defendant 1 decided on November 10, 2009 to borrow KRW 1 billion from Defendant 12 to pay for the capital increase in four borrowed names, including Nonindicted 27, etc., as the case was in which it was impossible to raise the capital increase in connection with the third party’s allocation of capital increase in consideration of the amount equivalent to KRW 3.2 billion to KRW 3.2 billion.

On November 10, 2009, the Defendant requested Defendant 12 to offer as security the check number of the victim non-indicted 8 Co., Ltd. and the victim non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. to offer as security. Defendant 2 instructed the victim non-indicted 8 Co., Ltd. and the victim non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. to offer as security. Defendant 2 offered the check number of the check number of the victim non-indicted 8 Co., Ltd. (number 12 omitted) (number 12 omitted) (number 13 omitted on Nov. 10, 2009) and (number 13 omitted) (number 13 of the check number) and (number 10 billion won on Nov. 10, 2009) of the check number of the non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. to offer as security.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 did not commit any act of causing damage to the company by inducing the victim Nonindicted 8 and the victim Nonindicted 2 corporation to bear unnecessary obligations not related to the operation of the company, etc. However, in violation of the above duty, Defendant 12 obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 1 billion against the victim Nonindicted 8 and the victim Nonindicted 2 corporation, thereby causing property damage to the victim Nonindicted 8 and the victim Nonindicted 2 corporation to bear the debt equivalent to the same amount.

(m) Conclusion

Defendant 1 and 2 violated the occupational duty that would not cause damage to the company, such as having the company bear unnecessary obligations unrelated to the operation of the company, and thus, Defendant 1 and 2 obtained bonds equivalent to KRW 29.7 billion against the victim non-indicted 8 corporation by providing the bond dealers, such as Defendant 12, 13, 4, and 10 as security, with the number of shares and promissory notes issued by the victim non-indicted 8 corporation and the victim non-indicted 2 corporation as security, and caused property damage to the victim non-indicted 8 corporation and the victim non-indicted 2 corporation to bear the debt equivalent to KRW 3.7 billion against the victim non-indicted 2 corporation.

5. Violation of the Capital Market Act and the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act relating to the allocation of capital increase to the third party Co. 2, Ltd. by February 2, 2009

(a) Formulation of an unlawful plan;

No person shall commit any act using an unfair means, scheme, or trick in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of stocks.

On May 29, 2008, Defendant 1, as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 8, acquired the management right of Nonindicted Company 2, and raised most of the shares 1,1720,000 shares of Nonindicted Company 2, which would be held by Nonindicted Company 8, by means of “stock security loan” and borrowing funds from financial institutions or bond holders.

When Non-Indicted 2 Company’s share price fell due to the outbreak of the so-called “Surman Surman” situation around November 2008, Defendant 1 did not provide additional security to comply with the collateral ratio set forth in the share security agreement, but became faced with a situation in which creditors’ loss of management right can be lost due to the creditors’ “trade” if they did not provide additional security to comply with the collateral ratio set forth in the share security agreement.

Defendant 1 purchased shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 on or around November 25, 2008 on condition that the principal and interest of the investment be guaranteed by concluding an agreement with Nonindicted Co. 10 on guaranteeing the principal and interest of the investment, thereby allowing a foreign investor to have the same external amount as having made a normal investment in Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd.; ② around January 10, 2009, Defendant 8 had Defendant 9, an individual investor purchase additional shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, in return for a certain amount of fee, and caused ordinary investors to misunderstand it as a title purchase; ③ Nonindicted Co. 2, 10 and Defendant 9 to support or reflect the price of shares; ③ to have an executive officer of Nonindicted Co. 2, 2009, based on the share price formed by the purchase of new shares of Nonindicted Co. 10 and Defendant 9, and to have an executive officer of Nonindicted Co. 2, 2009, formed new shares under the name of Defendant 12 and/or 13 to participate in the sale of shares under the same condition as an investment.

B. The purchase limit on Nonindicted 10-2 from November 25, 2008 to January 7, 2009

No one shall independently or in collusion with other persons for the purpose of inducing anyone to trade in the KOSDAQ market, creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading or causing a fluctuation in the market price of securities, and shall use a deceptive scheme or use an unfair deceptive scheme for the purpose of trading stocks and other transactions, or use stocks, or make other transactions.

Defendant 1, around November 2008, purchased approximately KRW 2 billion of shares of Nonindicted 2 Co. 10 to Nonindicted 10, through a foreign corporation, etc., and requested to lend money in the name of purchase in the country by adding interest to the above principal regardless of the fluctuation of the stock price, and Nonindicted 10 loaned KRW 2 billion to Nonindicted 10, but purchased the money from the above overseas corporation, etc. mainly within the head of the overseas corporation, etc., and agreed to this proposal.

Defendant 1: (a) around November 25, 2008, at the office of representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8’s corporation located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu (hereinafter 3 omitted), Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 37 as joint and several obligors; (b) Nonindicted Co. 7 as joint and several obligors; (c) Nonindicted Co. 14 as investors; (d) “Agreement on Guarantee of Investment Profits”; and (e) Note 15 as to the Agreement on Disposal of Surplus Investment Profits; and (e) Defendant 1 as Defendant 2, provided a promissory note (bill No. 2 omitted; and (e) issued by Nonindicted Co. 2 as collateral to Nonindicted Co. 10; and (e) signed a notarized deed on December 5, 2008, “No. 17”).”

Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10,00,000 won in cash in accordance with the above agreement, and Nonindicted 10,000 won in accordance with the agreement, purchased the shares of Nonindicted 2 Co. 78,781 through the foreign investment exclusive account, etc. of Nonindicted 7’s domestic company within the head of November 27, 2008 and purchased the shares of Nonindicted 2 Co. 62,781 in total at KRW 178,790,810 until January 7, 2009, the total amount of KRW 656,480,00 in total, and KRW 1,963,63,510 in total, market price of Nonindicted Co. 7 and Nonindicted 58’s domestic foreign investment exclusive account (total amount of KRW 653,670,930), and Nonindicted Co. 63 (1,309,992,580) in the name of Nonindicted Co. 17.

As above, in collusion with Nonindicted 10, Defendant 1 and 2 caused the misunderstanding that the purchase price of foreigners, etc. who ordinarily invest in the KOSDAQ market is constantly flowing into the market with intent to attract them to trade at the KOSDAQ market, and thus, as the trading of the relevant stocks was made of a lux. In addition, Defendant 1 and 2 erred by entering into an agreement and a lending agreement on guaranteeing the principal and interest of investment for the purpose of trading stocks and other transactions, and purchased the stocks of Nonindicted Company 2 within the market using a foreign investment-only account in the status of guaranteeing the collection of loans under the guarantee of the aforementioned agreement and a lending agreement, and used a deceptive scheme in which the foreign fund would purchase the stocks at the expense of purchasing the stocks at the expense of normal investment risk,

C. The ratio of purchase of shares from January 19, 2009 to February 2, 2009 by Defendant 9-2

No one shall independently or in collusion with other persons for the purpose of inducing any sale and purchase transaction at the KOSDAQ market, creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading or causing a fluctuation in the market price, and use any unfair trick in connection with the sale, purchase and sale of stocks or other transactions.

On January 14, 2009, Defendant 1 requested Defendant 8 to purchase the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 when delivering KRW 20 million to Defendant 9, and KRW 30 million to Defendant 78 and Defendant 10,000 to Defendant 2 at the office of the above (hereinafter referred to as “3 omitted”), “The list of third party participants becomes final and conclusive, thereby maintaining more than the issuance price until the payment date of the shares is made.” At the same time, Defendant 1 paid KRW 100,000 for the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2.

Defendant 9, upon receipt of KRW 20 million, purchased 41,301 shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 from January 19, 2009 to February 2, 2009 in KRW 140,235,465 (average unit price of KRW 3,395), and sold KRW 41,301 shares in KRW 141,940,370 (average unit price of KRW 3,437).

As above, Defendant 1, 8, and 9 purchased and sold shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 with a view to soliciting the sale and purchase of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 by public offering in sequential order, and subsequently used an unfair trick in relation to the sale and purchase of shares and other transactions.

D. Around February 2, 2009, Non-Indicted. 2 Company 2’s participation in the borrowed name offering of new shares.

No one shall commit an act of seeking money or any interest on property, by using a document containing an omission of a description or representation of any material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled, or any other description or representation, and in connection with the sale and purchase and sale of stocks and other transactions, he/she shall not use any unfair means, scheme or bridge in connection with such trading.

On January 23, 2009, Defendant 1 announced the decision to allocate capital increase to a third party equivalent to 14.4 billion won of Nonindicted 2’s capital increase, and submitted a securities registration statement around January 29, 2009.

Defendant 1 presented to Defendant 12 the condition that Defendant 12 paid 3 billion won to Defendant 12 the share capital on Defendant 12’s account under the guarantee of principal on the condition that Defendant 1 would pay interest of 10 billion won per month. Defendant 1 loaned 3 billion won to Defendant 12 on the condition that Defendant 1 would pay 3 billion won of the share capital with the funds sold new shares issued with capital increase, and that Defendant 12 shall have all profits accrued from the investment amount of 3 billion won. Defendant 12 shall comply with this condition, and Defendant 2 shall be provided with Defendant 2 with the check number (1 omitted), (2 omitted) (3 billion won of the check number, each of which was issued on March 31, 2009), Defendant 30 billion won of the share capital (3 billion won of the check number, each of which was issued as security) and Defendant 30 billion won of the check number (3 billion won of the check number 3 billion won of 300 billion won of the number of shares issued as security.

Defendant 1, through Defendant 11, agreed to receive the share capital for Defendant 13 and KRW 1.5 billion on the account of Defendant 13, and to borrow the share capital on the condition that the share capital will be paid at the rate of KRW 6 billion per month and the share capital will be provided as security after paying the share capital to the next name.

Defendant 2, on February 2, 2009, borrowed KRW 1 billion from Defendant 13 around February 2, 2009, in the name of Nonindicted 11, Defendant 2 used KRW 3 billion borrowed from Defendant 12 in the name of Nonindicted 79, 80, and 74.

As above, the share price of 12.9 billion won was paid to Nonindicted Co. 2, 2009 with the shares paid to Nonindicted Co. 2, 2009 with the shares paid to Nonindicted Co. 2, but Defendant 1 paid 4 billion won to Defendant 1, not with the company, but with the appearance of Defendant 1’s success in the shares paid to private investors, including minority shareholders, etc.; and Defendant 12 paid KRW 3 billion with the shares paid to Defendant 12 was paid with the status of guarantee of principal; thus, the amount of ordinary shares paid for shares paid to Nonindicted Co. 2, 2009 is merely 5.9 billion won excluding the above KRW 7 billion.

In addition, as above, the 1,396,640 shares allocated in the name of Nonindicted 11, 79, 80, and 74 (share 5.2% per share) are shares acquired on the account of Defendant 1 for the specially related persons of Nonindicted 8, the largest shareholder of Nonindicted 2, who are the largest shareholder of Nonindicted 2, who are Defendant 1’s shares. Accordingly, Defendant 1 shall report the contents of shares held by at least 5% as above to Nonindicted 8 and the exchange jointly with Nonindicted 2 within 5 days from the date of acquisition, and report the situation in which shares were owned as executive officers of Nonindicted 2, to the Financial Services Commission and the Exchange within 10 days from the date of acquisition.

Nevertheless, around February 3, 2009, Defendant 1 and 2 announced the third party’s subscription for shares issued and submitted a report on the performance of the issuance of securities, and submitted a false statement or representation as to material facts by stating that all of the share capital of KRW 12.9 billion was paid normally by investors and making success in the appearance. Defendant 1’s representative director, who was allocated new shares in the name of the representative director, made a false statement or representation as to material facts by stating that Defendant 1, who was a specially related party of Nonindicted Company 8, did not hold all the shares of Nonindicted Company 2, on March 3, 2009, was likely to have an impact on the share price if the shares were sold.

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired to use an unfair trick in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of shares, and committed an act of seeking money or other benefits of property by using a document containing an omission of a description or representation of a material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled, or any other description or representation.

E. The share purchase limit from February 10, 2009 to June 2, 2009 by Nonindicted 10 and Defendant 9

(1) The purchase limit by Defendant 9

No one shall independently or in collusion with other persons for the purpose of inducing any sale and purchase transaction at the KOSDAQ market, creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading or causing a fluctuation in the market price, and use any unfair trick in connection with the sale, purchase and sale of stocks or other transactions.

Defendant 1, around February 10, 2009, at the office of the above (hereinafter the above (hereinafter the above (3 omitted), provided Defendant 8 with KRW 200 million for the share price management fund. Defendant 8 provided Defendant 9 with KRW 50 million, KRW 70 million to Nonindicted 83, and KRW 50 million to Defendant 10 million, KRW 50 million to Defendant 10,000, and KRW 30 million to Nonindicted 78.

As above, Defendant 9, who received KRW 50 million from February 10, 2009 to June 2, 2009, purchased 227,202 shares of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2 in KRW 912,373,435 (average unit price of KRW 4,015) and sold 227,202 shares in KRW 916,61,720 (average unit price of KRW 4,034).

As above, Defendant 1, 8, and 9 engaged in a trade that misleads Defendant 1, 8, and 9 to buy and sell the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 with a view to inducing them to trade the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 by public offering in sequence, and used an unfair trick in connection with the sale and purchase of shares and other transactions.

(2) Non-Indicted 10’s domestic purchase limit

No one shall independently or in collusion with other persons for the purpose of inducing anyone to trade in the KOSDAQ market, creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading or causing a fluctuation in the market price of securities, and shall use a deceptive scheme or use an unfair deceptive scheme for the purpose of trading stocks and other transactions, or use stocks, or make other transactions.

Defendant 1 purchased approximately KRW 3 billion of the shares of Nonindicted Company 2 to Nonindicted 10 on February 2, 2009, using a foreign corporation, etc., and requested to lend money in the name of purchase in the country, regardless of the price fluctuation, regardless of the price fluctuation, Defendant 1 requested to lend money in the name of purchase in the country, and Nonindicted 10 lent KRW 3 billion to Nonindicted 10 billion, but purchased money from the above overseas corporation, etc. mainly in the form of the above fund, and purchased money in the face of KRW 3.3 billion of the principal and interest due to the price increase, and accepted his proposal.

around March 3, 2009, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10 prepared documents, including Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted Co. 37, joint and several obligors, joint and several liability joint and several liability, Nonindicted Co. 7’s “Proposals”, “Agreement on Guarantee of Return on Investment,” and “The Note 20 of the Agreement on Disposal of Return on Investment,” at the office of representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8, which is located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu (hereinafter omitted), and Defendant 1 notarized “No. 21,00 won of Promissory Notes (bill No. 1 omitted), issued by Nonindicted Co. 2 through Defendant 2, as collateral for Nonindicted Co. 10, and around that time, Defendant 1 offered “No. 1,950,00 won of the Promissory Notes (bill No. 4,3 March 3, 2009).”

Defendant 1 entered into the above agreement with Nonindicted 10 billion won and received cash as security in accordance with the agreement, Nonindicted 10, who purchased 38,500 shares of Nonindicted 2 Co. 2 through the foreign investment exclusive account, etc. of Nonindicted 7’s domestic company within the head of March 3, 2009 and continuously purchased 742,051 shares until April 29, 2009, totaling 2,99,94,255 won in total from Nonindicted Co. 7, Nonindicted 58’s domestic investment exclusive account (total 2,516,82,170 won), and Nonindicted 63, etc.’s domestic investment account (total 2,12,085 won) and 17% of the daily purchase volume and sale volume of Nonindicted Co. 2’s shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3’s domestic investment exclusive account of Nonindicted Co. 7’s company (total 17% of the purchase volume on the following day).

As above, in collusion with Nonindicted 10, Defendant 1 and 2 caused the misunderstanding that the purchase price of foreigners, etc., who ordinarily invest in the KOSDAQ market is constantly flowing into the market with the aim of inducing them to trade at the KOSDAQ market, and thus, the transaction of the pertinent stocks was made by mistake as to the fact that the transaction of the relevant stocks was active. In addition, Defendant 1 and 2 concluded an agreement and a lending agreement on guaranteeing the principal and interest of investment for the purpose of trading stocks and other transactions, and purchased the stocks of Nonindicted Company 2 within the market using a foreign investment-only account in the state that the collection of loans was guaranteed, and used a deceptive scheme that the foreign fund would purchase the stocks at a normal level while taking an investment risk, and used an unfair trick in relation

(f) Acquisition of undue profits;

At the request of Defendant 1, from April 15, 2009 to April 22, 2009, Nonindicted 10 sold not more than 656,480 shares of Nonindicted Company 2, which were purchased under the guarantee agreement for investment return from November 25, 2008, within the head of 656,480 shares, and sold not more than 742,051 shares of Nonindicted Company 2, which were purchased under the guarantee agreement for investment return from March 3, 2009.

Defendant 12 heard that he would sell the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. held by Defendant 1 on June 1, 2009, and sold them within the length of 1,047,480 shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 from June 1, 2009 to June 10, 2009.

On June 4, 2009, Defendant 1, using Defendant 13 and 12’s funds, sold 698,320 shares out of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co., Ltd., which were allocated in borrowed names by means of a large-time outdoor trade, and sold the remaining 698,320 shares over two days from June 4, 2009 to June 5, 2009.

As a result, Defendant 1, 2, and Nonindicted 10 acquired the most unfair profit from KRW 94,338,79(23) due to market price manipulation in the future. From January 14, 2009, Defendant 8, and Nonindicted 9 acquired the unfair profit from the amount of market price manipulation in collusion with Defendant 1, 2, and Nonindicted 10. Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 acquired the unfair profit from KRW 1,268,351,562(24) due to the act of illegally acquiring new shares by using the principal guarantee agreement and the borrowed name from capital increase.

G. Conclusion

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 conspired to sell and purchase shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 to Nonindicted Co. 10, Defendant 8, and 9 for the purpose of creating a purchase price by misleadingly making them known that the sale and purchase of shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 would have been active, and (2) made Defendant 11, 13, and 12 use an unjust deception in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of shares by creating the appearance as if the offering of new shares was normally successful through an investment by a third party unrelated to the company; and (3) made Nonindicted Co. 10, 8, and 9 acquire money or other economic benefits by using documents or any other description or representation on which the material facts necessary for not to mislead others by making a false report on holding in bulk are omitted; and (4) again, made Nonindicted Co. 2’s purchase and sale of shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 10 to form a purchase price by misleadingly making them known that the sale and purchase of shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 10 constituted a sulfur.

6. Violation of the Capital Market and Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act through the agreement to guarantee investment returns on June 3, 2009 with Nonindicted Corporation 7

No one shall independently or in collusion with other persons for the purpose of inducing any sale and purchase transaction at the KOSDAQ market, creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading or causing a fluctuation in the market price, and use any unfair trick in connection with the sale, purchase and sale of stocks or other transactions.

Defendant 1 requested to lend money in the name of the purchase in Korea, regardless of the price fluctuation, because the share price of Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8 has decreased on or around June 2009, Defendant 1 requested to Nonindicted Co. 10 to pay KRW 600 million in addition to the interest on the above principal regardless of the share price fluctuation. In this regard, Nonindicted Co. 10 lent KRW 600 million to Nonindicted Co. 2 and Non-Indicted. 8, but purchased the money within the above principal and interest due to the increase in the share price, and accepted his proposal.

Defendant 1, at the office of Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 2 on June 3, 2009 (hereinafter the above 3 omitted), drafted the documents, including “The proposal” with Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 as joint and several obligors, as joint and several obligors, as investors of Nonindicted Corporation 7, as well as Note 26 of “Agreement on Guarantee of Guarantee of Return on Investment”) and “The Agreement on Disposal of Return on Investment.” Defendant 1 offered via Defendant 2 the Promissory Notes (bill No. 6 omitted), issued by Nonindicted 2 Co. 3 (bill No. 6 omitted), as security, to Nonindicted 10, and then, around that time, he notarized “The Promissory Notes No. 28 of Monetary Loan No. 310, Jun. 30, 2009.”

On June 5, 2009, Nonindicted 10, who entered into the above agreement with Defendant 1 and received KRW 200 million in cash in accordance with the agreement, had Nonindicted 7, etc., an employee of Nonindicted 7 corporation in his own country, purchase KRW 104,926 of the shares of Nonindicted 2 Co. 367,056,330 in total with the accounts in the name of Nonindicted 63, etc., and on June 9, 2009, purchased KRW 47,176 shares of Nonindicted Co. 8 Co. 32,940,935 in total with the accounts in the name of Nonindicted 63, etc. and continuously absorption the sales volume of small-sum investors, and reported the purchase status to the Defendant at all times on the following day.

As above, Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with Non-Indicted 10 in order to attract ordinary investors to trade in the KOSDAQ market, and caused them to misunderstand that the purchase price of the shares normally invested by ordinary investors would continue to flow, thereby making them misunderstand a false appearance of active trading, thereby using unfair tricks in relation to trading and other transactions of shares.

7. Violation of the Capital Market Act and the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act relating to capital increase with respect to the issuance of new stocks by Nonindicted Co. 4, May 2009

No one shall use a deceptive scheme or use any unfair means, scheme, or trick with respect to the sale and purchase or other transaction of stocks, with the intention of facilitating the trade or other transaction of stocks or attempting to cause a fluctuation in the market price.

Defendant 1, around May 2009, secured 10% of foreign capital shares to Nonindicted 10 until June 2009, and failed to obtain permission for factory in the Songdo Free Economic Zone, Defendant 1 would be able to confiscate the sold factory site at the selling price. Thus, Defendant 1 would be able to pay the above principal regardless of the price fluctuation of the third party’s share price. Defendant 1 requested for a third party’s loan of money in the name of participating in the capital increase with the third party’s allocation of capital shares, and Nonindicted 10 consented to this. Defendant 10 was able to return to Defendant 1 the profits from participating in the capital increase with the third party’s allocation of capital shares in the name of Nonindicted 7, and then return to Defendant 1 the profits from returning the principal and interest due to the price increase, and agreed to his proposal.

Defendant 1, at the above office on May 20, 209 (hereinafter the above 3 omitted), prepared documents, including Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2’s joint guarantor, joint guarantor, Nonindicted Co. 7’s investor, and “Agreement on the Exercise of Claim for Purchase of Stocks,” and “Agreement on the Guarantee of Return on Investment,” and “No. 31 of the Investment Agreement,” and Defendant 1 offered Defendant 2 to Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. as security through Defendant 2, a promissory note (bill No. 5,540,000,000 won, and date of issuance, May 20, 2009) to Nonindicted Co. 10. Around that time, Defendant 1 notarized “No. 32 of the Monetary Loan Agreement,” respectively.

On May 21, 2009, Nonindicted 10, who entered into the above agreement with Defendant 1, subscribed for each share of 5.4 million won in the name of Nonindicted 7’s name, and paid KRW 3,866,40,000 in the name of Nonindicted 7’s name.

As above, Nonindicted 10’s participation in capital increase with consideration was made on condition of guaranteeing the principal and interest of the investment of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Company 2, the parent company, and thus cannot be deemed as ordinary capital increase.

As a result, in collusion with Nonindicted 10, Defendant 1 and 2 committed an act of using unlawful tricks in relation to the allocation of Nonindicted 4’s shares to a third party by inducing misunderstandings as to a foreigner’s normal investment or changes in shares. Defendant 1 and 2 used a deceptive scheme that would normally attract foreign capital to acquire new shares issued by Nonindicted 4’s capital increase in the name of Nonindicted 7, a foreign corporation, and to prevent the stock price decline caused by failure to acquire factory permission.

8. Violation of the Capital Market Act and the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act on June 15, 2009 relating to the acquisition of forfeited stocks for capital increase with respect to the allocation of stocks to shareholders by Nonindicted 8 Company.

No one shall commit an act of seeking money or any interest on property, by using a document containing an omission of a description or representation of any material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled, or any other description or representation, and in connection with the sale and purchase and sale of stocks and other transactions, he/she shall not use any unfair means, scheme or bridge in connection with such trading.

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8 on June 11, 2009, conducted a shareholder allocation capital increase, but the 1,078,143 forfeited stocks were issued and the 1,078, and the 1,078,143 forfeited stocks were to be offered with capital increase.

Although Defendant 1 recruited investors to participate in capital increase with 15,93 shares (453,532,630 won) but did not seek investors to acquire 115,93 shares (453,532,630 won), it was necessary to create the appearance that the forfeited shares have been successful by acquiring the forfeited shares, thereby maintaining investors’ trust. However, if shares were sold after participating in capital increase under Defendant 1’s name, the increase in the success of capital increase can be made. A related party of Nonindicted 13 Company, the largest shareholder, was publicly announced that Defendant 1’s executive officers of the Company, thereby affecting investors’ trust.

In order to avoid these problems, Defendant 1 agreed, through Defendant 11, to use Defendant 13 and Defendant 13’s funds of KRW 253,532,630 and Defendant 1’s funds of KRW 200,000,000 and to repay the borrowed money with the funds sold by selling new stocks allocated after acquiring the forfeited stocks under the name of the next person.

Defendant 13 acquired forfeited shares in the name of Nonindicted 12, Cho Jae-in using his own funds and Defendant 1’s funds pursuant to the above agreement.

Of the shares paid as above, KRW 253,532,630 out of KRW 453,532,630, 2532,630, this part is difficult to be deemed to have been paid with capital increase in normal terms. In addition, the shares acquired on the account of Defendant 1, an executive officer of Nonindicted 8, who was actually assigned under the name of Nonindicted 12, 115,993 is the shares acquired. Accordingly, Defendant 1 shall report to the Financial Services Commission and the Exchange within five days, the change in ownership status as an executive officer of Nonindicted 8

Nevertheless, in submitting a report on the actual record of issuance of securities on June 16, 2009, Defendant 1 stated that the part of KRW 253,532,630 was considered to have been paid normally, and made the appearance of the third party’s investment for capital increase with capital increase. Defendant 1 did not report the status of stock ownership as its officers, but did not state the fact of acquisition of the said 115,993 shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 13, which was related to the specially related party on July 10, 2009, and did not state the fact of acquisition.

Defendant 1 through Defendant 11, on July 1, 2009, at least two days prior to the date of stock listing, notified Defendant 13 to have contacted Defendant 13 to sell the entire shares, and Defendant 13 obtained the benefits of KRW 37,800,255 note 33) by selling all by means of public auction.

As a result, Defendant 1, 11, and 13 conspired to use documents containing material facts necessary to avoid misunderstandings with regard to the sale and purchase or other transaction of shares, and acquired 37,800,255 won unfair profits by using unlawful deceptive instruments in relation to the sale and purchase or other transaction of shares by creating appearance that the capital increase with consideration seems to have succeeded to the investment of the third investor.

9. On August 12, 2009, violation of the Capital Market Act and the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act relating to the acquisition of 400,000 shares forfeited for the allocation of shares to Nonindicted 4 Stock Company.

No one shall commit an act of seeking money or any interest on property, by using a document containing an omission of a description or representation of any material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled, or any other description or representation, and in connection with the sale and purchase and sale of stocks and other transactions, he/she shall not use any unfair means, scheme or bridge in connection with such trading.

Defendant 1, around August 10, 2009, offered capital increase with the allotment of shareholders as the actual private shares of Nonindicted Co. 4, but decided to offer capital increase with the issuance of forfeited shares of 6,766,143 and the allocation of forfeited shares to a third party.

Defendant 1 recruited investors to participate in capital increase with 400,000 shares (20,000 won) but did not seek investors to acquire 400,000 shares (20,000 won) and formed the appearance that the forfeited shares were successful by acquiring the forfeited shares, thereby maintaining investors’ trust. However, if Defendant 1 sold shares allocated after participating in capital increase in the name of Defendant 1’s own, the number of outstanding shares could have been raised that the success of capital increase was not successful, and the public announcement of the fact of disposal of shares by an executive officer of the company would have an unexpected impact on the share price.

In order to avoid these problems, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to accept forfeited stocks in the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 6, which is a Facecom using Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 2’s funds.

Defendant 2, around August 12, 2009, withdrawn KRW 200 million from the funds of Nonindicted Co. 2 in accordance with Defendant 1’s order and paid as share capital of Nonindicted Co. 4.

As above, 400,000 shares distributed in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6 are actually acquired by the specially related persons of Nonindicted Co. 2, who are the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4, on the account of Defendant 1, a registered director of Nonindicted Co. 4, who was Defendant 1. Therefore, Defendant 1 shall report the contents of shares held as above to the Financial Services Commission and an Exchange within five days from the date of acquisition as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and shall file a report on shares held in joint signature with Nonindicted Co. 2

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 submitted a report on the status of stocks, etc. held in bulk in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2 on August 14, 2009, by omitting the above fact of acquisition of stocks, made a false representation, and failed to report the status of stocks held as its officers.

On August 20, 2009, Defendant 1 sold 100,000 shares within and outside the country without a public notice as to the disposal of shares, and acquired the benefits of KRW 25,809,133 shares outside the country by selling 30,00 shares outside the country.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 conspired to obtain money or other economic benefits by using a document with no description of any material fact necessary to prevent others from being misled about a material fact in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of shares, and acquired 25,809,133 won in connection with the sale and purchase or transaction of shares by making the appearance of the third investor with success in the investment.

10. Violation of the Capital Market and Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act in the course of a merger between Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 9 corporation on October 26, 2009

(a) Formulation of an unlawful plan;

No person shall commit any act using an unfair plan in connection with trading or any other transaction of securities.

From the end of 2007, Nonindicted Co. 8 suffered a loss of 20 billion won or more in the year 2008, and the loss of 50% or more of its equity capital (20 billion won) was already incurred once in one time, and even in August 2009, there was a loss of 18 billion won or more until August 2009, and there was a further loss of 30 billion won until the end of the year, and there was a high possibility that Nonindicted Co. 8 may be designated as management issues.

Under the above circumstances, Defendant 1, 2, and 11 determined that in order to prevent the designation of Nonindicted Company 8’s management issues, it is necessary to expand equity capital by merging unlisted companies.

around July 2009, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 11 to color unlisted companies that may merge with Nonindicted Company 8, and Defendant 11 reported to Defendant 1 as appropriate.

Defendant 1: (1) by acquiring the shares of Nonindicted Co. 9 under the name of the borrower, the provision on restriction on sale of new shares for the merger is set up; (2) under the condition that the bond company offers the shares of Nonindicted Co. 9 as a security for the loan; (3) offers the acquisition fund for Nonindicted Co. 9; and (3) maintain the exercise of the appraisal right for the shares of Nonindicted Co. 8 by adjusting the price during the period for exercising the appraisal right for the said merger, thereby minimizing the scale of exercise of the appraisal right; and (3) establish an unjust plan that the shares of Nonindicted Co. 9 are acquired by selling the shares of the merger, avoiding the provision on restriction on sale; and (4) implement the plan as follows.

B. Acceptance of the name of Nonindicted Co. 9 (e.g., avoidance of protection deposits through false representation)

No one shall commit an act of seeking money or any interest on property, by making a false description or representation of a material fact in connection with the trading or any other transaction of securities.

Defendant 1, around July 2009, proposed that Defendant 1 will take over Nonindicted Co. 9 and merge with Nonindicted Co. 8 after acquiring Nonindicted Co. 13 through Defendant 11. When Defendant 1 loaned KRW 1,350,000 to Defendant 13 for the acquisition fund of Nonindicted Co. 9, Defendant 1 would take over the shares of Nonindicted Co. 9 in the name of the vehicle prepared by Defendant 13, and offer the said shares as security. When the new shares are listed after the merger between Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9, Defendant 13 agreed that the security would be replaced with the new shares that avoided the sale restriction provision.

Defendant 1 lent the name of Nonindicted 86, 87 through Nonindicted 43 at that time, and Defendant 13 lent the name of Nonindicted 44, 45, 46, and 47 and KRW 1,348,750,00.

On July 29, 2009, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 acquired 100% of the shares of Nonindicted Co., Ltd. 8 in KRW 3,039,20,000. Of the 770,000 shares that were acquired as KRW 1,251,250,000 from Nonindicted Co. 8’s capital, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 acquired KRW 506,000 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 86, under the name of Nonindicted Co. 86, and acquired KRW 1,348,750,000 borrowed from Defendant 13 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 870,000, KRW 185,120 among the 830,000 shares that were acquired as KRW 1,348,75,480 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 46,200, KRW 4200,4878, Aug. 1, 208

Although Defendant 1 and 2 acquired 100% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 9, Defendant 1 and 2, on August 10, 2009, publicly announced the “decision to acquire shares and investment certificates of Nonindicted Co. 8’s company” and indicated that Nonindicted Co. 8 acquired only 288,00 shares of Nonindicted Co. 9’s company (18%) and submitted the “the report on major matters” as of August 11, 2009, and the “the report on securities (merger)” as of August 14, 2009, it indicated that only 219,227 shares of the merged shares to be allocated to Nonindicted Co. 8 for the said 288,00 shares will be protected.

In addition, on October 26, 2009, Defendant 1 and 2 submitted the report on the issuance of securities on October 29, 2009, when Nonindicted Co. 8 received a total of KRW 998,69 shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 86, 87, 45, 44, 46, and 47 on the account of Nonindicted Co. 9 and Nonindicted Co. 9 on October 26, 2009, Defendant 1 and 2 stated that only the merged shares were distributed to Nonindicted Co. 8 and that only the said shares would be protected.

As a result, Defendant 1, 2, 11, and 13 conspiredd to make a false statement or representation as to important matters in order to obtain the difference between the new stocks of Nonindicted Company 8 and the stock value of Nonindicted Company 9.

(c) Market price manipulation to minimize the scale of exercise of appraisal rights;

(1) Crime background;

No one shall independently or in collusion with other persons for the purpose of inducing anyone to make transactions at the KOSDAQ market, creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading or causing a fluctuation in the market price of the securities.

around September 21, 2009, Defendant 1 served a notice of opposing intention to the resolution of the board of directors on the purport that the shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 8 oppose the merger between Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9 and that they would claim purchase of shares equivalent to KRW 10,222,278,621 in total. At the time, Nonindicted Co. 8 was unable to pay the purchase price of shares in the event of actual occurrence of a claim for purchase of shares of KRW 10,222,278,621 in total due to the lack of cash holding capacity, and in such a case, it could not be successful in the merger. However, Defendant 1 had Nonindicted Co. 10 and Defendant 8, thereby having the share price of Nonindicted Co. 8, thereby maintaining the exercise of appraisal right at least KRW 4,287, and minimizing the scale of exercise of appraisal right.

(2) Non-Indicted 10’s domestic purchase limit

Defendant 1, around October 2009, planned to merge with Nonindicted Co. 8 Company 9 with Nonindicted Co. 10. From September 22, 2009 to October 12, 2009, it was necessary to maintain the stock price of Nonindicted Co. 8’s stock at least KRW 4,287, and to minimize the scale of exercise of appraisal rights by maintaining the stock price of Nonindicted Co. 8’s stock price at least KRW 4,287, etc. In this context, Defendant 1, through using a foreign corporation, etc., purchased approximately KRW 3 billion of the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 8’s stock price within the head, would pay the above principal by adding interest to the principal, regardless of the fluctuation of the stock price, etc., and Defendant 10 offered a loan of KRW 3 billion to Nonindicted Co. 10 billion, but mainly purchased the principal with the above funds within the head of the overseas Co. 9 with the profits of returning the principal and interest due to the increase of stock price to Defendant 1. Defendant 17 notified Defendant 7 of the above agreement.

around October 7, 2009, Defendant 1 and 7 prepared documents, including Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 8, Defendant 7, Defendant 7, and Nonindicted Co. 5 as joint and several obligors, joint and several surety, and Nonindicted Co. 7 as investors, “Written Proposal”, “Agreement on Guarantee of Return on Investment”) and “A note 41 of the Agreement on Disposal of Return on Investment.” Defendant 1 offered, through Defendant 2, to Nonindicted Co. 8’s Promissory Notes (bill No. 4,95,00,000 won, issued date October 7, 2009) as collateral to Nonindicted Co. 10. At that time, Defendant 1 notarized “Written Promissory Notes No. 42, a No. 32,” and “No. 7, 2009.”

Defendant 1 and 7 concluded the above agreement with Nonindicted Co. 5 as above and received KRW 1 billion as security in accordance with the agreement, Nonindicted Co. 10 had Nonindicted Co. 7, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 7 in his country, etc. conduct the stock transaction as follows.

(A) High-priced purchase

around 10:56:05 on October 7, 2009, Nonindicted Party 10 ordered Nonindicted Party 77, an employee, to purchase 2,200 shares from Nonindicted Party 88’s account (Account Number 1 omitted) to purchase 3,650 won higher than 20 won compared to the immediately preceding conclusion and the counterpart, and to trade contract at the same price, thereby making the share price increase from 3,630 won to 3,650 won, as well as from October 7, 2009 to October 8, 2009, Nonindicted Party 10 committed an act of misleading or causing a change in the market price by having Nonindicted Party 8 purchase 35,70 high-priced shares over 17 times in total, as described in Table 4-1 of the Crime List, thereby creating a trade in the stocks of Nonindicted Party 8.

(b)Quantities of small quantities;

Non-Indicted 10 issued an order to sell 300 shares at the current price of around 10:30 won from the account held by Non-Indicted 89 on October 7, 2009 to around 10:30:35, and around 3,580 won in the sale price of 12 shares. From around that time to around 14:52:16, Non-Indicted 10 issued an order to sell 300 shares at the same price. From around 2009 to around 16, 50:368 shares continuously purchased 50,368 shares in the sale price of 50,368 shares in the sale price of 50,368 shares at the volume above the balance of the purchase price of 1 shares, thereby eliminating the sale price of 1 shares or converting the price of 1 shares into 3,910 won from October 7, 2009 to October 12, 209, Non-Indicted 10 shares were recorded in the sale price of 4.

(C) Order for purchase

around 14:03:23 on October 7, 2009, Nonindicted 10: (a) had Nonindicted 77, an employee of Nonindicted 77, purchase at a low price of 1,000 shares and purchase at a low price of 3,855 won; (b) sold 10 shares of Nonindicted 8, 7,255 shares; (c) purchased 3,850 won; and (d) purchased 10 shares at a price of 4,652 shares; and (e) purchased 1,810 won at a low price of 4,810 won; and (e) purchased 1,000 shares at a low price of 1,00 shares to increase the remaining purchase price; and (e) made Nonindicted 8’s order to purchase shares at a low price of 3,810 shares; and (e) made Nonindicted 4,000 shares to be purchased at a low price of 4,000 shares; and (e) made a false purchase order.

(3) The purchase limit by Defendant 10

On October 7, 2009, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 8 to “Around October 7, 2009, it is necessary to maintain the share price of Nonindicted Company 8 in order to reduce leakage of company funds by minimizing the scale of exercise of appraisal rights in relation to the merger of Nonindicted Company 9 and to maintain the share price of Nonindicted Company 8 at least KRW 4,287, which is the exercise of appraisal rights, to induce the waiver of appraisal rights by the former shareholders.” Accordingly, Defendant 1 instructed that Defendant 8 request the former shareholders

around October 8, 2009, Defendant 1 delivered KRW 300 million to Defendant 8 as the stock price management fund for Nonindicted Co. 4 corporation at his own office. Defendant 8, at his own office located in the above (hereinafter above (hereinafter above 4 omitted) around October 9, 2009, requested Defendant 10 and Nonindicted Co. 90 to manage the share price in order to reduce the success in the merger of Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9 and the scale of exercise of appraisal rights, and to maintain the share price above the exercise of appraisal rights, Defendant 1 paid KRW 150 million as the fee for purchasing the shares of Nonindicted Co. 8. Accordingly, Defendant 10 traded shares as follows.

(A) High-priced purchase

Defendant 10: (a) around October 9, 2009: (b) around 09:28:17, the immediately preceding conclusion was high to KRW 35,00; (c) the other party purchased KRW 4,250,00, higher than the other party’s 40,250, and concluded a trade contract at the same price; and (d) the price of the stocks increased to KRW 4,250,00 from KRW 4,215, to October 13, 2009; and (d) the same method from around October 9, 2009 to October 13, 2009, “the price was 45,70,825, as indicated in the list of crimes, so as to mislead or mislead the market price of the stocks trading of Nonindicted Co. 8, as if they were sexually active.”

(b)Quantities of small quantities;

Defendant 10 issued an order to sell KRW 4,295 as of October 9, 2009, and KRW 4,295, and KRW 4,295, and KRW 806, and KRW 1,000 at the same price. From around that time to around 14:03:32, Defendant 10 issued an order to sell 4,295, and KRW 4,295, and KRW 806,00 at the same price. Defendant 10: (a) continuously purchased 6,00 shares at a total of five times from around 14:0 to 14:32; and (b) made an order to sell all of the orders after selling 6,00 shares at the volume above the sales volume of the same head; (c) removed subparagraph 1 (a) or converted subparagraph 1 (a) from October 9, 2009 to October 13, 2009; and (d) made a mistake in trading with the same method.

(C) Order for purchase

On October 12, 2008, Defendant 10 issued an order to purchase KRW 4,285, KRW 1,285, KRW 4,285, KRW 1, and KRW 4,285, and KRW 5,000, which is less likely to engage in a trade contract under the status of KRW 4,270, KRW 10. At around 11:44:06, the current price of the previous purchase order increased to KRW 4,310, and at around 4,250 without the intention of purchase, Defendant 10, as at around October 9, 2009, Defendant 10, as at around 11:44:06, the purchase price of the previous purchase order increased to KRW 4,250, and the purchase price increased to KRW 4,250, thereby making Nonindicted Company 40, May 38, 200, the purchase price of shares, as at the lowest price of the purchase order, were stated in the following order.

(4) The purchase limit by Defendant 8

On October 9, 2009, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 8 to the effect that “Around October 9, 2009, it is necessary to maintain the share price of Nonindicted Company 8 in order to minimize the scale of exercise of appraisal rights in relation to the merger of Nonindicted Company 9 and reduce the leakage of company funds, and to induce the waiver of appraisal rights by the former shareholders by maintaining the share price of Nonindicted Company 8 at least KRW 4,287,00,000,000,000, including KRW 1,020,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,

(A) High-priced purchase

On October 9, 2009: around 11:38:45, Defendant 8 purchased 4,180 won higher than the immediately preceding conclusion price and the counterpart heading price through the account in the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 6, and made the entire amount of the trade contract by ordering 5,180 won higher than 15 won; Defendant 8 purchased 4,165 won to 4,180 won; around 11:41:04, the immediately preceding conclusion price and the counterpart heading 15 won higher than 15 won; and purchased 20,000 won from 4,185 to 15 won; from 4,200 won; 11:46:56 billion won higher than the immediately preceding change in the number of 4:50 won; Defendant 8 purchased 205 won higher than 4,250 won from 200 won; and 19:4,560 won higher than the other 40:56% higher than that of 4:51.25 billion won;

(b)Quantities of small quantities;

Defendant 8, on October 9, 2009, issued an order to sell KRW 4,160, and KRW 4,165,00 as of the present price at KRW 4,160, and KRW 165, and KRW 465,00 at the name of Nonindicted Co. 6, Defendant 8: (a) purchased 3,000 at the same price; (b) continuously issued an order to sell 21,00 shares over four occasions from around that time to around 13:58:52; and (c) made an order to purchase 21,00 shares at the volume above the selling balance of the said head; and (d) made the sales contract at a volume equal to or above the selling balance of the said head; and (d) made the share price increase up to KRW 4,280 by either removing subparagraph 1 or converting subparagraph 1 price into KRW 1,280, as stated in the 6-2's list of crimes, thereby causing a change in the market price of shares.

(C) Order for purchase

On October 9, 2008, Defendant 8: (a) around 11:36:02, through the securities account in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6, Defendant 8: (b) committed an act of 40,000 shares from around 11:36:02 to around 12:47:47:00 shares from around 12:47:47:19 in total by the same method twice in total, as indicated in [Attachment 6-3], and thereby causing a misunderstanding of the market price or causing a misunderstanding of the 40,00 shares trading of Nonindicted Co. 8, as if the 40,00 shares were sexually active.

(5) Sub-committee

Defendant 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10 conspired with Non-Indicted 10 on October 7, 2009 to October 13, 2009, purchased 1,424,412 shares of Non-Indicted 8 Co., Ltd. from around October 7, 2009 and traded 42.5% of the number of shares during the same period (3,35,278 shares) and exercised considerable influence over the trade in the same item. Defendant 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10 exercised significant influence over the trade in the same item. As described in the list 7-1 to 7-3, as in the list of crimes, orders for price manipulation of 339,225 shares were issued at 219 times in total, and 12.6% in total, 2.5% in total, and 8.9% in total, and obtained unfair profits by maintaining at least 4,287 won per share, an appraisal right.

(d) Listing new stocks through merger and acquisition of unjust enrichment;

Defendant 1, 2, and 11 conspired with the above non-indicted 86, 87, 45, 44, 46, and 47, which could be sold immediately after being listed, acquired the unjust enrichment of KRW 1,323,49,540, which was listed on the stock market by 98,69, and thereby acquired KRW 1,323,49,540. Defendant 13 acquired the unjust enrichment of KRW 837,274,540,540, in collusion with the above defendant 1,2, and 111.

E. Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with Defendant 11 and 13 to acquire 1,312,00 shares out of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 9 Co. 1 and the share value of Nonindicted Co. 9 in order to obtain the difference between the share value of Nonindicted Co. 11 and the share value of Nonindicted Co. 9, and falsely enter the number of shares acquired by Nonindicted Co. 8 in the number of shares acquired by Nonindicted Co. 9, and ② to reduce the number of shares acquired by using a fraudulent plan in relation to the sale and purchase of new shares and other transactions by acquiring new shares for Nonindicted Co. 10, 7, 8, and 10 in order to attract the sale and purchase of Nonindicted Co. 8’s stock.

11. Fraudulent transactions in the course of a merger between Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 5 on December 29, 2009

(a) Formulation of an unlawful plan;

No person shall commit any act using an unfair plan in connection with trading or any other transaction of securities.

From the end of 2007, Nonindicted Co. 8 suffered a loss of at least 20 billion won in the year 2008, and the loss of at least 50% of its equity capital (including approximately 20 billion won) was already incurred once, and in August 2009, there was a loss of at least 18 billion won until August 2009, and there was an additional loss of at least 30 billion won until the end of the year, and Nonindicted Co. 8 was likely to be designated as management issues.

Under the above circumstances, in order to prevent the designation of the management issues of Nonindicted Co. 8, Defendant 1, 2, and 11 determined that in addition to the merger with Nonindicted Co. 9, it is necessary to expand equity capital by adding other unlisted companies.

around September 209, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 11 to additionally color unlisted companies that may merge with Nonindicted Co. 8. Defendant 11 and Defendant 2 reported to Defendant 1 that it is appropriate for Defendant 1 to conduct a merger after raising the company value through acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 5’s capital increase.

Defendant 1: ① (a) acquired shares in the name of the borrower during the process of acquiring Nonindicted Co. 5 and the third party’s capital increase for new stocks issued by Nonindicted Co. 5; (b) obtained false entry on the number of shares acquired by Nonindicted Co. 5; (c) offered loans to the bonds company that lent the amount for capital increase to Nonindicted Co. 5 as a security for the loan; and (d) borrowed funds from the bonds company on the condition that the bonds company exchanged the security through a merger without any restriction on sale after the merger; and (b) obtained profits by selling the new shares acquired by means of a merger that avoided the sale restriction provision upon the listing of new shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 5; and (c) implemented the plan as follows.

B. On September 25, 2009, the acquisition of the name of Nonindicted Co. 5

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 13, around September 25, 2009, took over 361,476 shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 (90%) in the name of KRW 8,09,954,800, and ordered Defendant 2 to take over part of the shares in Defendant 2 as the borrowed name. Defendant 2 took over only 190,000 shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 13 after lending three borrowed accounts, such as Nonindicted Co. 92, Defendant 5, and Nonindicted Co. 93. Defendant 2 took over 171,476 shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 92,55,476; Nonindicted Co. 5,476 shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5; on September 30, 2009, the name of Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 94 and Nonindicted Co. 950 shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 94 and Nonindicted Co. 950 shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5.

C. Participation in the name of the third party, Co. 5, Sept. 28, 2009, in offering new shares, etc.

(1) The loan of KRW 6 billion from Defendant 12

Defendant 1 intended to acquire Nonindicted Co. 5 and to merge with Nonindicted Co. 8 after offering new shares to Defendant 12 on September 2009. If Nonindicted Co. 5 loaned KRW 6 billion to a third party’s allocation of new shares to Nonindicted Co. 5, Defendant 1 proposed that the new shares will be offered as security after acquiring new shares under the name of Nonindicted Co. 5 and the merger with Nonindicted Co. 8 and avoiding the restriction on sale after acquiring new shares under the said name. Defendant 12 consented to the redemption of KRW 7.2 billion including interest rate of KRW 20 billion after 4 months, and Defendant 2 consented to the redemption of KRW 7.2 billion including interest rate of KRW 20 billion (5 omitted), (8), (30 billion number of KRW 3 billion on September 23, 2009), (7) number 9 billion on September 23, 2009, number 199 (20 billion number on September 29, 2009).

(2) Loans from Defendant 13 to KRW 4 billion in capital increase

Defendant 1, on September 2009, planned to acquire Nonindicted Co. 5 and to merge with Nonindicted Co. 8 after offering new shares to Defendant 13 through Defendant 11. If Nonindicted Co. 5’s third party’s allocation of new shares by issuing new shares to Nonindicted Co. 5, Defendant 1 would be offered as security for a merger with Nonindicted Co. 5’s shares by acquiring the Nonindicted Co. 5 and offering new shares to Defendant 13. Defendant 13 consented to the offering of new shares as security for a merger with Nonindicted Co. 8’s third party’s shares by acquiring the shares to be distributed to Nonindicted Co. 5, and then acquiring the shares to be distributed to Nonindicted Co. 8. Defendant 13 under the condition that 6% of the monthly interest and commission of 6% of the shares, and Defendant 2 would receive the promissory notes (bill number 7 omitted) issued by Nonindicted Co. 8 as security through Defendant 2.

(3) Borrowing KRW 500 million from Defendant 5

On September 27, 2009, Defendant 1 proposed that Defendant 5 will take over Nonindicted Co. 5 and offer new shares that were acquired in the name of Defendant 5 as security at the time of acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 5’s stock company, and would merge with Nonindicted Co. 8 after offering new shares for capital increase. If Nonindicted Co. 5 loaned KRW 500 million to Nonindicted Co. 5’s third party’s capital increase for capital increase, Defendant 1 would have invested KRW 500 million on Defendant 5’s account and would offer new shares that were acquired in the name of Defendant 5 as security at the time of acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 5’s stock company. Defendant 5 consented to the agreement on the condition that 6% of the annual interest is paid, and gave KRW 500 million as investment money.

(4) Loans of KRW 400 million from Defendant 6

Defendant 1, around September 20, 2009, proposed that Defendant 6 will take over Nonindicted Co. 5’s stock and offer new stocks for capital increase, and will merge with Nonindicted Co. 8 after offering new stocks for capital increase. If Nonindicted Co. 5 loaned KRW 400 million to Defendant 6’s account, Defendant 1 would have invested KRW 600 million. Defendant 6 would participate in capital increase with Nonindicted Co. 5’s new stocks for capital increase and merged with Nonindicted Co. 8’s new stocks for capital increase, and would offer the new stocks for a merger that avoided the provision of restriction on sale under the above name. Defendant 6 consented to this condition on the condition that 10% of the annual interest is paid from September 28, 2009, and provided KRW 400 million as investment money.

(5) Payment of share price with the name of the borrower

Defendant 1, around September 28, 2009, instructed Defendant 2 to pay for the capital increase with capital increase shares allocated to Nonindicted 5,000 won in total, including KRW 10.4 billion borrowed from the bond company company, etc., KRW 3.5 billion borrowed from the loan company, etc., KRW 5,000 won borrowed from the loan company, etc., and KRW 1.3.5 billion in capital increase with capital increase allocated to Nonindicted 5,000 won.

Defendant 2 paid the share price using the following borrowed name in accordance with the orders of Defendant 1.3.5 billion won.

(A) 3.5 billion won borrowed from Defendant 13

Defendant 2, using the above 3.5 billion won, 690,000 won (5,200 won), 525,000,000 won (42,000 won) in the name of Nonindicted 51 in the name of Nonindicted 99, and 690,000 won (5,200 won) in the name of Nonindicted 13 in the name of Nonindicted 15, and 690,000 won (5,200 won) in the name of Nonindicted 100 in the name of Nonindicted 100 and Nonindicted 100 (8,400 won) in the name of Nonindicted 98, and Nonindicted 90 in the name of Nonindicted 10,000 won (8,800 won) in the name of Nonindicted 51 and Nonindicted 50,690,000 won (5,200 shares) in the name of Nonindicted 50, 2008.

(B) 6 billion won borrowed from Defendant 12

Defendant 2 using the above 6 billion won, 690,00,000 won (5,200 won), 690,000,000 won (5,200 won) in the name of Nonindicted 101 in the name of Defendant 12, 690,000 won (5,200 won) in the name of Nonindicted 102, and 690,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 103 (5,200 won) in the name of Nonindicted 104 in the name of Nonindicted 104 and 690,000,000 won (5,200 won) in the name of Nonindicted 104 and Nonindicted 96,690,000 won (5,200 won), Nonindicted 690,000 won (5,200 won) in the name of Nonindicted 100,500 won (5,2000 won) in the name of Nonindicted 1040,6005 weeks (5000 won).

(C) 3.5 billion won borrowed from the Kable Savings Bank.

Defendant 2, using the above 3.5 billion won, 690,000,000 won (55,200 won), 690,000,000 won (55,200 won) in the name of Nonindicted 106 in the name of Nonindicted 107, Nonindicted 107, and 690,000 won (5,200 won) in the name of Nonindicted 108, and Nonindicted 109 in the name of Nonindicted 109 (5,200 won) in the name of Nonindicted 109, and 180,000 won (14,400 won) in the name of Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 110 (42,00 won), and Nonindicted 35,000 won in the name of Nonindicted 100 (2800 shares) in the name of Nonindicted 108.

(D) KRW 900 million borrowed from Defendant 5 or 6

Defendant 2 used the above KRW 900,000 (20,000) in Nonindicted 95’s name, paid 580,000,000 (46,400) in the name of Nonindicted 98, and received 72,000 shares in the name of Nonindicted 100 (5,600 shares) in total.

(E) Defendant 1’s 50 million won

Defendant 2 used the above KRW 50 million to pay share capital in the name of Nonindicted 110 and received a total of KRW 4,000 shares.

D. False description of the quantity of shares acquired in Nonindicted Co. 5

No one shall commit an act of seeking money or any interest on property, by making a false description or representation of a material fact in connection with the trading or any other transaction of securities.

In fact, Nonindicted Co. 13 acquired 361,476 shares through the acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 5, and Defendant 1 acquired 1,16,00 shares through capital increase by issuing new shares to Nonindicted Co. 5, and Defendant 1 is a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 5, and Nonindicted Co. 13 constitutes a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 1, who is a major shareholder, and Nonindicted Co. 13 constitutes a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 5, and the said Nonindicted Co. 5,437,476 shares (3,476 shares + 1,16,00 shares) to be allocated to Nonindicted Co. 5, after the merger with Nonindicted Co. 8.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 made a false statement on the following important matters in order to obtain the merger new shares of Nonindicted Co. 8 and the marginal profits from the stock value of Nonindicted Co. 5.

Defendant 1 and 2 submitted a “report on Material Facts (Merger)” around October 5, 2009 and submitted a “report on Material Facts (Merger)” around October 8, 2009, and stated falsely that Nonindicted Co. 13 acquired the shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 with 190,000 shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 and that only the merger shares will be protected.

On October 19, 2009, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 publicly announced the “decision on the Merger of Companies” [Correction] Report and submitted it [Correction] Report and around October 20, 2009] [Correction] Report and (Merger] Report (Merger) was submitted, and Non-Indicted Co. 13 was the largest shareholder who acquired the shares of Non-Indicted. 5 Co. 13 with the shares of Non-Indicted. 190,00 and the shares of Non-Indicted. 1,267,414 shares of merger to be allocated to the said shares are protected.

In addition, on November 3, 2009, Defendant 1 and 2 publicly announced the “decision on the merger of companies”, submitted [Correction] Report” and [Correction] Securities Report (Merger] (Merger)] on November 11, 2009, and made a false statement that Nonindicted Co. 13 acquired the shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 and was the largest shareholder, and that only 1,179,817 shares of the merger to be allocated to the said shares will be protected.

In addition, on December 31, 2009, Defendant 1 and 2 submitted the “Post-issuance Report (Merger)” and stated that only 1,179,817 out of the newly issued stocks of merger acquired by Nonindicted Co. 13 would be protected.

(e) Listing new stocks through merger and acquisition of unjust enrichment;

On December 29, 2009, Defendant 1, 11, and 2 acquired the unfair profit of KRW 7,799,04, 639, 491, and 403, when the merger of Nonindicted Company 8 and Nonindicted Company 5, which could be sold immediately after listing, by avoiding the provision on the restriction on sale on January 15, 2010, Defendant 1, 1, 11, and 2 acquired the unfair profit of KRW 53).

F. Conclusion

As a result, Defendant 1, 11, and 2 conspired with the unlisted company to acquire shares of Nonindicted Co. 5, a non-indicted 5,287,476, and by falsely stating the acquisition quantity of shares of Nonindicted Co. 5, a non-indicted 13, the number of shares to be protected, and the number of shares to be protected, thereby obtaining unjust enrichment of KRW 7,79,042,615 by using illegal means, scheme, or bridge in connection with the trading of financial investment instruments and other transactions. As above, Defendant 12 conspired with Defendant 1, 11, and 2 and Defendant 12 acquired unjust enrichment of KRW 2,897,043,240,54), Defendant 13 acquired KRW 1,689,942,377,55), and Defendant 6 acquired KRW 193,134,425,525, KRW 2545,575).

13. A violation of reporting on holding stocks, etc. and holding status;

A person who comes to hold stocks, etc. of a stock-listed corporation shall report to the Financial Services Commission and the Exchange on his/her holding status, purpose of holding, details of major contracts on the stocks, etc. held, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree within five days from the date of such change in accordance with Presidential Decree, and where the total number of stocks held, etc. has changed not less than 1/100 of the total number of such stocks, etc., he/she shall report the changes to

In addition, an executive officer or major shareholder of a stock-listed corporation shall report the ownership status of specific securities, etc. owned on his/her own account no matter whose name is held within five days from the date on which he/she becomes an executive officer or major shareholder, and if there is a change in the ownership status of specific securities, etc., the details thereof shall

A. As to the issue of capital increase with respect to Nonindicted Co. 2’s capital increase on February 2, 2009

(1) Acquisition

Defendant 1, around February 3, 2009, obtained shares issued by Nonindicted 11, 74, 80, 80, and acquired 5.18% of the total number of issued shares in the process of issuing shares to Nonindicted 2’s third party shares, thereby acquiring 1,396,640 shares in the name of Nonindicted 11, 74, 80, and 79, and thus, as an executive officer of Nonindicted 2’s company, he/she must report the change of ownership as an executive officer of Nonindicted 2 company. Notwithstanding that he/she is required to report the change of ownership in joint signature with Nonindicted 8 Company, which is the date on which he/she reported the change of ownership by February 9, 2009, he/she did not report the change of ownership by March 10, 2009.

(2) Disposition

Defendant 1 sold all shares 1,396,640 shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 acquired as above on June 8, 2009 (5.18% of the total number of outstanding shares) and made changes in ownership and ownership status as an executive of Nonindicted Co. 2, and reported changes in ownership as an executive of Nonindicted Co. 2, and Defendant 1 did not report changes in ownership by June 15, 2009, which is the date on which the duty to report changes in ownership is required in joint signature with Nonindicted Co. 8, which is the date of the duty to report.

B. On June 12, 2009, regarding the issuance of forfeited stocks to a third party for the acquisition of forfeited stocks by Nonindicted Co. 8’s offering of new stocks

(1) Acquisition

Defendant 1, around June 16, 2009, acquired shares 115,932 shares of Nonindicted Co. 8 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 12 (0.92% of the total number of issued shares) in the process of acquiring forfeited shares of Nonindicted Co. 8’s company by offering new shares to a third party, and thus, Defendant 1 has to report the change in ownership as an executive officer of Nonindicted Co. 8, but did not report the change by June 23, 2009, which is the date of reporting the change.

(2) Disposition

Defendant 1 sold all of the shares 115,932 acquired as above on July 3, 2009 and the ownership situation has to change as its officers, and Defendant 1 did not report the change of ownership until July 10, 2009, which is the date of reporting the change of ownership.

C. On August 12, 2009, regarding the issuance of forfeited stocks to a third party for the acquisition of forfeited stocks by Nonindicted Co. 4, Ltd.

(1) Acquisition

Defendant 1, around August 13, 2009, acquired 400,00 shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 6 (0.51% of the total number of issued shares) in the process of acquiring forfeited shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 6, a third party to acquire the forfeited shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 in the process of distributing new shares for capital increase, and thus, Defendant 1 has to report the change in ownership as its executive officers, but did not report the change by August 20, 2009, which is the date of reporting the change.

(2) Disposition

Defendant 1, from August 17, 2009 to August 25, 2009, sold the entire amount of 400,000 shares of Nonindicted Co. 8’s stock acquired as above and reported the change in ownership as an executive officer of Nonindicted Co. 4’s stocks, despite the fact that the ownership of Nonindicted Co. 4 should be changed, Defendant 1 did not report the change until September 1, 2009, which is the date of duty to report.

D. As to the merger between Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9 on October 28, 2009

Defendant 1, in the process of the merger between Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9 on October 28, 2009, acquired 8.81% of the total number of shares issued after being allocated to Nonindicted Co. 45, 44, 46, and 47 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 8 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 45, 46, and 47, and acquired 5.81% of the total number of shares issued. As an executive of Nonindicted Co. 8, an executive of Nonindicted Co. 8, a report on the change of ownership as an executive of Nonindicted Co. 8, and a report on the change of ownership by joint signature with Nonindicted Co. 13, which is

E. On December 22, 2009, regarding the acquisition of bonds with warrants (BW) by Nonindicted Co. 25

Defendant 1, around December 22, 2009, acquired bonds with warrant (BW) issued by Nonindicted Co. 25, 2520,000 won (2,560 won, 632,812 shares) and acquired shares of approximately 2% if the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 are combined with the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, and did not report the change in possession until December 30, 2009, which is the date on which the duty to report is to report.

F. As to the merger between Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 5 on December 30, 2009

Defendant 1 acquired 8,491,405 shares issued in the process of the merger between Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 5 on December 30, 2009 in the name of 26 persons, including Nonindicted Co. 105, 96, 92, and Defendant 5, etc., and acquired 33.6% of the total number of shares issued, Defendant 1 did not report the changes in possession and ownership until January 6, 2010, which is the date of reporting the changes.

[Case of 2010Gohap305]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in each protocol of examination of suspect by the prosecution;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor against Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 7

1. Each description of a complaint, balance certificate, securities card and seal, copy of a certificate of execution, copy of a certificate of monetary loan contract, details of transactions in detail, copy of a draft agreement, and copy of a draft agreement (including e-mail);

[Case of 2010Gohap402]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 10 and 84

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor about the defendants and non-indicted 10 (including the part concerning the defendant 12 among the interrogation protocol of the 11th suspect against the defendant 1)

1. Defendant 1 (2357 pages, 2719 pages), 7 (2764 pages), 2 (2784 pages), 3 (26, 159, 1079, 1671 pages, 67 (1389 pages), 11 [1927 pages, 1950 pages, 2133 (13), 12 (2109 pages), 84 (5 pages, 278), 10 (470 pages), 73 (109 pages), 74 (278), 609 (60 pages), 73 (73983, 983 (13), 983 (1), and 84 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Each statement of Defendant 1’s statements (2402 pages, 2491 pages, 2571 pages), Defendant 6 (5701 pages), Defendant 2 (702 pages), Defendant 8 (271 pages), Nonindicted 112 (1096 pages), Nonindicted 10 (711 pages), and Defendant 2 (713 pages)

1. 수사보고[ 공소외 2 주식회사 홈페이지자료, 법인등기부등본, 2008 감사보고서 첨부(1권 375쪽), 공소외 114 주식회사 홈페이지자료, 법인등기부, 2008 감사보고서 첨부(486쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 홈페이지자료, 법인등기부, 2008 감사보고서 첨부(637쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 홈페이지자료, 법인등기부, 2008 감사보고서 첨부(935쪽), 공소외 13 주식회사 법인등기부등본 첨부(1019쪽), 시세조종 관련 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 1차 투자수익약정서 첨부(1028쪽), 시세조종 관련 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 2차 투자수익약정서 첨부(2권 1408쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 3차, 공소외 8 주식회사 1차투자수익약정서 첨부(1665쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 3자배정 유상증자 투자수익약정서 첨부(1771쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 장내매수도 관련 2차 투자수익약정서 등 첨부(1946쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 1차 투자수익약정 정산서 첨부(2213쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 2차 투자수익약정 정산서 첨부(2236쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 3차 투자수익약정 정산서 첨부(2261쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사와 공소외 5 주식회사 합병계약서 등 첨부(3권 2374쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사- 공소외 7 법인 계약 관련 경위서 첨부(2401쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사- 공소외 7 법인 계약 관련 경위서 첨부(2490쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사- 공소외 7 법인 계약 관련 경위서 첨부(2570쪽), 인천광역시- 공소외 113 주식회사간 토지매매계약서 첨부(2625쪽), 공소외 7 법인의 공소외 10이 정리한 정산내역 첨부(2717쪽), 공소외 7 법인- 공소외 2 주식회사간 1차 투자수익약정시 피고인 1이 공소외 61 주식회사로 입금한 6억 타행환 입금표 첨무(2743쪽), 관계회사 지분율현황 및 피고인 1 진술서 첨부(2750쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사의 공소외 2 주식회사 지분인수 및 차입금 공시자료 첨부(3136쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 유상증자 공시내용 첨부(3173쪽), 피고인 2가 금감원 제출한 공소외 8 주식회사 인수관련 자료 첨부(4권 402쪽), 피고인 3 제출 2009년 공소외 4 주식회사 자금조달 및 사용내역 보고(524쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 인수차입금 및 외부자금 조달내역 자료 첨부(543쪽), 피의자 피고인 2 제출자료 첨부보고(562쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 공소외 2 주식회사 인수당시 공소외 66 주식회사에서 대여받은 210억원 약정서 등 첨부(919쪽), 한강구조조정기금- 공소외 114 주식회사 공소외 2 주식회사주식 및 경영권양수도 관련계약서 첨부(930쪽), 피고인 2 사무실 보관 2009년 연말자금정산내역 사본 첨부(989쪽), 피고인 2 사무실 보관 관계사별 자금현황 사본 첨부(1016쪽), 피고인 2 사무실 보관 개인별 가지급금내역 사본 첨부(1031쪽), 피고인 2 작성 자금지출내역 자료 첨부(1124쪽), 피의자 피고인 2 추가 제출자료 첨부보고(5권 1154쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사, 공소외 8 주식회사 당좌수표 및 어음수불부 대장 첨부보고(1364쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 및 공소외 4 주식회사 단기대여금 내역 첨부보고(1451쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 관계사별 자금현황철 등 압수물 사본 첨부보고(1698쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자 대금 사용내역 첨부보고(6권 1979쪽), 참고인 피고인 13 제출자료( 피고인 1과 거래, 정산내역)첨부보고(2024쪽), 참고인 피고인 12 제출자료( 피고인 1과 거래내역) 첨부보고(2307쪽), 참고인 피고인 13 제출자료( 공소외 8 주식회사, 공소외 2 주식회사 거래) 첨부보고(2326쪽), 피고인 13 공소외 5 주식회사 관련 제출자료 첨부보고(2335쪽), 피고인 1 제출 공소외 2 주식회사 자금지출 증빙서류 첨부(2495쪽), 피고인 2 정리 공소외 5 주식회사 자금 지출 정리내역 첨부(2702쪽), 피고인 2, 3 제출 공소외 2 주식회사, 공소외 4 주식회사 대여금 사용내역 첨부(2705쪽), 피고인 2 제출 공소외 5 주식회사 증자자금 사용내역 첨부(2885쪽), 피고인 2 제출 공소외 2 주식회사 자금대여 및 차입금 사용 증빙)(7권 3033쪽), 피고인 2 제출 공소외 2 주식회사 비관계사 자금 대여 증빙 첨부(3201쪽), 피고인 2 제출 공소외 115 주식회사 등 차입금 증빙 첨부(3283쪽), 피고인 2 제출자료( 공소외 9 주식회사 주식차명 거래내역등)첨부보고(3311쪽), 피고인 2 제출자료(차명 주식거래 내역)첨부보고(3317쪽), 피고인 2 제출 2009년 공소외 2 주식회사 자금 대여 증빙 첨부(3388쪽), 피고인 2 제출 2009. 5.-12. 공소외 4 주식회사 자금대여 증빙 첨부(8권 4148쪽), 피고인 1 팩스제출 피의자신문조사 보완자료 첨부보고(4606쪽), 피의자 피고인 2 제출 차명주식거래 내역자료 첨부보고(4875쪽), 피의자 피고인 7 제출 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자 차명 거래내역 자료 첨부보고(5345쪽), 비상장주식 합병 관련 피고인 2 PC 검토사항 파일 첨부(5453쪽), 피의자 피고인 1 제출 피의자신문조사 보완자료 첨부보고(5573쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 2009. 5. 31. 대차대조표 첨부(10권 6223쪽), 피고인 1의 공소외 25 주식회사 BW 취득에 따른 공소외 2 주식회사의 보고의무 관련보고(6225쪽), 피고인 9 관리 4개 증권계좌 거래내역 첨부(11권 470쪽), 피고인 10 2개, 공소외 116 계좌 거래내역 각 첨부(651쪽), 금감원직원 분석 공소외 8 주식회사 등 시세조종 주문 내역 입수(12권 1692쪽), 공소외 10 제출 피고인 1과의 투자내역 정리자료 첨부(1834쪽), 공소외 9 주식회사 합병 주식매수청구권 관련 최초예정가격 및 실제행사가격 관련 자료 첨부(2249쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사의 2008. 10. 7.자 공소외 3 주식회사 대여금 관련 보고]의 각 기재

1. 공소외 2 주식회사 홈페이지 자료(1권 376쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 법인등기부등본(399쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 2008년 감사보고서(414쪽), 공소외 114 주식회사 홈페이지 자료(487쪽), 공소외 114 주식회사 법인등기부 등본(523쪽), 공소외 114 주식회사 2008년 감사보고서(584쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 홈페이지 자료(638쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 법인등기부 등본(664쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 2008년 감사보고서(687쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 홈페이지 자료(936쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 법인등기부등본(947쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 2008년 감사보고서(950쪽), 투자설명서( 공소외 114 주식회사, 공소외 2 주식회사) 각 1부(1030쪽), 수령확인증(수표 4억 4천만 원, 담보물위탁인 : 피고인 1, 수령위임인 : 공소외 11), 수표사본(1110쪽), ‘금전소비대차계약서 체결 및 상환의 건’ 공문( 공소외 8 주식회사→ 공소외 7 법인)(1114쪽), 금전소비대차 계약서( 공소외 61 주식회사- 공소외 8 주식회사, 차용금원 4억원)(1116쪽), ‘금전소비대차계약서 체결 및 상환의 건’ 공문( 공소외 13 주식회사→ 공소외 7 법인)(1117쪽), 금전소비대차 계약서( 공소외 61 주식회사- 공소외 13 주식회사)(1119쪽), 수령확인증( 공소외 2 주식회사 약속어음 33억 원)(1121쪽), 담보물보관증(위탁인: 피고인 1, 수탁인: 공소외 7 법인)(1122쪽), 수령확인증(1차계약 담보금 6억 7천 만 원 반환), 수표사본(1127-1쪽), 수령확인증(1차계약 잉여수익 206,413,554원), 수표사본(1132쪽), 공소외 7 법인 공소외 2 주식회사 매매보고서 공문 등(1135쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 1차 장내매수도 정산내역서(1141쪽), 공소외 7 법인 공소외 2 주식회사 매도완료 공문내용 등(매매보고서, 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 정산내역서 첨부)(1142쪽), 공소외 7 법인이 매입한 공소외 2 주식회사 주식매각 의뢰의 건 공문(1179쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 약속어음 33억 원 사본(씨티은행 (어음번호 6 생략)), 인감증명서(1180쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 20억 투자주식에 대한 매도 및 부족한 담보금 입금완료 요청의 내용증명( 공소외 7 법인,→ 공소외 2 주식회사)(1182쪽), 공소외 10이 피고인 1, 공소외 37, 피고인 2에게 보낸 e-mail 내용(1186쪽), 담보제공 약속어음 일시 교체 요청 공문( 공소외 2 주식회사 피고인 1→ 공소외 7 법인 공소외 10), 확약서, 인감증명서 사본(1188쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 발행 약속어음( 어음번호 3 생략) 30억원 사본(1191쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 이사회회의록(2008.11.26.)(1192쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 피고인 1 명의 백지어음 보충권 부여증(1193쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 투자수익 보장 약정서 연장 요청서 및 연장 요청 관련 공소외 7 법인 공소외 10과의 송·수신 공문(1194쪽), 1차로 공소외 7 법인이 매수한 공소외 2 주식회사 매매보고서 공문 등(1208쪽), 금전소비대차계약 공정증서 사본(2권 1274쪽), 공소외 7 법인의 제안서(Proposal)(1290쪽), 위임장(Letter of Mandate)(1295쪽), 1차 공소외 2 주식회사- 공소외 7 법인투자수익보장약정서(2009. 11. 25.)(1299쪽), 1차 잉여투자수익처분합의서(1309쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 정관(1315쪽), 신용조사보고서( 공소외 13 주식회사, 2008.11.25.)(1339쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 공소외 117이 공소외 7 법인 공소외 10에게 송부한 팩스자료[제안서(Proposal), 공소외 2 주식회사사업자등록증, 피고인 1 개인인감증명서 사본](1358쪽), 투자수익보장약정서, 잉여투자수익처분합의서 검토 요청 공문( 공소외 7 법인→ 공소외 2 주식회사)(1370쪽), 공소외 7 법인의 제안서(Proposal) 검토요청 공문(1385쪽), 공소외 7 법인의 수정된 제안서 검토 요청 공문(1396쪽), 주주총회참석장(1410쪽), 수령확인증(현금담보금액 823,070,730원)(1416쪽), 수령확인증(2차계약 공소외 2 주식회사 약속어음 49억5천만 원 반환 수령)(1419쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 2차 장내매수도 정산내역서(1426쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 주식매수 내역 송부 공문(1427쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 주식매도내역 송부 공문(1429쪽), 2차계약 관련 공소외 7 법인의 공소외 2 주식회사 주식매도 공문 등(첨부 : 매매보고서)(1431쪽), 투자수익 보장 약정서 연장 요청서( 피고인 1, 공소외 37→ 공소외 7 법인)(1444쪽), 투자 주선수수료지급요청 공문( 공소외 7 법인→ 공소외 2 주식회사)(1445쪽), 2차계약 관련 공소외 7 법인의 공소외 2 주식회사 주식매수 공문 등(1447쪽), 담보물보관증 5부(1513쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 이사회 의사록(2009. 3. 3.)(1518쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 백지어음 보충권 부여증(1519쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 약속어음 49억5천만 원 사본(씨티은행 (어음번호 8 생략))(1520쪽), 담보제공 약속어음 일시적 교체의 건(1522쪽), 확약서(1523쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 이사회회의록(2009.9.3.)(1525쪽), 백지어음 보충권 부여증(1526쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 약속어음 49억5천만 원 사본(씨티은행 (어음번호 4 생략))(1527쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 주식 매수 내역 송부 공문(1528쪽), 담보물보관증(현금 176,382,899원)(1539쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 이사회회의록(2009. 3. 3.)(1540쪽), 백지어음 보충권 부여증(1541쪽), 담보 제공 홍콩 달러의 원화 환산액 통지 등 공문(1543쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 주식 매수 내역 송부 공문(1546쪽), 금전소비대차계약 공정증서 사본(1553쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 매매 내역 송부 공문(1569쪽), 공소외 7 법인의 제안서(Proposal)(1618쪽), Letter of Mandate(위임장)(1624쪽), 2차 공소외 2 주식회사- 공소외 7 법인투자수익보장약정서(1628쪽), 2차 공소외 2 주식회사- 공소외 7 법인잉여투자수익처분합의서(1654쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 약속어음 49억5천만 원 사본(씨티은행 (어음번호 1 생략))(1662쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 이사회회의록(1663쪽), 백지어음 보충권 부여증(1664쪽), 수령확인증( 공소외 2 주식회사 약속어음 931,000,000원 씨티은행 (어음번호 6 생략))(1667쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 약속어음 사본(씨티은행 (어음번호 6 생략))(1671쪽), 수령증(정산후 부족한 현금 1,449,193원을 공소외 7 법인이 수령)(1672쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 3차, 공소외 8 주식회사 1차 장내매수도 정산내역서(1674쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사, 공소외 8 주식회사 매도 완료의 건(1675쪽), Margin Call 발생의 건 공문(1679쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사, 공소외 8 주식회사 매도내역 송부 공문(1680쪽), Margin Call 발생의 건 공문(1685쪽), 투자수익보장약정서 연장의 건(1710쪽), Margin Call 발생의 건 공문(1713쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사, 공소외 8 주식회사 매수 완료의 건(1717쪽), 금전소비대차계약 공정증서 사본(1726쪽), 공소외 7 법인의 제안서(Proposal)(1742쪽), Letter of Mandate(위임장)(1747쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사- 공소외 7 법인 투자수익보장약정서(2009. 6. 3.)(1750쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사- 공소외 7 법인 잉여투자수익처분합의서(2009. 6. 3.)(1760쪽), 증권시장 외에서의 증권의 양수 또는 양도신고서(1772쪽), 청약 확인서(1773쪽), 주식청약서(1777쪽), 수령증(1781쪽), ‘ 공소외 4 주식회사 주주배정 유상증자 실권의 건’ 내역 통보(1782쪽), 신주등의 취득 또는 출연방식에 의한 외국인투자신고서(1790쪽), 해외송금 거래명세서(1791쪽), 자문용역계약서( 공소외 2 주식회사 피고인 1- 공소외 61 주식회사 공소외 10)(1793쪽), 신주등의 취득 등에 의한 외국인투자신고서(1796쪽), 주식매수청구권 행사에 관한 약정서(1797쪽), 주식등의 대량보유상황보고서( 공소외 7 법인, 09. 5. 22.)(1803쪽), 유가증권보호예수증명서(1811쪽), 금전소비대차계약 공정증서 사본(1818쪽), 투자수익보장약정서( 공소외 4 주식회사 증자참여 관련)(1835쪽), 잉여투자수익처분합의서(1846쪽), Letter of Mandate(위임장)(1848쪽), 담보물보관증(39억 원)(1853쪽), 공소외 7 법인의 Proposal(제안서)(1855쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 정관(1869쪽), 환전요청(영문)(1887쪽), 해외송금신청서(1888쪽), 해외자금 송금내역( 공소외 7 법인이 공소외 4 주식회사로 송금)(1889쪽), 담보물보관증( 공소외 2 주식회사 약속어음 75억4천만 원 씨티은행 (어음번호 5 생략))(1895쪽), 약속어음 사본( 공소외 2 주식회사 75억4천만 원 씨티은행 (어음번호 5 생략))(1898쪽), 주식매수청구권 행사에 관한 약정서(1899쪽), 피고인 2의 외국인투자기업신고서 송부 e-mail(신주등의 취득 또는 출연방식에 의한 외국인투자신고서 첨부)(1903쪽), 피고인 2의 보호예수확약서 송부 e-mail(1906쪽), 제안서(Proposal)검토 요청( 공소외 7 법인→ 공소외 2 주식회사) 공문(제안서, 공소외 4 주식회사 대표이사소개, 주가 및 주식차트, 회사소개서 첨부)(1909쪽), 정정신고서(유상증자-3자배정)(1936쪽), 공소외 7 법인의 공소외 8 주식회사 매수완료의 건(1948쪽), 금전소비대차계약 공정증서 사본(1960쪽), 담보물보관증(현금 10억 원, 약속어음 49억5천만원 (어음번호 4 생략))(1979쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 관련, 공소외 7 법인의 제안서(Proposal)(1982쪽), Letter of Mandate(위임장)(1992쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사- 공소외 7 법인 2차 투자수익보장약정서(1996쪽), 잉여투자수익처분합의서(2022쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 약속어음 49억5천만 원 사본(씨티은행 (어음번호 4 생략))(2028쪽), 약속어음 발행증명서(2029쪽), 백지어음 보충권 부여증(2030쪽), 이사회회의록(2031쪽), 위임장 및 인감증명서[ 공소외 8 주식회사 외3](2032쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 정관(2053쪽), 회사소개서(2009)(2067쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 감사보고서(2086쪽), ‘ 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 20억 투자정산 완료’ 품의서(2214쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 정산내역서(2222쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 Swap 20억 주식매수결과(2223, 2230쪽), ‘ 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 30억 투자정산 완료’ 품의서(2237쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 정산내역서(2244쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 Swap 30억 주식매수결과(2245, 2256쪽), ‘ 공소외 2 주식회사/ 공소외 8 주식회사 장내매수도 6억 투자정산 완료’ 품의서(2262쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사/ 공소외 8 주식회사 장내매수도 정산내역서(2268쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 Swap 주식매수/매도 결과(2269쪽), 합병계약서(3권 2375쪽), 금융감독원 공시합병 일정표(2384쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 대차대조표(2009. 8. 31. 기준)(2395쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 은행차입금 현황표(2398쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 관계사 현황(2400쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 주요경영사항에 관한 공시(최대주주의 보유주식 및 경영권 양수도계약 체결)(2414쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 주가 일봉차트(2418쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사와 공소외 66 주식회사의 금전소비대차계약서(2421쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 감사보고서(2008)(2422쪽), 피고인 1 통장거래내역(2424쪽), Proposal( 공소외 7 법인과 공소외 2 주식회사의 계약제안서)(2427쪽), 투자수익보장약정서(2436쪽), 잉여투자수익처분합의서(2446쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사주식 매매내역 송부 공문(2449쪽), 종합주가지수 일봉차트(2455쪽), Proposal( 공소외 7 법인과 공소외 2 주식회사의 계약제안서)(2457쪽), 투자수익보장약정서(2467쪽), 잉여투자수익처분합의서(2480쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사주식 매매내역 송부 공문(2484쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 정산내역서(2487쪽), 매각지시공문(‘기 매입한 주식매각 의뢰의 건’)(2488쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 장내매수도 정산내역서(2489쪽), 공소외 113 주식회사 회사소개와 장기버전(2498쪽), 전략적 업무제휴에 관한 합의서(2512쪽), 감독원공시 08.12.31.기준 대차대조표(2515쪽), 주식 및 경영권 양수도 계약서(2518쪽), 공소외 118 대표와 공소외 2 주식회사 간 합의서(2528쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사와 공소외 7 법인 계약서(2531쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 반기재무재표에 대한 주석(2553쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 외국인투자 유치 배경 설명서(2562쪽), 공소외 9 주식회사/ 공소외 8 주식회사 합병계약서(2576쪽), 합병일정( 공소외 8 주식회사- 공소외 9 주식회사)(2580쪽), 이사회결의사항 반대의사 통지서(2588쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 반기검토보고서(발췌)(2589쪽), 코스닥시장상장규정(발췌)(2591쪽), 공소외 9 주식회사 합병검토 내부기안서(2603쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사/ 공소외 8 주식회사 합병계약서(2610쪽), 합병일정(2616쪽), 공소외 9 주식회사 주식매수청구권 결과 금감원 공시(2623쪽), 외국인 투자기업( 공소외 113 주식회사)등록증명서(2650쪽), 투자유치 현황(07.11.20. 현재)(2652쪽), 외화송금 발신전문사본(2656쪽), 상환증명서(영문)(2657쪽), 서울중앙지법 채권가압류 판결문(2659쪽), 서울중앙지법 부동산가압류 판결문(2677쪽), 인천광역시의 공장설립 완료 미신고에 따른 안내 공문(수신: 공소외 113 주식회사 대표 공소외 119)(2681쪽), 공장설립 완료신고 질의에 대한 회신공문(수신: 공소외 4 주식회사)(2683쪽), 산업단지 입주계약 변경 요청 공문(수신: 공소외 113 주식회사 대표)(2684쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 산업단지 입주계약변경 신청에 대한 시정 요청공문(수신: 공소외 4 주식회사 대표이사)(2685쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 산업단지 입주계약 변경 신청 승인통보(수신: 공소외 4 주식회사 대표이사)(2686쪽), 공장설립등의 완료신고서( 공소외 4 주식회사)(2689쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 공장등록 알림(2690쪽), 공장등록증명서( 공소외 4 주식회사)(2692쪽), 유상증자(3자배정) 정정 신고(2693쪽), 외국인투자기업등록증명서( 공소외 4 주식회사)(2697쪽), 외국인투자신고서( 공소외 4 주식회사)(2698쪽), 투자등록증( 공소외 7 법인)(2699쪽), 주식청약서( 공소외 7 법인)(2700쪽), 증권발행실적보고서( 공소외 4 주식회사)(2702쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 등기부등본(4권 65쪽), 주주명부( 공소외 5 주식회사)(68쪽), 증자관련자금확정 파일(70쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사유상증자청약자명단(주식양수도후 수정본) 180억, 43명(72쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사(유상증자 180억) 파일 사본(청약자명단, 주금납입보관증명서, 이사회의사록, 정관, 주주명부, 주금납입의뢰서, 위임장, 인감증명서, 사업자등록증, 신주배정통지서)(74쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 증자자금내역( 공소외 5 주식회사 증자과정에서 문제점, 증자자금 사용내역, 공소외 5 주식회사유상증자 청약자명단)(129쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사주식회사 주금납입통장 사본(중소기업은행 서초동지점 (계좌번호 4 생략))(143쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 2009년 자금조달 및 사용내역(170쪽), 공소외 13 주식회사 법인등기부등본(407쪽), 공소외 13 주식회사 주주명부(411쪽), 공소외 13 주식회사와 공소외 65 주식회사의 공소외 8 주식회사 지분 및 경영권 인수계약서(415쪽), 사채 매매계약서(418쪽), 여신거래약정서(421쪽), 유가증권 매매계약서( 공소외 13 주식회사/ 공소외 3 주식회사)(425쪽), 공소외 13 주식회사 보유 은행, 증권 등 금융계좌명세서(430쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사의 08년 현금성 자산 명세(526쪽), 09년 자금조달내역(526-1쪽), 대여금 사용내역(535쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 인수자금출처(차입금 상환내역, 공소외 66 주식회사 차입금내역)(545쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 외부자금 조달내역(548쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 외부자금 조달내역(553쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 외부자금 조달내역, 09. 2. 3. 유상증자 자금사용내역, 공소외 2 주식회사 자금 지출내역(2008년), 관계사별 대여/차입내역, 공소외 2 주식회사 외부차입금 관련 증빙, 공소외 8 주식회사 외부차입금 관련 증빙(564쪽), 주식매도선택권 계약(957쪽), 주식 및 경영권 양수도계약서 이행 합의서(963쪽), 입금확인증(968쪽), 유가증권보호예수 증명서( 공소외 2 주식회사)(969쪽), 보호예수 명의인별 관리대장( 공소외 2 주식회사)(970쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사주식 수령증( 공소외 8 주식회사 피고인 2 대리 작성)(973쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사매각대금 수령확인서(한강구조기금) 및 이체내역, 입금확인증, 이체확인증 등(974쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 자료제출(대여금지급계좌 및 입금계좌내역, 대여금지급 업체 자금사용내역 및 증빙자료)(1099쪽), 공소외 114 주식회사 사채대금, 공소외 2 주식회사 2008년 자금지출, 공소외 2 주식회사 2009년 자금지출, 공소외 2 주식회사 자금지출분포, 공소외 13 주식회사 자금지출, 자금지출 세부내역자료 19부 (1125쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 단기대여/차입금 내역(5권 1155쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 단기대여/차입금 증빙자료(대여금; 공소외 3 주식회사, 공소외 6 주식회사, 공소외 14 주식회사, 공소외 5 주식회사, 공소외 120 차입금;임직원, 관계사, 증권사, 은행, 공소외 121, 피고인 13, 공소외 54 주식회사, 공소외 66 주식회사, 공소외 115 주식회사, 공소외 61 주식회사, 공소외 149 주식회사)(1205쪽), 공소외 13 주식회사 관계사별 차입금 정리(1324쪽), 관계사 보유 은행/증권계좌 현황(1326쪽), 명의신탁 차입 내역(1360쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 당좌수표(어음)수불부(1365쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 기타주요경영사항(최대주주의보유주식 및 경영권 양수도계약체결)(1408쪽), 공소외 114 주식회사 단기차입금증가결정(1411쪽), 약정서(탐엠엔에이 - 공소외 114 주식회사)(1413쪽), 각 금전소비대차 계약서 (탐엠엔에이 - 공소외 114 주식회사, 일백일십억 원)(1415쪽, 1416쪽), 공소외 114 주식회사 어음(수표)발행명세(1417쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 단기대여금 계정별원장(2008,2009)(1453쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 거래처별 단기대여금(2008)(1457쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 거래처별 단기대여금(2009)(1458쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 거래처별 단기대여금 증감내역(2008,2009)(1460쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 단기대여금 계정별원장(2008,2009)(1465쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 거래처별 단기대여금 계정별원장(2008,2009)(1466쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 대여금내역(2008,2009)(1493쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 총 대여금 및 차입금내역 정리요약본(2008,2009)(1496쪽), 제2거래처별 사용내역 정리본(2008,2009)(1500쪽), 관계사 대여금 내역(2008,2009)(1504쪽), 제2거래처별 증가금액 일자별 정리(1509쪽), 2009년 제2거래처 증가,감소금액 일자별 정리내역(1515쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사자금지출내역(2008)(1540쪽), 제2거래처 사용내역별 정리( 공소외 8 주식회사, 공소외 13 주식회사, 공소외 3 주식회사, 공소외 73 주식회사, 공소외 139 주식회사, 공소외 72 주식회사, 공소외 6 주식회사, 공소외 14 주식회사, 공소외 42 주식회사, 거래처대여금 관련 자료)(1545쪽), 외부자금 유 출입 정리내역(1555쪽), 대부업등록증 1부(1577쪽), 자금출처내역(1579쪽), 신주인수권부사채 발행결정(1580쪽), 회사채 매매계약서(1582쪽), 수표실물사본(6억원)(1586쪽), 신주인수권행사(1587쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 주주명부(1592쪽), 증자관련자금확정 파일(1593쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자 청약자 명단(주식양수도 후 수정본)(1595쪽), 신주배정통지서( 피고인 13)(1596쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 어음(수표)발행명세(1597쪽), 약정서( △△△△- 공소외 8 주식회사)(1599쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 단기차입금(2009)(1636쪽), 관계사별 대여금 및 차입금 정리( 공소외 13 주식회사, 공소외 6 주식회사, 공소외 73 주식회사, 공소외 72 주식회사, 공소외 42 주식회사, 공소외 14 주식회사)(1644쪽), 관계사대여금내역(1679쪽), 제2거래처 증가 일자별 정리(1681쪽), 공소외 24 주식회사 계정별원장(2009)(1687쪽), 공소외 14 주식회사 계정별원장(보통예금,2009)(1689쪽), 공소외 6 주식회사 계정별원장(2009)(1692쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 관계사 자금현황철( 공소외 6 주식회사 등 으로부터 차입)(1700쪽), 연말자금 정산내역철( 공소외 6 주식회사 등 대여금 명목 지출, 이자계산한 내역, 피고인 13 및 피고인 12 등 사채업자 단기간차입하여 공소외 2 주식회사대여금 잔액을 줄이는 내역)(1738쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 관계사별 자금현황철(1763쪽), 개인별 가지급금 내역(1777쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 어음,수표 발행내역 정리내역(1839쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 어음,수표 발행명세(1842쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 어음,수표 발행내역 정리(1843쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 어음,수표 발행명세(1844쪽), 수표 폐기 리스트(1896쪽), 피고인 13 거래내역(6권 1976쪽), 정정신고(단수주 및 실권주처리)(1977쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 증자자금 지출내역(1983쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 대여금 회수금액 사용내역(1997쪽), 피고인 13과 피고인 1( 피고인 11)의 거래 및 정산내역(2026쪽), 공소외 122 증권계좌( 계좌번호 5 생략) 거래내역(2029쪽), 공소외 46 증권계좌( 계좌번호 6 생략) 거래내역(2030쪽), 피고인 13 증권계좌( (계좌번호 7 생략), (계좌번호 8 생략)) 거래내역(2031쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 및 공소외 2 주식회사 대여금액 및 대여기간 현황표(2130쪽), 피고인 13과 자금거래내역(2165쪽), 신주인수권증권 양수도 계약서( 공소외 8 주식회사 워런트 22억)(2172쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 3자배정 매매내역( 공소외 11)(2175쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사- 공소외 9 주식회사 합병신주 발행 내역(2206쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 계좌거래내역( 계좌번호 9 생략)(2208쪽), 피고인 12 팩스 제출자료( 피고인 1과 거래내역 및 피고인 12 증권거래내역)(2308쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 및 공소외 2 주식회사 유상증자 관련 거래내역(2327쪽), 자금대여 약정서 양식(2328쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 대출건 수표(10억원)번호 1부(2336쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 총 대여금 및 차입금내역 정리 요약(2008,2009)(2482쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 비관계사 대여금 내역(2008,2009)(2485쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 관계사 대여금 내역(2008,2009)(2487쪽), 2008년 공소외 2 주식회사 자금지출내역(관계사 대여 등)(2492쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 자금지출 증빙서료(2008. 9. - 2008. 12.)(2496쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 관계사 대여금 증빙자료 추가제출( 공소외 8 주식회사 건설사업부)(2554쪽), 신주인수권사채발행(정정신고)(2689쪽), 주요사항보고서/거래소신고의무사항( 공소외 25 주식회사 공시)(2691쪽), 통장 등 거래내역( 공소외 29, 28, 30)(2697쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 관계사 대여금 내역(2009)(2759쪽), 관계사 대여금 내역에 대한 주석사항(2764쪽), 2009. 공소외 2 주식회사자금 지출내역(관계사 단기대여금, 피고인 2 진술포함)(2771쪽), 공소외 7 법인자금 입금 및 출금내역(2781쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 당좌수표(어음) 수불부(2843쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 당좌수표(어음) 수불부(2853쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자 청약자 명단(2867쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 증자자금 출금 증빙(2886쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 증자자금 사용 증빙(2920쪽), 2009년 공소외 4 주식회사 단기대여금 등 지출 내역(2962쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 자금 지출 내역(2964쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 증자자금 공소외 2 주식회사 사용내역 정리(2965쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 자금 대여 증빙(2008. 10. - 12.), 공소외 2 주식회사 비관계사 자금 대여 증빙(2008.1. - 12.), 공소외 2 주식회사 등 차입금(추가제출) 사용내역(2008. 9. - 12.)(7권 3034쪽), 공소외 115 주식회사 차입금사용내역(3285쪽), 공소외 49 주식회사를 경유한 사채권 매매대금 사용내역(3287쪽), 공소외 13 주식회사 에이스저축은행 차입금 차입 및 상환내역(3290쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 차입금사용내역(3294쪽), 주식 및 경영권 양수도 계약서(3296쪽), 공소외 9 주식회사 구주 인수내역, 공소외 5 주식회사 구주 인수내역, 공소외 8 주식회사 정산내역, 엑사이엔씨 BW 15억원 행사내역, 이메일수신화면(3313쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 제3자배정 유상증자관련, 공소외 8 주식회사 주주배정 증자관련, 공소외 6 주식회사 공소외 4 주식회사 실권주 인수관련, 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자 관련 자료(3318쪽), 09.2.2. 공소외 2 주식회사 제3자배정 관련공시(09.1.23.유상증자결정, 09.1.29.유가증권신고서, 09.2.3.제3자배정 유상증자 청약 및 납입결과, 09.2.3.유가증권발행실적보고서, 09.3.3.주식등의 대량보유상황보고)(8권 4473쪽), 09.6.15. 공소외 8 주식회사 주주배정 유상증자 실권주인수 차명 인수 관련자료(공시자료)(4566쪽), 09.8.20. 공소외 4 주식회사 주주배정 유상증자 실권주 40만주 차명 인수 관련 자료(공시자료)(4576쪽), 09.8. 공소외 8 주식회사 워런트(22억원) 차명 행사 관련 자료(공시자료)(4586쪽), 공소외 14 주식회사 직전보고일 이후 대량변동 내역 및 주식등의 대량보유상황보고서, 공소외 14 주식회사 계정별원장(4596쪽), 09.10.26. 공소외 9 주식회사 지분 차명인수(합병, 공소외 8 주식회사 합병신주발행) 관련자료(공시자료), 공소외 8 주식회사의 타법인 주식 및 출자증권 취득결정 공시자료(4642쪽), 09.9.25. 공소외 5 주식회사 지분 차명인수자료 및 유상증자관련 자료(공시자료, 공소외 8 주식회사와 합병관련 공시자료)(4689쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자 내역(4765쪽), 공소외 24 주식회사 유상증자 및 공소외 25 주식회사 거래내역(4790쪽), 공소외 24 주식회사 투자합의서(이전대상특허권 목록)(4793쪽), 공소외 24 주식회사 계속근무확약서( 공소외 150, 151, 26)(4802쪽), 공소외 24 주식회사 신주 인수 차명거래 및 공소외 25 주식회사 BW인수현황(차명통장등 거래내역 정리, 통장사본거래내역)(4823쪽), 타법인 주식 및 출자증권 취득결정공시( 공소외 25 주식회사, 공소외 24 주식회사)(4824쪽), 공소외 25 주식회사 주요사항보고서(4826쪽), 공소외 25 주식회사(주식등의 대량보유상황보고서, 변동내역 등, 보고자: 공소외 2 주식회사)(4835쪽), 공소외 25 주식회사[주식등의 대량보유상황보고서, 변동내역 등, 보고자: 피고인 12(09.11.23.)](4846쪽), 공소외 25 주식회사[주식등의 대량보유상황보고서, 변동내역 등, 보고자: 피고인 12(09.11.25.)](4856쪽), 임원,주요주주 특정증권등 소유상황보고서(4863쪽), 정정신고(보고)( 공소외 25 주식회사 신주인수권 발행결정,발행결과)(4868쪽), 이메일수신화면, 차명 주식거래내역(4876쪽), 공소외 9 주식회사 구주 인수내역(9권 5102쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 3자배정 유상증자, 공소외 8 주식회사 주주배정 실권주내역, 공소외 4 주식회사 실권주 인수내역, 공소외 9 주식회사 구주 인수 차명내역, 공소외 5 주식회사 구주 인수차명내역(5103쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자 주식내역(차명참여)(5105쪽), 2009년 공소외 4 주식회사 단기대여금 등 지출 내역(5137쪽), 공소외 24 주식회사 유상증자 및 공소외 25 주식회사 거래내역(5138쪽), 공소외 24 주식회사 신주 인수 차명거래 및 공소외 25 주식회사BW인수현황(5141쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자 청약자 명단(5159쪽), 여신거래약정서( 공소외 13 주식회사 - 더블유상호저축은행)(5175쪽), 이사회의사록(더블유상호저축은행 35억 차입)(5179쪽), 이사회의사록(더블유상호저축은행 35억 차입 연장)(5180쪽), 공소외 13 주식회사 더블유상호저축은행 통장 거래내역(5181쪽), 질권설정계약서( 공소외 4 주식회사 - 더블유상호저축은행)(5185쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 더블유상호저축은행 통장 거래내역(5191쪽), 질권설정계약서( 공소외 72 주식회사 - 더블유상호저축은행)(5192쪽), 질권설정계약서( 공소외 72 주식회사 - 더블유상호저축은행) 연장(5196쪽), 공소외 72 주식회사 더블유상호저축은행 통장 거래내역(5204쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 3자배정 유상증자, 공소외 8 주식회사 주주배정 실권주내역, 공소외 4 주식회사 실권주 인수내역, 공소외 9 주식회사 구주 인수 차명내역, 공소외 5 주식회사 구주 인수차명내역(5269쪽), 공소외 24 주식회사 신주 인수 차명거래 및 공소외 25 주식회사 BW인수현황(5271쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자 주식인수 차명거래 내역(5346쪽), 차명 증권계좌 거래내역(5349쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 실물주권 사본(5367쪽), 차명 사이의 주식 매매계약서 10매(5381쪽), 무한투자에 매도한 매매계약서 9매(5402쪽), 금전소비대차계약서( 공소외 48- 공소외 14 주식회사), 공소외 123 증권잔고(5446쪽), 신주인수계약서( 공소외 5 주식회사- 피고인 4)(5537쪽), 주권미발행 확인서( 공소외 52, 53)(5542쪽), 자기앞수표실물사본(5546쪽), 각 이사회의사록( 공소외 5 주식회사 신주인수 관련)(5550쪽, 5552쪽), 공소외 53, 52 증권계좌잔고 내역(5563쪽), 약속어음 공증 관련서류(17억)(5565쪽), 투자계약서(5704쪽), 거래실적증명서 3부 및 공소외 16 통장 거래내역( 계좌번호 10 생략)(5711쪽), 금전소비대차계약서 및 금전소비대차 계약에 관한 부속약정서(5722쪽), 2009.2.2. 공소외 2 주식회사 유상증자관련 피고인 1 주식 변동내역(6967쪽), 2009.8.10. 공소외 8 주식회사의 공소외 9 주식회사합병 관련 주식 변동내역(6968쪽), 2009.9.28. 피고인 1의 공소외 5 주식회사 합병 관련 공소외 8 주식회사 주식 변동내역(6969쪽), 2009.9.25. 공소외 13 주식회사 공소외 5 주식회사지분 차명인수 후 신주취득(6970쪽), 2009.6.12. 피고인 1의 공소외 8 주식회사 주식 변동내역(6971쪽), 2009.8.12. 공소외 4 주식회사 주식 차명 취득내역(6972쪽), 임원,주요주주 특정증권등 소유상황보고서(6973쪽), 주식등의 대량보유상황보고서(6977쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 소액공모실적보고서 공시(2008. 12. 5.)(11권 306쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 3자배정 공시내용(2009. 1. 13.)(308쪽), 공소외 124(부인) 공소외 125 증권( 계좌번호 11 생략)(471쪽), 공소외 38(큰형) 공소외 125 증권( 계좌번호 12 생략)(538쪽), 공소외 127(셋째형) 공소외 125 증권( 계좌번호 13 생략)(577쪽), 공소외 126(셋째형수) 공소외 123 증권( 계좌번호 14 생략)(586쪽), 통신사실 자료 발췌( 공소외 90, 피고인 8- 피고인 10 통화)(633쪽), 피고인 10 공소외 128 증권( 계좌번호 15 생략)(652쪽), 피고인 10 공소외 123 증권( 계좌번호 16 생략)(670쪽), 공소외 116 공소외 129 증권( 계좌번호 17 생략)(715쪽), 공소외 90 공소외 130 증권( 계좌번호 18 생략) 거래내역(1058쪽), 공소외 78사용 공소외 131( 공소외 112 부인) 공소외 132 증권( 계좌번호 19 생략) 거래(1100쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 3자배정 참여 10억원의 자금내역(1387쪽), 공소외 43 외환은행( 계좌번호 20 생략) 통장 거래내역(1388쪽), 공소외 23 주식회사 외환은행( 계좌번호 21 생략) 통장 거래내역(1391쪽), 여신거래약정서( 공소외 43 - 민국상호저축은행)(1392쪽), 여신거래약정서( 공소외 86 - 민국항호저축은행)(1396쪽), 공소외 10 투자수익보장약정 정산 내역(1438쪽), 공소외 6 주식회사 공소외 132 증권( 계좌번호 22 생략) 거래내역(1439쪽), 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자 청약자 명단(1443쪽), 주식등의대량상황보고( 공소외 8 주식회사, 보고자 공소외 13 주식회사)(1444쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 3자배정 관련 공시(2009. 1. 13.)(1513쪽), 유가증권발행실적보고서(2009. 2. 3. 공소외 2 주식회사)(1517쪽), 공소외 7 법인의 공소외 2 주식회사 주식 매수완료 관련 공문(1521쪽), 공소외 10 정리 투자수익보장약정 정산내역(1523쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 3자배정 공소외 7 법인과 투자수익보장약정서(1576쪽), 주식매수청구에관한 약정서(1587쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 3자배정 대상자 변경( 공소외 7 법인으로) 공시(1591쪽), 공소외 4 주식회사 증권발행실적 보고(1595쪽), 임원,주요주주특정증권등소유상황보고( 공소외 7 법인 보고)(1599쪽), 담보물보관증(39억, 위탁인 : 공소외 2 주식회사, 수탁인 : 공소외 7 법인)(1613쪽), 이사회의사록( 공소외 2 주식회사 발행 약속어음 75억4천만원 관련)(1614쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 약속어음 75억4천만원 사본 (씨티은행 (어음번호 5 생략))(1615쪽), 잉여투자수익처분합의서( 공소외 4 주식회사 3자배정 유증 참여 관련(1618쪽), 금전소비대차계약공정증서 사본(1622쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 2차 투자수익보장약정서(2009. 10. 7. 체결)(1630쪽), 잉여투자수익처분합의서( 공소외 8 주식회사 2차 장내매수도 관련)(1642쪽), 담보물보관증 등(1645쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 2차 장내매수도 관련 매수 관련 공문(1647쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 공소외 9 주식회사 합병 관련 내용(1649쪽), 공소외 6 주식회사 공소외 132 증권( 계좌번호 22 생략) 거래 호가장 발췌(1654쪽), 피고인 2 제출 공소외 6 주식회사 법인계좌 거래내역(1655쪽), 공소외 8 주식회사 시세조종 주문 사례(12권 1692쪽), 공소외 10의 고가매수, 물량소진, 허수주문 현황(1698쪽), 피고인 10의 고가매수, 물량소진, 허수주문 현황(1702쪽), 공소외 6 주식회사 고가매수, 물량소진, 허수주문 현황(1705쪽), 공소외 10, 피고인 10, 공소외 6 주식회사 호가관여율(1708쪽), 공소외 38 공소외 2 주식회사 매매현황(1709쪽), 소명자료(1795쪽), 공소외 9 주식회사합병 관련 공시내용 1부(2251쪽), 이사회 결의사항 반대의사 통지서 1부(2258쪽), 주식매수청구 신청서 1부(2259쪽), 공소외 2 주식회사 보통예금계정원장, 공소외 3 주식회사 보통예금계정원장, 공소외 3 주식회사 정기예적금계정원장, 공소외 3 주식회사 자본금 및 주식발행초과금계정원장, 공소외 3 주식회사 신주청약증거금원장, 공소외 73 주식회사 보통예금원장, 공소외 73 주식회사 단기대여금원장, 공소외 73 주식회사 단기차입금 원장, 공소외 13 주식회사 단기차입금원장의 각 기재

1. Previous records: Each reference to criminal records, each investigation report (report on attachment of criminal records by Defendant 7 and attachment of criminal records in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act by Defendant 8 and report on attachment of criminal records by Defendant 8);

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

A. Defendant 1

[Case of 2010Gohap305]

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud)

【Case No. 2010 Gohap412】

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 35(1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act [Article 8(1), Article 4(2)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 8(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 8(2)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Securities (Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes); Article 8(1)2 of the Criminal Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Securities and Exchange Act (Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Securities and Exchange; Article 8(2)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 6(1)7 of the Act)1 of the Act)

B. Defendant 2

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 35(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act [2010 high-class and 412; 3.2. (b) and (d) each business embezzlement] Articles 356, 35(2), and 30 (2) of the Criminal Act; 355(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act; 40 of the Criminal Act [1] Articles 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, 356, 35(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act [4] Articles 17(1) and 8(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Act No. 10655, Jan. 7, 200; 4] Articles 7(1) and 8(2)1 of the Criminal Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Act No.)

C. Defendant 3

Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act [The occupation of occupational embezzlement and the choice of limited imprisonment], Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 356, 355(2), and 30 (the occupation of occupational breach of trust and inclusive of the crime of March 2), Article 30 of the Criminal Act

D. Defendant 5

Articles 443(1)8, 178(1)1 and 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act [Article 443(1)8, Article 178(1)2 of the same Act, Article 30 of the same Act [Article 11(11) of the above Criminal Act,

E. Defendant 6

Articles 443(1)8, 178(1)1 and 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act [Article 443(1)8, Article 178(1)2 of the same Act, Article 30 of the same Act [Article 11(11) of the above Criminal Act,

F. Defendant 7

Articles 43(1)5 and 8, 176(2)1, and 178(1)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [the above criminal facts 10.0 and the violation against market price manipulation and the prohibition of unfair trading (generally), and the choice of fines]

G. Defendant 8

Articles 443(1)5 and 8, 176(2)1, 178(1)1, and 447(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act [the above criminal facts 5., 10.0, 10.0, 10.0, 200, 200, 300, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 200

H. Defendant 9

Articles 43(1)5 and 8, 176(2)1, and 178(1)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [the above criminal facts 5.00 and violation of prohibition of market price manipulation and unfair trading (generally), and choice of imprisonment]

I. Defendant 10

Articles 43(1)5 and 8, 176(2)1, and 178(1)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [the above criminal facts 10.0 and violation of prohibition of market price manipulation and unfair trading (generally), and choice of imprisonment]

(j) Defendant 11

Articles 443(1)8, 178(1)1 and 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act [the violation of the prohibition on unfair trading under Article 448(1)8, Article 443(2)2, Article 178(1)1 and 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act [the fact that the violation of the prohibition on unfair trading under Article 443(1)8, Article 443(2)2, and Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act [the fact that the violation of the prohibition on unfair trading under Article 10(1)8, Article 443(2)1, Article 178(1)1, and 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act [the]

(k) Defendant 12

Articles 443(1)8 and 443(2)2, 178(1)1 and 2, and 447(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act [the above criminal facts 11. Violation of the prohibition on unfair trading (generally known)]

(l) Defendant 13

Articles 443(1)8, 178(1)1 and 2, and 447(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act [the crime of the above 8. Crime (the crime is committed concurrently, imprisonment and fine] Article 443(1)8 and (2)2, Articles 178(1)1 and 2, 447(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act [the punishment concurrently with imprisonment and fine] Article 443(1)8 and 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act [the punishment concurrently with imprisonment and fine], Article 43(1)8 and (2)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 178(1)1 and 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 448(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 47(1)2) of the same Act and Article 47(1)4 of the Criminal Act

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, and 13 of the Criminal Act: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the punishment against Defendant 1] of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the said Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the said Act on the Aggravated Punishment, among the concurrent crimes committed against Defendant 8 of the said Act on the Aggravated Punishment of the said Act on the Aggravated Punishment of the Aggravated Punishment of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act on the Aggravated Punishment.

3. Discretionary mitigation;

A. Defendant 2, 3, and 11: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following grounds for sentencing)

B. Defendant 12 and 13: each of the Articles 53, 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Code (the following factors for sentencing);

4. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 7, 8, 12, and 13: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

5. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention;

Defendant 1: Article 57 of the Criminal Act (Supreme Court Order 2007HunBa25 Decided June 25, 2009)

6. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: each of the following factors for sentencing

6. Social service order;

Defendant 2, 9, 10, 11: Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

【Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Leave (Fraud)】

1. Defendant's assertion;

In light of the fact that the Defendant could not anticipate the breadth of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 17 subject to investment at the time when he received investment KRW 500 million from the victim, and that the Defendant had a large volume of shares of Nonindicted Co. 17 Co., Ltd. and real estate owned by the Defendant, and thus was capable of repaying the principal and profit agreed upon by the victim, there was no intention to commit fraud by the Defendant.

2. Facts of recognition;

(5) The Defendant, on July 203, purchased shares of KRW 100 million from the victim 1 to KRW 700 million, and then purchased shares of KRW 70 billion from the victim 1 to KRW 700 million. The Defendant agreed to pay KRW 17 billion to the victim 170 million, if the victim purchased shares of KRW 17 billion to the account in the name of the victim and incurred an investment loss of KRW 100 million. The Defendant purchased shares of KRW 70 billion from the victim 1 to KRW 700,000,000, KRW 500,000,000, KRW 170,000,000,000, KRW 170,000,000,00,000, KRW 700,000,00,00,000,00,000,00.

3. Determination

The following circumstances revealed by the above facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant purchased the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated 17 and purchased the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated 17 which amount to more than twice the funds it owns by purchasing the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated 17 as collateral, and additionally purchased the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated 17 by purchasing the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated 17 by purchasing the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated 17; and (b) the Defendant purchased the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated 17 by attracting investment funds to investors by securing 10% a monthly profit; (c) it is possible for the Defendant to pay a large amount of interest and interest on the above bonds company with the profits from investment of Nonindicted Incorporated 17 and pay a high rate of interest guaranteed to investors, in the end, only if the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated 17 can be raised rapidly by various variables; (d) the principal amount of the shares increase or decrease by the victim’s capital at the time of receiving an investment from the victim; and (e) the Defendant’s promise to pay the funds to the victim at least when it did not receive any loss from the victim’s share and any other investment share within the agreed period.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this is rejected.

【The part of the case No. 2010 Gohap402】

1. Circumstances of the merger, acquisition, and governance of related companies;

The reasoning of the above evidence reveals that Defendant 1 acquired management rights by acquiring and consolidating the company, such as Nonindicted Co. 13, Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 9, Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 25, Nonindicted Co. 24, and Nonindicted Co. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “stock company” in the name of each company, and Nonindicted Co. 2’s “Nonindicted Co. 2”) as indicated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below.

The circumstances and governance structure of the above companies recognized by the above evidence are as follows.

Of Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 6, Non-Indicted 9, Non-Indicted 2, Non-Indicted 8, Non-Indicted 1, and Non-Indicted 6, Non-Indicted 400,000,000 won, Non-Indicted 6, Non-Indicted 600,000,00 won.

2. Matters concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

A. Whether each of the fund expenditure stated in Paragraph (3) of the crime constitutes embezzlement against the victim company

1) Legal principles

Since a stock company is an independent right holder separate from its shareholders, its understanding does not necessarily coincide with its understanding, if a shareholder or representative director arbitrarily disposes of the company's property for private purposes, such as offering it as collateral for a third party's financing, regardless of whether the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors passed a resolution regarding such disposal, the crime of embezzlement cannot be exempted. In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intent of disposing another person's property in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party, and it does not necessarily mean that he/she must obtain it by himself/herself, and even if he/she wishes to return, reimburse, or preserve it later, it does not interfere with the recognition of the intention of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5167, Nov. 10, 206; 2005Do3045, Aug. 19, 2005).

2) Whether embezzlement against the Defendant Nonindicted Co. 2’s subrogation for the obligation of Nonindicted Co. 13 (attached Form 1 No. 1, 20) is established

The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows. ① Defendant 1 and 2 paid the funds to Nonindicted Co. 2 with the funds of Nonindicted Co. 13 and Nonindicted Co. 137 as stated in the annexed Table 1, 20, in order to pay the existing debts to Nonindicted Co. 2 with the funds of Nonindicted Co. 133 and Nonindicted Co. 137; ② Defendants paid the funds of Nonindicted Co. 2 to Nonindicted Co. 133 and Nonindicted Co. 137 directly; ② Defendants did not directly lend the funds to Nonindicted Co. 13 to Nonindicted Co. 13 in order to avoid the prohibition of lending to the parent company, and did not directly pay the funds to Nonindicted Co. 23 and 137 in the above manner; ③ After receiving the above funds from Nonindicted Co. 13, the Defendants paid them through Nonindicted Co. 23 and 137, and they did not recognize that they paid the funds to Nonindicted Co. 23 with the above funds for the purpose of embezzlement or embezzlement; and thus, they did not constitute an unlawful act of lending with the above funds.

3) Whether embezzlement against each short-term loan on related companies and Facecom is established for each short-term loan.

A) Facts of recognition

As seen earlier, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① Both Nonindicted Co. 13, Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 25, and Nonindicted Co. 25 are the companies in which the said Defendant was actually engaged in the acquisition or merger of all of Defendant 1 under the same circumstances as indicated in “the circumstances surrounding the merger, acquisition, and governance of the relevant companies” as seen in paragraph (2) of the above criminal facts and the foregoing, and Nonindicted Co. 6 is a company whose mission was changed in Nonindicted Co. 19, which had been operated by the said Defendant, and which has no business activities. Nonindicted Co. 72, Nonindicted Co. 42, Nonindicted Co. 14, and Nonindicted Co. 73 all of them established and managed for the purpose of capital movement without any special business activities

② The financial affairs of the above companies operated by Defendant 1 are all the above defendants, and Defendant 3 took charge of the accounting affairs of Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 25, Defendant 2 took charge of the remaining listed companies, emergency funeral services, and Facecom’s accounting affairs.

③ The funds of the victim Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, and Nonindicted Co. 5 were paid to Nonindicted Co. 6 Co., Ltd. under Defendant 1’s direction for the same purpose as indicated in the separate sheet of crime list 1 through 3.

④ In the course of the victim’s execution of funds, the payment of funds on the pretext of loans to related companies and Pacom companies was determined by Defendant 1’s unilateral instruction without holding a meeting of the victim’s company or holding a specific consultation on the terms and conditions of loans, and Defendant 2 and 3 was made by the method of accounting for loans and the preparation of a monetary loan loan contract, etc. (the terms and conditions of loans were uniformly determined at 9% per annum, repayment period of 1 year or 6 months (it was possible to repay)). As for the above execution of funds, the victim company did not receive any security from companies and individuals who actually used the funds.

⑤ The source in which the victim Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, and Nonindicted Co. 5 used the funds disbursed as short-term loans, etc. are as follows.

Ying Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 72, Nonindicted Co. 42, Nonindicted Co. 14, Nonindicted Co. 73, and Nonindicted Co. 3

○○ Nonindicted Co., Ltd. was paid to Nonindicted Co., Ltd. 13 and 8, Nonindicted Co. 13, repayment of the loan for Nonindicted Co., Ltd. 2, Nonindicted Co. 13 and Nonindicted Co. 8, assets acquisition, repayment of debts, etc. (No. 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 28, 29, 1, 270, 33, 270, 500 won out of No. 1, 500, 500 won out of No. 1, 500, 500 won among No. 1, 500, 500 won out of No. 860, 36, 37, 3800, 400,000 won out of No. 1, 500,000 won among No. 8636,50,00 won.

○○ paid to Nonindicted Co. 3 and used for Nonindicted Co. 3’s own expenses (attached Table 1, 13, 20 million won among 24, 30 million won among 26, 30, 30, 39, and 53, 1.4 million won among 64, 1.4 million won (total of 1.2.8 billion won), 1, 4, 7, 10 won among 64 (total of 80 million won))

○○ In order to repay short-term loans to Nonindicted Co. 6 and Nonindicted Co. 14, Defendant 12, 13, and Nonindicted Co. 138’s money borrowed from the securities of Defendant 12, 23, 25, and 1.3 billion won, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 65, 67, 70, 102, and 103 out of Nos. 1, 22, 23, 25, and 26).

Defendant 8 (Non-Indicted 3), Defendant 1’s share price management funds, Defendant 1, Non-Indicted 2’s loan interest payment and principal repayment, Defendant 1’s payment of charges for the agreement on purchase of stocks in Chapter 2, which was concluded by Non-Indicted 7, and Defendant 1 with Non-Indicted 3 on April 24, 2009, under the guarantee of the principal amount of KRW 1,000 won of treasury stocks, the non-Indicted 2 was sold to Defendant 13, and was paid as investment charges, interest payment and operation funds, and the payment of management consulting fees, etc., 3,00,000 won among the No. 1,70,000 won No. 3,75,000 won among the No. 24, No. 765,70,000 won out of the No. 765,000 won out of the No. 1, No. 277,360,000 won out of the No. 75,76360,0,00,000 won.

○○ paid to Nonindicted Co. 6, used as taxes and public charges for Nonindicted Co. 6, paid to Nonindicted Co. 73, and paid to Nonindicted Co. 14, and used as operating expenses ( KRW 200,000 in attached Table 1, KRW 200,00 in attached Table 31, KRW 33,625,00 in attached Table 38, KRW 500,00 in attached Table 74, KRW 2,90 in attached Table 2).

○○ Nonindicted Co. 6 was paid to Nonindicted Co. 42 through Nonindicted Co. 42, and was paid to Nonindicted Co. 8 BW purchase, Nonindicted Co. 14 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 14, and was paid to Nonindicted Co. 35 BW acquisition, Nonindicted Co. 75’s share acquisition, and paid to Nonindicted Co. 6, and paid to Nonindicted Co. 40,00 for forfeited stocks for subscription to new shares for allocation of Nonindicted Co. 4’s shareholders in the name of Nonindicted Co. 6, and paid to Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 6, and paid to Nonindicted Co. 6 for purchase of stocks of Nonindicted Co. 4, 149, paid to Nonindicted Co. 6, and paid to Nonindicted Co. 6 to Nonindicted Co. 6, and used for acquisition of B, stocks, and shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 8 Co. 6’s name (Attached No. 37,52,62,73 and No. 750,92,139,15).

After payment to ○○ Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 6, Ltd., lent the above amount to Nonindicted Co. 23 (Representative Nonindicted Co. 43). Nonindicted Co. 23 lent it to Nonindicted Co. 86 and Nonindicted Co. 87. Defendant 1 acquired the shares of Nonindicted Co. 9 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 86 and Nonindicted Co. 87 (Attached Nos. 1 and 72 KRW 516 million).

○○ Nonindicted Co. 72 was paid to Nonindicted Co. 72, and thereafter, Nonindicted Co. 13 took out a loan of KRW 3.5 billion as security, and Defendant 1 paid subscription money (Attached No. 1 No. 88) to capital increase with capital increase on September 28, 2009 on the capital increase for new shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 5 on September 28, 209

○○ Nonindicted Co. 3’s payment to Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 8’s BW acceptance (Non-Indicted. 8’s payment to Nonindicted Co. 3 and Non-Indicted. 139’s payment to Nonindicted Co. 3 and Non-Indicted. 139’s acquisition from Non-Indicted. 8’s non-Indicted. 9) in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3’s name (attached Form 1 No. 99).

○○ The repayment of Nonindicted Co. 6’s debt to Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 73, Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 3, Nonindicted Co. 14, and the repayment of loans and the payment of interest to Nonindicted Co. 2 (attached Form 1, 104, KRW 320,000,000 among the 105, KRW 8.55 million among the 110,000, KRW 1100,000 among the 110,000, KRW 550,000 among the 1110, KRW 111,000 among the 2,00, KRW 5,107,761,846, KRW 3,74,564, KRW 407, KRW 2,065,69, KRW 183, KRW 1,01,6365 among the 3,04).

(B) Loans to Defendant 2 (Attached No. 1 No. 6)

On October 15, 2008, KRW 100 million was deposited in Nonindicted Co. 13 for the purpose of Defendant 2’s provisional payment, and used as the acquisition money for Nonindicted Co. 8, 13.

Loans to Nonindicted Co. 115 (Attached No. 10 No. 10)

On November 20, 2008, a loan of KRW 1 billion to Nonindicted Co. 8 via Nonindicted Co. 115 (a loan only in the name of Nonindicted Co. 140, which is the seat of Defendant 1) on November 20, 2008.

Loans to Nonindicted Co. 4 (Attached No. 1 No. 45)

A loan of KRW 300 million on March 31, 2009 to Nonindicted Co. 4’s operating funds.

a loan to Nonindicted Co. 139 (attached Form 1 No. 101)

On November 30, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 139, a related company of Nonindicted Co. 2, 2009, paid KRW 6.396 billion as a loan to Nonindicted Co. 139. In the event of exercising Nonindicted Co. 41’s BW event, Nonindicted Co. 8 did not have the ability to repay it. Therefore, in order to prevent this, Nonindicted Co. 3’s acquisition of BW from Nonindicted Co. 41, along with Nonindicted Co. 3’s acquisition (attached No. 1 No. 99) (con

㉳ 공소외 8 주식회사에 대한 대여금 (별지 3 순번 11번)

A loan of KRW 200 million to Nonindicted Co. 5 on November 30, 2009 to Nonindicted Co. 8 and deposited in the Chungcheong Bank. The repayment of Nonindicted Co. 5’s capital increase (using it as the payment for the capital increase of Nonindicted Co. 5) was made.

B) Determination

(1) The following facts revealed by the aforementioned facts and evidence. ① The victim’s subsidiaries and non-indicted 1 companies are all operated by Defendant 1, and the above non-indicted 2 companies are hard to view the funds as the counter-party to the loan agreement with the victim’s affiliates. ② The above fund payment was made after the decision on whether to pay the funds by the victim’s unilateral will; ③ the above affiliated companies and non-indicted 2 companies were to have independent decision-making rights to use the funds for the purpose of using the funds for the purpose of the above 100 companies and the above 10 companies were not allowed to use the funds for the purpose of the above 10 companies and non-indicted 2 companies’ loan funds for the purpose of using the funds for the purpose of the 10 companies and non-indicted 1 companies’ loan funds. 4 companies and non-indicted 2 companies were not allowed to use the funds for the purpose of the 10 companies and non-indicted 1 companies’ loan funds for the purpose of using the funds for the 10 companies and non-indicted 2 companies’s loan funds.

(2) In addition, the funds that were disbursed as loans from the victim company are used for purposes not directly related to the operation of each victim company, such as ① direct and indirect financial assistance to Nonindicted Co. 13 and Nonindicted Co. 8, the parent company, the parent company, based on the loans as seen earlier, and the acquisition of the funds in question, direct and indirect financial assistance to Nonindicted Co. 8, the parent company, which was the parent company, and acquisition of the funds in question, and repayment of debts through Facecom, embezzlement payment to other victims, price manipulation and participation in subscription for new stocks, and support for operating expenses of other related companies. ② The payment of funds from the victim company to the above related companies, etc. is made for purposes not directly related to the operation of each victim company. ② It is difficult for the victim company to recognize the victim company's own funds from the victim company or its affiliated companies and its affiliated companies, and it is difficult for the victim company or its affiliated companies to recognize the victim's own funds from the victim company's embezzlement or its affiliated companies, and it is difficult for the victim company or its affiliated company's own funds to recognize the victim's own funds.

3) Payment of cash security, deposit, etc. (attached Form 3 No. 5, 8, 9, 10) to Nonindicted Corporation 7 of the victim Nonindicted Corporation 5

As seen earlier, Defendant 1 entered into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 10 to manage the share price of Nonindicted Co. 8 on October 7, 2009, as stated in paragraph (2) of the above crime No. 10.C. (2), and paid cash security, commission, etc. under the above contract with Nonindicted Co. 5 as stated in No. 5, 8, 9, and 10 on the list of crimes No. 3 5, 8, 9, and 10. As seen earlier, the actual subject of the contract is Defendant 1, and the cash security, etc. of Nonindicted Co. 8, which was entered into with Nonindicted Co. 10 on October 1, 2009, in light of the fact that the above contract for the price manipulation of shares of Nonindicted Co. 8 and payment of cash security, etc. of the victim Co. 5, the act of Defendant 1’s payment for the above purpose constitutes an unlawful act of embezzlement against the victim’s own interest or a third party’s own interest.

(b) Where the crime of occupational breach of trust and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (attached Form 1 No. 32 and Attached Table 2 No. 8, 9, 12) is established;

1) Legal principles

The crime of breach of trust is established when a person administering another's business commits an act in violation of one's duty and causes loss to the principal by acquiring or causing a third party to obtain pecuniary benefits. In this case, "an act in violation of one's duty" includes any act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the principal by failing to perform an act that is naturally expected under the provisions of law, terms of a contract, or good faith principle in light of the content and nature of the business, or by performing an act that is naturally expected not to perform, or by performing an act that is naturally expected not to perform. "when an act in violation of one's duty" includes not only cases where a loss is actually incurred but also cases where a risk of actual loss in property arises. Thus, when a director, etc. of a company lends a company fund to another person, he/she would have already lost his/her ability to perform his/her duty and lent the fund to the company without taking reasonable measures such as obtaining sufficient security, etc., and such lending is an act in violation of a fiduciary relationship with the company and thereby making another person suffer losses to the company.

(ii) the facts of recognition

A) Defendant 1 demanded the purchase of non-performing loans from the representative non-indicted 43 corporation of the non-indicted 23 corporation, the relative of which on February 3, 2009, and requested to lend the funds, and lent the funds of the victim non-indicted 2 corporation to the non-indicted 23 corporation (attached Form 1 No. 32).

B) While Defendant 1 promoted the acquisition and merger of Nonindicted Co. 24, a company operated by Nonindicted Co. 26 from October 2009, Defendant 1 loaned KRW 760 million in total to Nonindicted Co. 24,000,000,000 to Nonindicted Co. 24 in order to support the operational funds of Nonindicted Co. 24, Nov. 4, 2009, KRW 300,000,000,000 to the funds of Nonindicted Co. 4, Nov. 5, 2009, KRW 160,000,000,000 to Nonindicted Co. 24 (Attached No. 2 No. 8,9,12). The above Defendant acquired the shares of Nonindicted Co. 24 through Nonindicted Co. 25, a listed company acquired on Nov. 17, 2009, through Nonindicted Co. 26, etc.

C) In each of the above loans, each of the victims company did not hold a board of directors or receive a considerable security for recovery of claims from Nonindicted Co. 23 and Nonindicted Co. 24.

3) Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts and the aforementioned evidence, namely, ① Nonindicted Co. 23 is operated independently from Defendant 1 and operated by Nonindicted Co. 43; Nonindicted Co. 24 also does not seem to have acquired full management rights at the time of the above loan; ② The above loan to the above company was made in accordance with the independent fund requirement of the above company, which is a decision-making entity separate from Defendant 1, and thus, it cannot be said that the above loan contract for the victim Co. 23 and Nonindicted Co. 24 is merely nominal, and it does not immediately constitute embezzlement.

However, the above defendant, who is an operator of the victim company and is obliged to take appropriate measures to preserve the victim company's assets, extended the company fund to another person without taking reasonable and reasonable measures to recover claims, such as receiving sufficient collateral, etc. as above, constitutes an act of making another person gain profit and causing damage to the company, and an act of causing damage to the victim company, and an act of causing damage to the victim company's property due to the above act of breach of trust. Thus, the above defendant's crime of occupational breach of trust is established against each of the above acts.

C. Determination as to each argument by Defendant 1

1) Whether embezzlement is established against the funds re-paid after temporary repayment

The above defendant asserts that, among the above embezzlement details, the above embezzlement part of the victim company's temporary repayment of loans through borrowings in order to reduce the amount of short-term loans at the end of each quarter of the victim company and then again withdrawal of short-term loans (attached Table 1 22, 23, 25, 26, 26, 48, 49, 50, 50, 65, 67, 70) should be excluded from the amount of damages, as there is no new infringement of legal interests, like the substitute loan.

On December 31, 208, Defendant 1 borrowed 4 billion won from Nonindicted Co. 2 to Nonindicted Co. 3 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3, 2008 and paid 4 billion won to Nonindicted Co. 2 through Nonindicted Co. 3, 2009, again withdrawn 4 billion won from Nonindicted Co. 3, 2009 to Defendant 12 through Nonindicted Co. 3, 2009; ② on March 31, 2009, the above Defendant borrowed 8 billion won from Defendant 13 to Nonindicted Co. 3, 2000, and then withdrawn 7 billion won to Defendant Co. 2 through Nonindicted Co. 3, Apr. 6, 2009 to repay 7 billion won to Defendant Co. 3, 2006.

Therefore, the above defendant's assertion is rejected.

2) Whether the act of paying the funds of Nonindicted Co. 5 to Nonindicted Co. 2 and embezzlement, and then again paying the funds by Nonindicted Co. 2 constitutes an act of embezzlement against Nonindicted Co. 5’s ex post facto act of embezzlement

As long as the above Defendant’s act of paying the funds of Nonindicted Co. 5 to Puers, including Nonindicted Co. 6 and Nonindicted Co. 73, under the name of loans, and repaying the existing loans to Nonindicted Co. 2 of the above Puercom (in the attached Table 3 1, KRW 5,107,761,761,846, KRW 3,074,564,407, KRW 2,065,669, KRW 669, KRW 183, KRW 1,001,762,365 in the attached Table 3, KRW 2,065 in the attached Table 3, and KRW 3,065 in the above 4, KRW 1,001,762,365 in the above amount) constitutes embezzlement, the act of withdrawing the said funds by Nonindicted Co. 2 after the above Nonindicted Co. 5’s act of embezzlement is not a

In light of the above evidence, in order to reduce the loans of Nonindicted Co. 2, the above Defendant withdrawn the funds of Nonindicted Co. 5 on the pretext of loans to Nonindicted Co. 2, as seen above, and paid them to Nonindicted Co. 2, as a repayment of loans to Nonindicted Co. 2, the above amount to Nonindicted Co. 2, by receiving payment of existing loans from Nonindicted Co. 2, through the above act. Since the above Defendant again embezzled the funds of Nonindicted Co. 2, it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted Co. 2 was used as the fund transfer route for embezzlement of Nonindicted Co. 5, and since the above Defendant again embezzled the funds of Nonindicted Co. 2, it cannot be deemed that there was a new infringement of legal interests of Nonindicted Co. 5 and other victim Co. 2, the embezzlement of funds of Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. constitutes an act infringing on the legal interests of Nonindicted Co. 5 and there is a new infringement of legal interests, it cannot be deemed an act of embezzlement against the victim’s Nonindicted Co. 5.

Therefore, the above defendant's assertion is rejected.

3) Whether to recognize the intention of unlawful acquisition of the funds disbursed to secure the friendship for corporate acquisition (attached Form 1 620,000,000 out of No. 36)

The above defendant asserts that on February 21, 2009, KRW 6.620,00 out of KRW 6.6 million paid to the non-indicted 8 corporation via the non-indicted 6 corporation through the non-indicted 6 corporation, 200,000,000,000, which was paid to the non-indicted 2 corporation on February 21, 2009, was disbursed to acquire the shares of non-indicted 141 in the name of the non-indicted 8 in order to secure the shares of the management of the non-indicted 141 corporation as the largest shareholder of the non-indicted 141 corporation and the management of the non-indicted 141 corporation, so

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant arbitrarily leaked the funds of Nonindicted Co. 2 to Nonindicted Co. 8 through a false loan contract with Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 2, the Defendant, as seen earlier, and paid them to Nonindicted Co. 6; ② the victim Nonindicted Co. 2, in addition to the repayment of loans from Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 2, in addition to the repayment of loans from Nonindicted Co. 8, there is no way to transfer the shares of Nonindicted Co. 141 or profits accrued therefrom to the victim Nonindicted Co. 2, and the shares of Nonindicted Co. 141 acquired from the above victim’s funds belong to Nonindicted Co. 8, and ③ the above Defendant paid the funds from Nonindicted Co. 2, the victim’s funds to Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 8, without preparing any collection plan for recovery of claims, and as seen above, the Defendant’s act of divulging the funds to Nonindicted Co. 2, as seen above constitutes embezzlement against the victim, and even if there is no interference with the Defendant’s intent.

Therefore, the above defendant's assertion is rejected.

D. Whether the co-principal of Defendant 2’s each embezzlement and breach of trust constitutes a co-principal

On January 202, Defendant 2 entered Nonindicted Co. 19’s restructuring company operated by Defendant 1, and carried out the business related to the borrowing of funds from the acquisition process of each company, including Nonindicted Co. 13, Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., and the director and financial officer of Nonindicted Co. 13, Nonindicted Co. 8, and Nonindicted Co. 2, etc. were in the position of exercising overall control over the financial expenditure and accounting affairs of the above company. The accounts of Puerer Co. 6, etc. were managed by themselves. ② Defendant 2 reported the methods of subsidizing funds of the victim company to the relevant company through false accounting, such as service costs, and executed funds in such a way as ordered by Defendant 1. After that, in light of Defendant 1’s instructions, Defendant 1’s funds were paid to the victim company through funds transit, the actual use of funds in transit, and the details of each of the above funds embezzlement and criminal intent of each of the above companies, and Defendant 2 participated in the execution process.

E. Whether the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust committed by Defendant 3 is established

1) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, namely, ① at the time of the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust against Nonindicted Co. 4, Defendant 3, as a financial director of the above company, was in charge of the execution of each of the funds of this case, and ② at this court, Defendant 1 was present at the weekly meeting held in relation to the financial transactions of Nonindicted Co. 2, 8, and Nonindicted Co. 4, and was authorized to determine the funds of Nonindicted Co. 4 under one’s own responsibility. After the above meeting was completed, Defendant 1, 2, and 3 also received a report on the financial situation of each Co. 4, and received an order from Nonindicted Co. 3 for the execution of each of the above funds of the above company, and instructed the above Defendant to execute the funds by taking account of the overall status of the funds of Nonindicted Co. 4 as a financial director of each of the above company, and it is difficult to recognize that there was a possibility that Defendant Co. 4’s funds were used for each of the above Defendant Co. 4’s own funds, Ltd.

2) Determination as to the assertion on the execution of funds set forth in [Attachment 2] No. 21-23 of the list of offenses

The above defendant asserts to the effect that, with respect to KRW 4 billion (Attached Table 2 No. 21-23) used for the repayment of debt of Nonindicted Co. 5 through Pacom on December 24, 2009, the above defendant did not instruct a working person to execute the fund, and did not know that he did not know of such fact.

In this court, Defendant 1 stated in this court that “The amount of debt repayment of Nonindicted Co. 5’s annual payments of debt would be made by Defendant 3 to be made by Nonindicted Co. 4’s funds. The amount of the funds of Nonindicted Co. 4 is long, Defendant 3 stated that “I would have made it possible for Defendant 3 to pay his debt,” and Defendant 3 voluntarily stated in the investigative agency that “I would have made it possible for Defendant 3 to pay his debt by sending it to Defendant 3,” and Defendant 3 also stated that “I would have made it possible for Defendant 3 to recognize the contents of the above public offering and execution as well.” In addition, Defendant 3 stated that “I would have used 4 billion won paid to Nonindicted Co. 14 and Nonindicted Co. 6, and Nonindicted Co. 73 to pay his financial right of loan to 5, on December 24, 2009.” In full view of the statements made by Defendant 1 and 3 as above, Defendant 3 also accepted the contents of the above public offering and execution.

3. Matters concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

A. Legal doctrine

In light of the specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business where the act of violating the duty in the crime of breach of trust is performed, it refers to any act that does not perform as a matter of course an act expected under the provisions of statutes, the terms of a contract, or the principle of trust and good faith, or that is anticipated not to perform as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do902, Sept. 9, 1994; 2004Do810, Jul. 9, 2004). Whether an act constitutes an act of breach of trust should be determined based on whether the act of violation of the duty in light of the nature and content of the business, the specific role and status of the executive, and the specific circumstances at the time of the act, exceeds the scope of ordinary business performance in light of the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, even if considering the above circumstances as to the judgment of management, it should be determined that the act of violation of the duty should not be acquired or expected to perform as a matter of course from one’s own interest, 2070.

In addition, in case of the crime of breach of trust, the term "when the property damage is incurred" includes not only a real damage but also a case where the risk of actual damage to property has been caused, and once the risk of damage has been caused, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust even if the security has been acquired or the damage has been restored later (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5679 delivered on February 11, 2003).

(b) Fact of recognition;

As seen earlier, as indicated in paragraph (4) of the above facts of the crime, Defendant 1 and 2, as indicated in the above facts of the crime, provide the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8 with a promissory note and a check of the number of units in the name of Nonindicted Co. 10, Defendant 12, 13, and 4, etc., and can be acknowledged that the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8 shared a debt equivalent

The victims of each crime, the subjects of this contract provided as security, and the contents of this contract according to the above facts shall be as follows:

The principal and profits of Non-Indicted 2 Co. 1 and Non-Indicted 2 Co. 1 and Non-Indicted 2 Co. 1 and Non-Indicted 2 Co. 2 Co., Ltd. for the purpose of securing 00 million won in the name of Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 Co. 3’s purchase of new shares for the purpose of securing 00 million won in the name of Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 Co. 3’s purchase of new shares for the purpose of securing 00 million won in the name of Non-Indicted 1 and 8’s purchase of new shares for the purpose of securing 00 million won in the name of Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 Co. 3’s purchase of new shares for the purpose of securing 100 million won in the name of Non-Indicted 1 and the non-Indicted 2 Co. 3’s purchase of new shares for the purpose of securing 70 billion won in the name of Non-Indicted 1 and the non-Indicted 2 Co. 3’s.

C. Determination

1) The contracting parties under each internal purchase agreement (1 to 4) concluded with Nonindicted 10

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence, i.e., ① Defendant 1 provided cash security under the contract with Nonindicted 10 with Nonindicted 2, 2, and 3 separate funds that were individually borrowed from Nonindicted 36 or managed by Nonindicted 1, and ② the name of the joint guarantor under the above contract with Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 (or the joint guarantor) was indicated as the subject of the contract, but the above proposal is defined as Defendant 1 and the subject of the contract with Nonindicted 2, a joint guarantor, who is the substantial major shareholder of Nonindicted 1 and the management right holder of Nonindicted 3 (or Nonindicted 8). On the other hand, Defendant 1 provided that Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 were not the subject of the contract with Nonindicted 1 and the subject of the contract with Nonindicted 2, who were not the subject of the contract with Nonindicted 1 and the subject of the contract with Nonindicted 1 and the subject of the contract with Nonindicted 2, who were not the subject of the contract with Nonindicted 1 and the subject of the contract with Nonindicted 3, who were aware of their own shares.

2) The lender of the loan with respect to Defendant 13 and 12 regarding capital increase with respect to Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 5’s capital increase

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed as follows: ① there is no way to view the profits from the sale of shares acquired by participating in the capital increase with the borrowed money from Defendant 12 and 13 as a normal account for the company including Nonindicted Co. 2; ② Defendant 13 as the borrowed money does not deposit KRW 312,00,000 in the name of the borrower of Nonindicted Co. 2 with the borrowed money, but is paid to Defendant 1; ③ Defendant 1 deposited KRW 3.5 billion out of the borrowed money from Defendant 13 for the purpose of participating in the capital increase, and KRW 3.5 billion out of the borrowed money from Defendant 13 to Nonindicted Co. 5, and KRW 32 million out of the remainder of KRW 500,000 in the borrowed money from Defendant 13 and Nonindicted Co. 4, and Defendant 130,000 in the account of the borrowed money from Defendant Co. 14,500,000 won in the name of Defendant Co. 2, Ltd.

3) Whether each crime constitutes a breach of trust

A) The liability and offering of collateral under each internal purchase agreement with Non-Indicted 10 and the investment agreement for capital increase with Non-Indicted 4 Co. 4 (crime No. 4-A, C, D, f, g, k)

The above judgment and the evidence revealed as follows: ① in investing Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8’s shares, the risk of the share price decline is to be borne by Nonindicted Co. 10, an investor, but Defendant 1 transferred the risk burden to Nonindicted Co. 10, an investor, by entering into a principal and investment profit guarantee agreement in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2 or Nonindicted Co. 8’s name; ② Defendant 1 entered into an investment contract and investment profit guarantee agreement with Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8’s shares for the purpose of the manipulation of market price and fraudulent fraudulent transaction; and, in order to carry out the above illegal financial transaction, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8’s obligation burden on Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8’s shares constitutes an unlawful act in violation of the law; ③ in the case of each purchase agreement, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8’s intent to commit an act in breach of trust with the Defendant, which constitutes an act in violation of trust with the Defendant, as an act in violation of trust.

B) Security against Defendant 12 and 13 loans related to Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 5’s participation in the borrowed name offering of new shares offering (crime 4-B, H, and I)

The judgment above and the aforementioned evidence revealed as follows: (i) despite the fact that the borrower of the loan borrowed from Defendant 12 and 13 and the calculating body of borrowed stocks acquired from the above loan is Defendant 1, Defendant 1 had Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8 provide collateral for the above loan; and (ii) Defendant 1 borrowed funds from Defendant 12 and 13 for the purpose of fraudulent fraudulent transaction concerning capital increase with respect to capital increase with respect to Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 5’s capital increase; (iii) in light of the above legal principles, imposing debt on Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8 for the above illegal financial transaction constitutes an unlawful act in violation of the law, and thus it constitutes an act in violation of the trust relationship with Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8, the principal, and constitutes a breach of trust against the above victims.

C) Defendant 4’s security related to guaranteeing principal of capital increase with respect to Nonindicted Co. 5’s capital increase for new shares (Article 4-4’sj.)

The above judgment and the evidence revealed as follows: ① in investing in capital increase with new shares issued by Defendant 4, Defendant 4, the investor, is to bear the risk of capital increase; however, Defendant 1 transferred the risk to Defendant 4, the investor, to Nonindicted Co. 5 by entering into an agreement guaranteeing the principal and investment profits in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5; ② compensating for losses arising from the sale of shares to Defendant 4, who will acquire the shareholder status by acquiring new shares, is to guarantee the recovery of capital; and it is against the essence of the shares that the company compensates for a certain portion of interest, etc. to Defendant 4; and thus, it is against the principle of the equality of shareholders with the nature of the mandatory law; ③ providing the principal and profit security to Nonindicted Co. 2, and 85, the above principal and profit security agreement to Nonindicted Co. 35 constitutes the act of breach of trust by the Defendant, the Defendant’s act of offering the security against Nonindicted Co. 35, which constitutes the act of breach of trust in light of the above legal principles.

D) The offer of security (e.g., clause (l) for the loans borrowed by Defendant 12, unrelated to Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 8, and other Defendant 12.

Defendant 1’s borrowing of loans in the name of Defendant 1, an individual or Nonindicted Co. 73, a third party irrelevant to the victim Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 8, as stated in the above facts of crime 4-Ma and l., as indicated in the above facts of crime 4-Ma, l., it is deemed that the occurrence of the risk of property damage to the above victims constitutes a breach of trust against the above victims.

4) Whether property damage has occurred

In light of the fact that Defendant 1’s above act of issuing and delivering each check and bill in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8, the above victims are immediately liable to the other party for payment of the check and bill, and there is no special agreement between Defendant 1 and the above victim and the other party to whom the check and bill were received, there is no special agreement restricting the exercise of the check and bill, it shall be deemed that Defendant 1’s act of breach of trust caused property damage to the above victim company. The above check and bill were exercised or there was no possibility of incurring property damage to the above victim company, solely on the ground that other security provided to the other party along with the check and bill, and as long as the risk of damage occurred, the circumstance that the check and bill were not actually exercised does not affect the establishment of the crime of breach of trust.

5) Whether Defendant 2’s conspiracy and conspiracy

In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by the evidence as seen earlier, i.e., ① Defendant 2 was in the position of a person in charge of overall management of the financial expenditure and accounting of the above companies as directors and financial officers of Nonindicted Co. 13, Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 2, etc.; ② Defendant 2, in issuing and delivering each of the instant bills and checks, performed all practical affairs, such as the issuance and delivery of the check number and the check number, and the issuance and delivery of each of the bills and checks, while recognizing the opposite party and purpose of the issuance, etc. of each of the instant bills and checks, can be recognized as having led to the crime of breach of trust committed each of

4. The portion of violation of the Capital Market and Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (related to the crimes in paragraphs (5), (6), and (10)) under a contract with Nonindicted 10 for purchase in each place

(a) Facts of recognition;

As seen earlier, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) On November 25, 2008, KRW 2 billion (the first purchase agreement) related to the purchase of the shares in Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. on November 25, 2008

① On November 25, 2008, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10 entered into an agreement on guarantee of investment returns and agreement on disposition of surplus investment returns as indicated in the facts charged on May 2, 2002 with Defendant 1, joint guarantor Nonindicted 7, and joint guarantor Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 37 as indicated in the judgment. The investment period is three months until February 25, 2009. After the lapse of the said period, Defendant 1 agreed to receive at least 10% of the principal amount for Defendant 10 billion won and, if the sales price of stocks exceeds 115% of the principal amount, Defendant 1 agreed to receive profits exceeding 115%.

② Defendant 1 provided Nonindicted 10,00,000 won in cash and promissory notes as collateral, and Nonindicted 10 purchased KRW 656,480 of the shares of Nonindicted 2 Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 142, 143, 89, 63, and 144 from November 25, 2008 to January 7, 2009.

2) Three billion won related to the purchase in the stock market on March 3, 2009 (the second purchase in the stock market) in the non-indicted 2 corporation on March 3, 2009

① On March 3, 2009, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10 entered into an agreement on guarantee of investment returns and agreement on disposition of surplus investment returns as stated in the facts charged on May 2, 2009 with Defendant 1, joint and several sureties Co., Ltd., and Nonindicted 2 Co., Ltd., and Nonindicted 37. (2). The investment period shall be three months until June 3, 2009. After the lapse of the said period, Defendant 1 agreed to receive at least 10% of the principal amount for Defendant 10 billion won and, if the sales price of stocks exceeds 115% of the principal amount, Defendant 1 agreed to receive profits exceeding 115%.

② Defendant 1 provided KRW 1 billion in cash to Nonindicted 10 as collateral, and thereafter, Nonindicted 10 purchased KRW 2,99,94,255 of the shares of Nonindicted Company 2 in the name of Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 58, Nonindicted 145, 146, 62, and 64 from March 3, 2009 to April 29, 2009.

3) 60 million won related to the purchase in the stock market of Nonindicted Co. 2 on June 3, 2009 (the third purchase in the stock market)

① On June 3, 2009, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10 entered into an agreement on guarantee of investment profits and a written agreement on disposition of surplus investment profits as stated in the criminal facts 6. as stated in the judgment of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 Co., Ltd., and around July 1, 2009, Defendant 1 entered into an authentic deed of a monetary loan agreement with the debtor at KRW 931 million. The investment period shall be determined as one month until July 3, 2009, and the amount of investment shall be at least 3.34% of the principal amount shall be guaranteed for KRW 60 million to Nonindicted 10, and if the sale of stocks exceeds 105% of the principal amount, the profit was returned exceeding 105%.

② Defendant 1 provided Nonindicted 10 with KRW 281,430,00 in cash as collateral, and Nonindicted 10 purchased KRW 104,926 shares of Nonindicted 2 Co., Ltd. in the name of Nonindicted 89,63 on June 5, 2009 in KRW 367,056,535; Defendant 1 again purchased the shares of Nonindicted 8 Co., Ltd. in the name of Nonindicted 63, etc. on June 9, 2009, and then reported to Defendant 1 on the following day.

4) 3 billion won related to the purchase of the shares in Nonindicted Co. 8 on October 7, 2009 (the fourth purchase agreement)

① Around September 21, 2009, Defendant 1 served a notice of objection to the resolution of the board of directors on the purport that shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 8 would oppose the merger with Nonindicted Co. 9 and claim for purchase of shares equivalent to KRW 10,222,278,621. At the time, Nonindicted Co. 8 was unable to pay the purchase price of shares in the event of actual occurrence of the said claim for purchase of shares, and thus, it was necessary to maintain the share price of the said Nonindicted Co. 8’s shares from September 22, 2009 to October 12, 2009 at least 4,287 won during the period for exercising the appraisal right.

② On October 7, 2009, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10 entered into an agreement on guarantee of investment profits and a written agreement on disposition of surplus investment profits as stated in the facts constituting a crime committed by Defendant 1, Nonindicted 8, Defendant 7, and Nonindicted 5 with the investor as Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 62, and the joint guarantor as Defendant 1, Nonindicted 8, Defendant 7, and Nonindicted 5, respectively. The investment period is three months until January 7, 2010. After the lapse of the said period, Defendant 1 agreed to receive a refund of profits exceeding 115% if the sales price of stocks exceeds 115% of the principal.

③ Defendant 1 offered 1 billion won in cash owned by Nonindicted Co. 5 and 4.95 billion won in face value of the issuance of Nonindicted Co. 8, as collateral, to Nonindicted Co. 10. From October 7, 2009 to October 12, 2009, Defendant 10 purchased 723,99 shares of Nonindicted Co. 8 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 7, Nonindicted Co. 723,99 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 7, etc. from October 7, 2009 to October 12, 2009.

(b) Whether it falls under the manipulation for market price and unfair trading;

1) The manipulation of market price based on actual transactions (Paragraphs 5, 6, and 10 of the facts of crime)

A) Legal principles

The term "purposes of inducing trade" in Article 188-4 (2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007 and repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, effective Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) refers to artificially manipulating the market price, and thus making investors mistake that the market price has been formed by natural demand and supply principles on the securities market and thus inducing the purchase and sale of securities, and it is not problematic whether it exists for other purposes or its purpose. The degree of awareness of the purpose is sufficiently insufficient. Meanwhile, the term "trade that misleads that the trading price of securities constitutes 100 or 700, etc." under Article 18-4 (2) of the former Securities and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 18635 of Aug. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply). It does not require a series of changes in the market price and trading volume before and after the sale price change.

B) Determination

(1) Based on the above facts and the above evidence, Defendant 1, at each time of the above-mentioned purchase and sale contract, had 0% of the total purchase and sale price of non-indicted 1 and 40% of the total purchase and sale price of non-indicted 1 and non-indicted 2 purchased shares at each time of the above-mentioned purchase and sale contract with 0% of the total purchase and sale price of non-indicted 1 and 30% of the total purchase and sale price of non-indicted 1 and 40% of the total purchase and sale price of non-indicted 1 and 30 billion won of the non-indicted 1 and the purchase and sale price of non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 purchased shares at each of the above-indicted 1 and 30 billion won of the purchase and sale price of non-indicted 4 and the purchase and sale price of non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and 30 billion won of the purchase and sale price of shares.

(2) Meanwhile, Defendant 1 asserted that, in the case of the secondary purchase agreement with Nonindicted Party 10, it is merely an extension of the primary contract and it does not have an independent illegality. However, the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, i.e.,: (a) Defendant 1, while the primary contract period was extended on two occasions on April 24, 2009 through the extension of the primary contract period, is not yet terminated, and the settlement and return of the stock sales, cash security, and profits are not made on March 3, 2009; and (b) Defendant 1, upon entering into the secondary contract with Nonindicted Party 10 and additional purchase of the stocks of Nonindicted Party 2; and (c) after entering into the secondary contract with Nonindicted Party 10, it does not extend the period by converting it into the secondary contract purchase volume, and at the same time, Defendant 1 does not constitute the secondary contract purchase price increase merely because it does not constitute a separate one.

2) The fact that unfair trading is committed by using a deceptive scheme (Article 5(5))

A) Legal principles

Article 188-4 (4) of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that "no person shall commit any act falling under any of the following subparagraphs in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of securities" and subparagraph 1 of the same Article provides that "the act of spreading intentionally the false market price or false facts or other rumors or using deceptive schemes for the purpose of gaining unjust profits" refers to the act of spreading or using deceptive schemes for the purpose of inducing a certain act by deceiving the other party to the transaction or an unspecified investor. The prohibition of such fraudulent unfair trading under the Securities and Exchange Act is aimed at protecting individual investors' interests in the securities transaction and contributing to the development of the national economy by protecting the trust in the general securities market as well as protecting individual investors' interests in the securities transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1145, May 15, 2008).

Meanwhile, Article 178(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that "no person shall spread a rumor, use a deceptive scheme, assault or threaten any person with an intent to trade or make any other transaction in financial investment instruments, or cause a fluctuation in the market price," and such concept of deceptive scheme under the former Securities and Exchange Act shall be equally applied to the interpretation of the above concept of deceptive scheme under the former Securities and Exchange Act.

B) Determination

In light of the above facts and the above evidence, i.e., ① purchase of shares without investment risk pursuant to the agreement between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10 without investment risk, Nonindicted 10 purchased shares in the market as if he directly purchased shares using an overseas account of Nonindicted 7, etc., and a domestic account under his management. As a result, it seems that ordinary investors might have mistaken for the increased trading volume and market price of shares due to Nonindicted 10’s purchase of shares with a normal trading volume and market price. ② Defendant 1 was introduced as an agent of Nonindicted 7, a Hong Kong Company, with the knowledge that the above company was a foreign company, and it was aware that some of the foreign shares were purchased in the name of the foreign company when concluding the agreement with Nonindicted 10. ③ In fact, a certain part in each of the instant transactions was purchased as an exclusive foreign investor for investment by a foreigner, such as Nonindicted 7, etc., and ④ purchase or sale of shares in the domestic market with an investment risk of the foreign investor in question with the intent to use shares in the foreign investment market as above.

3) Unfair trading due to the use of an unlawful chilling (Articles 5, 6, and 10)

Article 178(1)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides, “No person shall use an unfair means, scheme, or trick in connection with trading or any other transaction of financial investment instruments.” Here, the term “unfair means, scheme, or trick” means any means, scheme, or trick, or any means, scheme, or trick, in violation of any duty or relevant law and regulations, or any act, scheme, or trick, in violation of any of the relevant laws and regulations, by deceiving the other party to a transaction or an unspecified investor. It should be viewed as a concept that covers the remaining acts stipulated in Articles 176 and 178 of the said Act.

However, since the act of Defendant 1’s internal purchase through Nonindicted 10 constitutes market price manipulation as provided by Article 176(2)1 of the same Act or fraudulent means as provided by Article 178(2) of the same Act, the above act constitutes “unfair means, plan, or trick” as provided by Article 178(1)1 of the same Act.

4) Determination as to Defendant 2’s criminal intent, conspiracy, or conspiracy

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, i.e., ① Defendant 2 was a financial manager of the company, including Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8, and examined the contract with Defendant 1 when entering into a long-term purchase agreement with Nonindicted Co. 10; the board of directors’ meeting minutes and the issuance of promissory notes; ② the above Defendant was aware of all the purpose of entering into each of the above contracts, such as preventing the purchase of stocks offered as security, and the maintenance of the share price to reduce the exercise of appraisal rights by the shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 8, 200, when comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) Defendant 2 had the intent to commit market manipulation and fraudulent illegal transactions; and (b) Defendant 1 had been led to each of the crimes committed by Defendant 1.

5. The part of the violation of the Capital Markets Act (related to paragraph (5) of the crime), based on the limit on the purchase of shares by Nonindicted Co. 2 through Defendant 8 and 9.

(a) Whether it falls under the manipulation for market prices and unfair trading;

On January 10, 209, Defendant 2: (a) received an order from Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 2, 300,000 won that “in order for Nonindicted 2 to be successful by issuing a third party’s share offering; (b) received an order from Nonindicted 2 to 300,000 won by requesting the purchase of shares; and (c) Defendant 1 could not attract investment under the condition that principal is guaranteed or profit is guaranteed; (d) paid KRW 30,00 won to Defendant 2; (e) paid KRW 100,000 to Nonindicted 30,000 won; (e) KRW 206,000,000; and (e) KRW 9,000,000 to KRW 20,000; and (e) KRW 209,000,000 to KRW 30,000,000; and (e) around January 14, 2009, Defendant 209 to KRW 309.

The following facts revealed by the above facts and evidence, namely, ① Defendant 1, 8, and 9 engaged in the above-mentioned transactions for the purpose of managing the share price by the third party’s share offering until the payment date of the share price paid. ② Defendant 9 purchased and sold shares in the form of Nonindicted Company 2 upon the request of Defendant 8 with a certain amount of commission received. Such transaction cannot be deemed as a trade based on a normal investment judgment. Inasmuch as ordinary investors were likely to mislead the trading volume increase due to Defendant 9’s purchase of shares and the market price of shares into normal trading volume and market price; ③ Defendant 9 traded shares in the form of accounts with Nonindicted 38 and repeated sale of shares for the above period; Defendant 1’s purchase and sale of shares in the form of KRW 100,000 and KRW 100,000,000,000 and KRW 100,000,000,000,000 won, and Defendant 1, as seen earlier, was found to have been aware of the above market price change.

B. Whether the purchase portion was included after February 10, 2009

Defendant 1 and 8 asserted that the part of the purchase of shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 after February 10, 2009 was purchased by Defendant 9’s independent judgment regardless of Defendant 1 and 8, so it should be excluded from the Defendants’ market price manipulation act.

In light of the following circumstances: ① Defendant 9 received KRW 20 million from Defendant 8 on January 14, 2009, and deposited it into the account in the name of Nonindicted 38 on January 20, 2009, and sold all of the above accounts on February 3, 2009, and arranged the transaction of the above account; (i) additionally received KRW 50 million from Defendant 8 on February 10, 2009; and (ii) thereafter, Defendant 1 continued to purchase and sell shares through the above account from Defendant 208 on February 25, 2009; and (iii) thereafter, Defendant 1 entered into a new public offering agreement with Nonindicted 20 on February 25, 2009; and (iv) thereafter, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 3 were to have entered into a new public offering agreement with Defendant 2 on November 25, 2009; and (v) thereafter, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 3 were to have entered into a new public offering agreement with Defendant 29 on February 29, 2009, 2009.

Therefore, the above defendants' above assertion is rejected.

C. Whether there is a conspiracy with Nonindicted 10

1) Criteria for judgment

In relation to co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intentions is achieved by either successively or implicitly through several persons (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do198, May 8, 2008). Even if part of the conspiracys did not directly share part of the constituent acts, in light of the status, role, control or malicious influence on the progress of the crime, if it is recognized that there was a functional control over the crime through an essential contribution to the crime, not merely a mere conspiracy, but also a functional control over the crime through an essential contribution to the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do651, Feb. 12, 2009).

2) Determination

As seen earlier, the following circumstances revealed through the judgment and evidence, i.e., (i) around November 25, 2008; (ii) around November 25, 2008, Defendant 1 entered into the first price manipulation contract with Nonindicted 10; (iii) on March 3, 2009, Defendant 2 continued to engage in the second price manipulation for the shares of Nonindicted 2; and (iv) on February 2, 2009, before and after the capital increase for Nonindicted 2 Co. 3, 2009, the additional price manipulation for the shares of Nonindicted 2 Co. 3 through Defendant 8 and 9 was to be considered as one criminal intention; (ii) there was a combination of the price fluctuation and trading volume with that of Nonindicted 10; and (iv) there was an indivisible relationship between Defendant 1 and that there was a price increase in the above market price manipulation with that of Nonindicted 8 and 9; and (v) there was a considerable amount of price manipulation before and after the Defendant 1’s request for new price manipulation.

6. On February 2, 2009, the part of the violation of the Capital Markets Act due to Nonindicted 2’s participation in the borrowed name offering of new shares with respect to the violation of the said Act (related to paragraph (5))

(a) Whether the act constitutes unfair trading;

1) Illegal points

As seen earlier, the following facts are revealed. ① Defendant 1 acquired Nonindicted Co. 2 through Nonindicted Co. 8 on May 23, 2008, and attempted to allocate new shares to a third party from November 2008, but did not success. around January 23, 2009, Defendant 2 continued to seek the success of the allocation of new shares to a third party with the value of KRW 14.4 billion, including Defendant 8 and 9’s offering of new shares to a third party’s offering of new shares; ② Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 1.3 billion from Defendant 11 to Defendant 2’s offering of new shares to a third party’s offering of new shares; and Defendant 1’s offering of new shares to a third party’s offering of new shares to a third party’s offering of new shares to a third party’s offering of new shares to a third party’s offering of shares to KRW 1.3 billion, as stated in the above facts.

2) False description on the material fact

A) Legal principles

Article 188-4 (4) 2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act prohibits “an act of seeking money or other economic benefits by making a false representation of important matters concerning the sale and purchase or other transaction of securities or by inducing misunderstanding of other persons by using a document in which necessary facts are omitted.” This is because the prohibition of fraudulent unfair trading under the Securities and Exchange Act may affect many and unspecified persons and undermine trust in the entire KOSDAQ. This is because the purpose of Article 188-4 (4) 2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act is to protect individual investors’ interests in securities transaction and protect investors’ trust in the general securities exchange, thereby contributing to the development of the national economy. Thus, the term “important matters” under the above provision refers to matters necessary for the fair trading of securities and the protection of investors, which may have a significant impact on the company’s property and management, or may have an impact on investors’ investment judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8652 Decided Feb. 9, 2006).

B) Determination

In light of the above evidence, even though Defendant 1 acquired shares 1,396,640 shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 in the name of the borrower through the above loan and acquired 5.2% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 on March 3, 2009, Defendant 1 did not enter the facts of holding shares by Defendant 1 who was a specially related party to the report on the status of possession of shares, etc. in the name of Nonindicted Co. 8’s name on March 3, 2009. The issue of major shareholders change of Nonindicted Co. 2, and whether Defendant 1, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 2, owned and sold the borrowed shares constitutes “important matters” under Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, since it directly affects the share price of Nonindicted Co. 2’s stock company’s share price and the investor’s investment judgment, it constitutes “an act of causing increase or decrease in the share price by concealing the duty of disclosure and selling shares generated in the future through the above false entry.”

B. Determination as to Defendant 2’s criminal intent, conspiracy, or conspiracy

In full view of the following circumstances revealed based on the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) Defendant 2 is a financial officer of Nonindicted Co. 2 and a public disclosure manager; (ii) the above Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant borrowed funds for capital increase with capital increase to the next name; and (iii) the above Defendant 1’s performance of all the tasks, such as the payment of the capital increase through name, the issuance of the current number of shares, the delivery of the security, and the public disclosure, etc., the intent and solicitation of unfair trading by Defendant 2 is recognized.

7. On May 20, 2009, the part concerning the violation of the Capital Markets Act with respect to capital increase with respect to the issuance of new stocks by Nonindicted Co. 4 (Article 7)

(a) Facts of recognition;

(4) Upon the lapse of October 31, 201, which is the mandatory holding period of shares of Nonindicted Co. 4, 201, Defendant 1 entered into an agreement on the exercise of appraisal rights with Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 to the effect that “The payment of purchase price is to be made in cash at KRW 3.9 billion from Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 to guarantee the payment of purchase price.” ② Defendant 1 entered into an agreement on the guarantee of investment profit with Nonindicted Co. 10, and an investment agreement with Nonindicted Co. 4, 2009, the investment period of which is KRW 706 months until November 21, 201, and KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which is KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000 won, and KRW 105,000,000,00.

(b) Whether the unfair trading constitutes the unfair trading by means of a deceptive scheme or an unlawful trick;

1) The following facts revealed through the above facts and the evidence revealed, namely, ① Nonindicted 10 did not participate in capital increase with the risk of principal loss according to ordinary judgment, and Defendant 1’s participation in capital increase without investment risk pursuant to the above agreement and provision of security with Defendant 1, which cannot be seen as the participation in capital increase with a normal third party’s capital increase. However, Defendant 1 formed external appearance that Nonindicted 7 corporation, through the above agreement and provision of security, formed a normal investment risk and acquired the shares of Nonindicted 4 corporation. ② The shares of Nonindicted 7 corporation, a foreign corporation, acquired by Nonindicted 4 corporation through the above agreement and provision of security, reached 10.06%, and there is a possibility that ordinary investors might have become aware that the investment value of Nonindicted 4 corporation was confirmed internationally. Accordingly, Defendant 1’s above act constitutes a fraudulent act by deceiving an unspecified investor, and constitutes an “unlawful act” under Article 178(2)1 of the Capital Markets Act, and constitutes an “unlawful act” under Article 178(1)1 of the said Act.

2) In addition, even if Defendant 1’s main purpose through the above act was to prevent the failure to acquire the permission for the Songdo Factory, Nonindicted Co. 4, in light of the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1 was aware at least of the fact that the above Defendant’s act constituted an appearance that the foreign corporation would normally acquire 10% or more of the equity shares of Nonindicted Co. 4, and thereby may affect the market price of the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 4. Thus, the above Defendant’s act constitutes “the act of using deceptive scheme for the purpose of aiming at changing the market price.”

C. Whether Defendant 2’s criminal intent and conspiracy

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., ① Defendant 2, as a financial officer of Nonindicted Co. 2, was aware of all the purpose and contents of the above contract with Nonindicted Co. 10; ② the above Defendant, in the process of concluding the above contract, is recognized as having committed the crime of unfair trading by Defendant 2, as well as the crime of conspiracy, solicitation, and solicitation of the unfair trading by Defendant 2.

8. On June 15, 2009, the part of the violation of the Capital Markets Act concerning the acquisition of forfeited stocks for the allocation of shares to the shareholders of Nonindicted 8 Company for the acquisition of forfeited stocks for subscription (Article 8 of the Criminal Act)

(a) Facts of recognition;

(8) On June 11, 209, Defendant 1: (a) did not submit a report on the acquisition of forfeited shares to Nonindicted Co. 15; (b) did not sell money to Nonindicted Co. 13; (c) did not sell the same to Nonindicted Co. 13; and (d) did not sell the same to Nonindicted Co. 13; and (c) did not sell the same to Nonindicted Co. 13; and (d) did not sell the same to Nonindicted Co. 23; and (e) did not sell the same to Nonindicted Co. 13; and (e) sold the same to Nonindicted Co. 133,532,630; and (e) sold the same to Nonindicted Co. 136, 205; and (e) Defendant 13 did not sell the same to Nonindicted Co. 15, 209; and (e) sold the same to Nonindicted Co. 136,530 million won in its name; and (e) Defendant 13, 2500 million won in its name.

B. Whether the act constitutes an unfair trading

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned facts and the evidence, i.e., (i) Defendant 1 had Defendant 13 acquire forfeited stocks with his own funds borrowed from Defendant 13; (ii) Defendant 1 also acquired profits that occurred after having Defendant 1 disposed of the forfeited stocks; and (iii) Defendant 1 also recognized that the above forfeited stocks are himself/herself (Evidence 6960 pages), Defendant 1, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 8, acquired the same name on his/her account; and (ii) Defendant 1 was 10% of the paid-in capital increase, which was 10% of the paid-in capital increase, was able to have a positive impact on ordinary investors’ investment decisions if Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Company 8 were to obtain trust from other participants of the paid-in capital increase, and (iii) Defendant 1, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 8, did not immediately notify the general investors of the fact that he/she acquired the forfeited stocks under his/her name, and the act of Defendant 1 did not constitute an act of investment in the capital increase.

C. Whether Defendant 11 and 13's criminal intent, conspiracy, or conspiracy

According to the above evidence: ① Defendant 11 was aware of all the purpose of the above act, including the statement that “The reason why Defendant 1 participated in the loan for the acquisition of real right shares with the borrowed loan with the name of 100% investment in the capital increase, and there was a need to accept 100% of the investor’s trust because the investor’s trust is likely to be undermined if the small amount of money or 100% is not achieved. If so, the investor’s trust may be undermined.” (507 pages, 6212 pages), and ② Defendant 13 also loaned funds with the awareness of all the above act’s purpose, and it can be acknowledged that Defendant 13 also performed the act, such as accepting the forfeited share in the name of Nonindicted 12 and selling the funds, etc.

9. On August 12, 2009, part of the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act related to the assignment of forfeited shares to Nonindicted 4 Stock Company 400,000 for forfeited shares for capital increase (Article 9 of the Criminal Act)

(a) Facts of recognition;

(3) The Defendants submitted the report on the acquisition of the forfeited stocks to the public on August 12, 2009 and submitted the report on the acquisition of the forfeited stocks to the public on August 12, 2009, the following facts: (a) Defendant 1 ordered Defendant 2 to acquire the forfeited stocks under the name of Nonindicted Co. 6, the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4; (b) Defendant 2 withdrawn KRW 200 million from the funds of Nonindicted Co. 2, the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4; and (c) Defendant 2 sold the forfeited stocks to Nonindicted Co. 4; and (c) Defendant 2 sold the forfeited stocks to Nonindicted Co. 4, the representative director 100% paid for the forfeited stocks to the third party for the forfeited stocks; and (c) Defendant 1 submitted the report on the acquisition of the forfeited stocks to the public on August 2, 2009, and submitted the report on the acquisition of the forfeited stocks to the public on August 24, 2009.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts and the evidence, i.e., ① Nonindicted Co. 6 was merely Scomer managed by Defendant 1; Nonindicted Co. 2 was unable to participate in the allocation of shares to a third party as a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4; Defendant 1 actually accounts for the forfeited shares acquired as mentioned above with the assets of Nonindicted Co. 2 or did not vest in the Nonindicted Co. 2; Defendant 1, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 6, who was the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 2, acquired 10% of shares in its own account; ② The fact that 10% of shares issued with capital increase was made by Defendant 1 and other participants in capital increase with trust in Nonindicted Co. 4; ③ Defendant 1, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 1, who was the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4, and Defendant 1, who was registered directors of Nonindicted Co. 4, did not have any influence on the Defendants’ act of acquiring the forfeited shares under the name of Nonindicted Co. 1, thereby affecting the Defendants’s investment decision. 1’

10. On October 26, 2009, part of the violation of the Capital Markets Act in the course of the merger between Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9 (Article 10 of the Criminal Act)

A. The portion on unfair trading by taking over the name of Nonindicted Company 9

1) Whether the act constitutes an unfair trading

A) Legal principles

Article 188-4 (4) 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act prohibits “an act of seeking money or other economic benefits by making a false representation of important matters concerning the sale and purchase or other transaction of securities or by inducing misunderstanding of other persons by using a document in which necessary facts are omitted.” The prohibition of fraudulent unfair trading under the Securities and Exchange Act is because the fraudulent illegal trading in securities transaction may affect many and unspecified persons, and may impair trust in the entire KOSDAQ. This is because the purpose of Article 188-4 (4) 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act is to protect individual investors’ interests and protect investors’ trust in the general securities exchange, thereby contributing to the development of the national economy. Thus, the term “important matters” under the above provision refers to matters necessary for the fair trading of securities and the protection of investors, which may affect investors’ judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8652 Decided February 9, 206). The above legal principle also applies to Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act.

B) the facts of recognition

As seen earlier, as stated in paragraph (10) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant 1 acquired only 18% of the shares of Nonindicted Company 8 to promote the acquisition and merger of Nonindicted Company 9, and acquired KRW 1.25 million of the funds borrowed from Defendant 13 and KRW 1.357 million of the funds borrowed from Defendant 13, using the borrowed name of Nonindicted Company 86,87, and used the borrowed name of Nonindicted Company 9; ② Defendant 1 changed the name of 288,000 shares of the shares acquired in the name of the borrowed name to Nonindicted Company 8; and ② Defendant 1 obtained only 18% of the shares of Nonindicted Company 9; Defendant 219,227 shares that will be allocated for the said 288,000 shares on the account of the merger of Nonindicted Company 8; and ③ Defendant 1 received the allocation of new shares on the account of Nonindicted Company 98, 298,299.

C) Determination

Article 23(1)1 of the KOSDAQ Listing Regulations provides that "where a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ market merges with a stock-listed corporation, the largest shareholder, etc. shall continue to hold stocks for two years (one year in the case of a merger under Article 19-4(2)) from the date of the merger: Provided, That where one year (six months in the case of a merger under Article 19-4(2)) has passed from the date of the merger (six months in the case of a merger under Article 19-4(2)), the portion equivalent to 5/100 of the initial stocks held may be sold up to every one month," and the above provision aims to prevent damage to small-sum investors by falling under the stock price due to a small-scale increase in supply of stocks for which the largest shareholder, etc. of the unlisted company, etc. was listed and made possible for internal trade immediately after the merger.

Therefore, the issue of whether a listed company can protect a certain amount of new shares that are to be allocated after the merger with the unlisted company constitutes “important matters” under Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act, since it directly affects the share price after the merger, and it constitutes “an act of using money and other property profits by making a false entry or indication as to important matters” under Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act and Article 178(1)1 of the Capital Markets Act, since it is a matter that may affect fair trade in securities and the protection of investors, which may affect investors’ judgment on investment. As seen above, Defendant 1, etc., who acquired Nonindicted Company 9 and used a borrowed name and made a false entry and made a false entry as to the protected number of items, constitutes “an act of using a false means, scheme, or bridge” under Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act.

2) Whether Defendant 1, 2, and 11’s criminal intent and conspiracy or conspiracy

A) The following circumstances revealed in accordance with the above evidence, i.e., ① Defendant 1 consistently stated that the largest shareholder’s shares in the merger between Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9 take place at the time of the acquisition of the shares, and thus, Defendant 1 decided to acquire Nonindicted Co. 9 from the beginning with a view to reducing the balance of the protection of Nonindicted Co. 8’s stock company. ② Defendant 2 also stated that security was required to borrow insufficient funds in the process of the acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 9’s shares, and that Defendant 2 was forced to acquire shares through a borrowed name acquisition because they could not offer as security. ③ Defendant 11 was able to receive shares through a borrowed name acquisition in the process of borrowing funds from Defendant 13 and Defendant 13, and thus, it is necessary to name, and in view of the fact that Defendant 1 knew of the structure of acquisition of borrowed shares through the acquisition of borrowed shares by acquiring the borrowed name and explaining the loan possible.

B) In addition, in light of the fact that Defendant 2 and 11 participated in the process of the decision on acquisition of Nonindicted Company 9 as the vice president of Nonindicted Company 8 as the vice president of Nonindicted Company 8, and dealt with all the practical affairs in the process of acquisition of shares of Nonindicted Company 9 through the name of the vehicle in accordance with Defendant 1’s order, such as acquisition of shares, false public disclosure, and procurement of acquisition funds through the loan, Defendant 2 and 11 can be acknowledged that Defendant 2 and 11 led to the above fraudulent unfair trading through the name acquisition of Nonindicted Company 9.

C) The Defendants argued that there was no intention to obtain money or property benefits or to obtain the difference between the shares of Nonindicted Company 9 and the shares of Nonindicted Company 8 and the shares of Nonindicted Company 8 through false representation because they did not have any means to input the acquisition fund for the safe period of protection. However, in light of the circumstances and degree of participation of each Defendants known by the facts and evidence as seen earlier, in this case, the Defendants stated that ① after acquiring Nonindicted Company 9 in name, the merger shares of Nonindicted Company 8 and Nonindicted Company 9 acquired by Nonindicted Company 1 do not constitute the safe amount of protection; ② It appears that the Nonindicted Company 8 and Defendant 1 knew that the merger shares of the shares of Nonindicted Company 9 acquired by Nonindicted Company 9 do not constitute the safe amount of protection; ② It is possible to procure and acquire the acquisition fund for acquiring the acquisition fund of Nonindicted Company 9 through this process, and further, it is not acceptable to accept the Defendants’ assertion as above.

3) Whether Defendant 13’s conspiracys and collusions are held

A) Facts of recognition

The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows. ① Defendant 13 loaned KRW 1.344875 million to Defendant 11 upon Defendant 11’s request to lend KRW 1.355 billion to Nonindicted Company 9’s acquisition fund. ② Defendant 11 offered the shares of Nonindicted Company 9 as a security for the loan, but later, Defendant 9 offered the shares of Nonindicted Company 9 to Nonindicted Company 8 by means of a merger, and ③ Defendant 13 offered four accounts, such as Nonindicted 44, etc. for the purchase of shares of Nonindicted Company 9.

B) Defendant 13’s assertion

Defendant 13 decided to lend funds and receive interest upon Defendant 11’s request. Defendant 13 offered the name of Defendant 13 to secure collateral, and Defendant 1 made a false statement on important matters in order to obtain the difference between the new stocks of Nonindicted Company 8 and the stocks of Nonindicted Company 9, and there was no fact that Defendant 1 conspiredd with Defendant 1 in using an unlawful trick.

C) Determination

The above facts and the evidence revealed as follows. ① When borrowing funds from Defendant 13, Defendant 11 stated that when acquiring the shares of Nonindicted Co. 9, Defendant 13 should take over the shares of Nonindicted Co. 13 and distributing new shares for the merger of Nonindicted Co. 9, Defendant 13 explained that if the new shares of Nonindicted Co. 13 were allocated, Defendant 13 would sell such new shares for the purpose of selling them, and ② Defendant 13 stated that it would have attempted to avoid the amount of protection (527 pages) if Defendant 11 would have borrowed funds under the name of Nonindicted Co. 8, and Defendant 11 would not receive the funds under the name of Nonindicted Co. 13, and that it would have been possible to obtain the difference between Defendant 1 and Defendant 14 and Defendant 1’s new shares for the purpose of acquiring new shares under the name of Nonindicted Co. 13 and Defendant 14, etc., Defendant 1 would not be able to obtain the new shares under the name of Defendant 14.

D) The unjust enrichment by Defendant 13

With respect to the funds and borrowed accounts provided by Defendant 13 (the number of Nonindicted 45, 44, 46, and 47), 837,274,540 won [the 2,186,024,540 won (the base date of closing 3,460 won on November 6, 2009), which was the value assessed by Defendant 13 as the 631,799 share shares for the merger allocated to Defendant 13 and borrowed accounts (the 1,348,750,000 won for the old share acquisition of Nonindicted 9 Co. 1, 348,750, which was the day before the listing of new shares for the merger with Nonindicted 8 Co. 13)] can be acknowledged as having accrued from the profits of the above amount. Defendant 13, in collusion with Defendant 1, etc., shall be deemed to have acquired the unjust profits equivalent to the above amount.

B. Parts on market price manipulation and unfair trading through Defendant 10 and 8

1) Whether to recognize the manipulation and unfair trading

A) Facts of recognition

(5) On October 7, 2009, Defendant 8 received shares from Defendant 1 at the request of Nonindicted Company 2 at least KRW 80 billion and paid KRW 300 million to Defendant 2 at least KRW 80 billion upon the request of Nonindicted Company 1 at the time of merger with Nonindicted Company 9; Defendant 2 at the request of Nonindicted Company 1 at the time of merger with Nonindicted Company 2 at KRW 80 billion; and Defendant 8 at the request of Nonindicted Company 2 at the time of merger with KRW 99,000,00,000, KRW 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 80,000,000,000,000.

B) Determination

The above facts and evidence revealed as follows. ① Defendant 1, 8, and 10 traded the above forms for the purpose of reducing appraisal rights; ② Defendant 10 purchased or sold the shares of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2 upon the request of Defendant 8 with a certain amount of commission paid. Such transaction cannot be seen as a transaction based on normal investment judgment; Defendant 10’s trading volume increase due to Defendant 10’s purchase volume and market price were likely to be mistaken; ③ Defendant 10’s trading volume and market price were high as stated in [Attachment 5] trading volume, volume reduction, and order price manipulation; ④ Defendant 10’s trading volume and market price increase as stated in [Attachment 8] trading volume increase; and Defendant 10’s trading volume or market price increase as stated in [Attachment 8] trading volume increase; and Defendant 10’s trading volume or market price increase as stated in [Attachment 8] trading volume, and Defendant 10’s trading volume or market price increase as stated in [Attachment 10]’s trading order.

2) Whether a conspiracy with Nonindicted 10 is recognized

The following circumstances revealed by the judgment and evidence as seen earlier: ① around October 7, 2009, in order to reduce the exercise of appraisal rights, Defendant 1 entered into the fourth market price agreement with Nonindicted 10 to actively purchase the shares of Nonindicted 8; and on the same day, ordered Defendant 8 to request the formation of the purchase price; and issued KRW 300 million to Defendant 8 on October 8, 2009, thereby allowing Defendant 8 to trade the shares of Nonindicted 8 through Defendant 10; and (3) to purchase the shares of Nonindicted 8 with Defendant 6’s name; and (4) to purchase the shares of Nonindicted 8 with the share price increase trading volume by providing KRW 1020,000,000,000 to Defendant 8; and (4) to purchase the shares of Nonindicted 100,000,000,000 won through a single market price manipulation until October 13, 209; and (2) to acquire the shares of Nonindicted 10,000 shares through a single market price manipulation.

11. Part of fraudulent illegal transactions in the course of a merger between Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 5 on December 29, 2009 (Article 11 of the Criminal Act)

(a) Whether the act constitutes a fraudulent unfair trading;

1) Facts of recognition

(6) On or around February 25, 209, Defendant 1, as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 13, 209, acquired shares of Nonindicted Co. 2, 19,476 (90%) on or around September 25, 200, Non-Indicted. 1, Non-Indicted. 1, Non-Indicted. 2, Non-Indicted. 2, Non-Indicted. 3, Non-Indicted. 1, and Non-Indicted. 3, Non-Indicted. 4, Non-Indicted. 9, Non-Indicted. 2, Non-Indicted. 9, Non-Indicted. 1, Non-Indicted. 2, Non-Indicted. 3, Non-Indicted. 4, Non-Indicted. 9, Non-Indicted. 2, Non-Indicted. 9, Non-Indicted. 3, Non-Indicted. 2, Non-Indicted. 9, Non-Indicted. 1, Non-Indicted. 3, Non-Indicted. 2, Non-Indicted. 3, Non-Indicted.

2) Determination

A) As seen earlier 10.A. (1) as seen in the foregoing 10.1, the issue of whether a listed company can protect a certain amount of new shares that are to be allocated after the merger with an unlisted company is directly affected by the share price after the merger. As such, it constitutes a “material fact” under Article 178(1)2 of the Capital Markets Act, since it may affect the fair trade in securities and investor protection as a matter necessary for the investment judgment, and thus, it constitutes an “material fact” under Article 178(1)2 of the said Act. As seen in the above facts, Defendant 1, etc. acquired Nonindicted Co. 5 under the name of Nonindicted Co. 5 and received new shares with the name of Nonindicted Co. 5, thereby avoiding the regulation on sale restriction, thereby evading the regulation on sale restriction, such as raising subscription money for new shares for stock purchase, raising of stock price, or preventing a decline in stock price. It constitutes an “act of obtaining money, other property benefits by making a false entry or representation in material matters,” and “an act of using an unfair means, means, means, or means” under Article 178(1.

B) Defendant 1 asserted that it was necessary for the offering of a security to receive funds from Nonindicted Co. 5’s funds that are insufficient in the process of capital increase with new stocks, so it was inevitably necessary to lend the name to acquire the stocks, and there was no intention to obtain money or property benefits or to obtain the difference between the value of the new stocks for the merger between Nonindicted Co. 5 and the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 8 through false representation. However, in this case, Defendant 1 stated that ① acquired the shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 in the name of the vehicle and Defendant 1’s acquisition of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 in the name of the vehicle, and that the merger of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 acquired by Defendant 1 does not constitute the number of deposits, ② through this, it appears that there was no doluence on the fact that the financing and acquisition of capital increase with new stocks for new stocks for the Nonindicted Co. 5 is possible, and furthermore

B. Whether Defendant 2 and 11’s criminal intent, conspiracy, or conspiracy

1) Whether to recognize the above Defendants’ criminal intent

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, namely, ① Defendant 1 consistently stated that he acquired Nonindicted Co. 5 and provided capital increase with the name of the vehicle for the avoidance of protection, and ② Defendant 2 and Defendant 11, as seen in the above, knew that he would take over Nonindicted Co. 9 in the name of the vehicle in the process of acquiring the Nonindicted Co. 9 around July 2009, and included a public offering and a private offering in the fraudulent illegal transactions with the awareness that he would take over the Nonindicted Co. 5’s name in the acquisition and capital increase with respect to the instant Nonindicted Co. 5’s name around September 2009. As such, Defendant 1 performed the leading role as seen below, in view of the fact that he would have been naturally aware that he would have been using the name of the vehicle for the avoidance of protection deposits in the acquisition and merger of Nonindicted Co. 5 Co. 3, Ltd., and in view of the fact that he would have been aware of the fact that he would naturally have been using the name of the vehicle for the avoidance of protection deposits.

2) Whether the above Defendants are recruited by conspiracy or conspiracy

The following circumstances revealed in accordance with the above evidence: (a) as a financial officer of the non-indicted 8 Company, Defendant 2 reported to Defendant 1 on the risks of designating the management issues of the non-indicted 8 Company; (b) in the process of acquiring the non-indicted 5 Company, Defendant 11 was in charge of various practical affairs, such as borrowing funds, paying the borrowed money, offering security for the borrowed money, offering security for the borrowed money, and making false public disclosure; (c) Defendant 1 discovered the non-indicted 5 Company as the vice president of the non-indicted 8 Company and reported it to Defendant 1; and (c) Defendant 11 was in charge of various practical affairs, such as acquisition negotiation, acquisition of borrowed money, borrowing of borrowed money, and borrowing of borrowed money; and (d) Defendant 11 was aware that the actual amount of the borrowed money directly raised from Defendant 13 was insufficient; and (e) in light of the fact that Defendant 2 and 11 appears to have been aware of the amount of the borrowed money related to the capital increase.

C. Whether Defendant 13’s criminal intent, conspiracy, or conspiracy

1) Facts of recognition

The court below held that on September 200, Defendant 13 offered shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 as collateral for the above loan, and then offered monthly interest of KRW 3 billion to Nonindicted Co. 5’s third party’s third party’s third party’s third party’s third party’s third party’s third party’s third party’s share with KRW 6% (the 2% out of it was paid to Nonindicted Co. 15), and on September 28, 2009, Defendant 11 offered shortage of KRW 1 billion among the share capital to participate in the Nonindicted Co. 5’s share capital with KRW 1 billion; ② Defendant 1 offered shares of KRW 5 billion to Nonindicted Co. 1 as collateral for the above loan; ③ was offered to Nonindicted Co. 5’s third party’s third party share with KRW 1.5 billion under the name of Nonindicted Co. 5’s 13,500,000; ④ Defendant 13 offered the remaining shares with KRW 1.5 billion in its name and KRW 1.5 billion in its name.5 billion.

2) Defendant 13’s assertion

Defendant 13 did not have conspired with Defendant 1 on the fact that Defendant 1 made a false entry in the number of shares acquired by Nonindicted Co. 5 and avoided the amount of deposits for protection, thereby using an illegal trick for the purpose of acquiring the difference between the new shares acquired by the merger of Nonindicted Co. 8 and the shares value of Nonindicted Co.

3) Determination

The following facts revealed by the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed as follows: (i) Defendant 13 provided the name and acquisition fund despite Defendant 1 being aware that Defendant 1 would take over the name of the vehicle for the purpose of avoiding the amount of protection; (ii) Defendant 13 knew that the loan was used as the price for capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the non-indicted 5 stock company; and (iii) Defendant 13 provided the above funds to Defendant 13 by offering the above funds for capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the above non-indicted 5 stock company (5237 pages) at an investigative agency, it was possible to recognize that Defendant 13 provided the above funds for capital increase with respect to the above defendant 13, and thus, Defendant 13 provided the above funds for capital increase with respect to the above crime.

4) The unjust enrichment by Defendant 13

The court below's determination based on the above evidence reveals that there was a benefit of KRW 1,689,942,377 [the 1,738,674 assessed on the 1,774 share for the merger of Non-Party 8 Co., Ltd., which was allocated with Defendant 13's funds, KRW 5,189,942,377 [the 2,985 Won on January 14, 2010, which was the day before the listing of new shares for the merger of Non-Party 8 Co., Ltd.] - Non-Party 5 Co., Ltd. 3,50,000,00] as to the funds provided by Defendant 13. Defendant 13 obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount as co-offender.

D. Whether Defendant 12's criminal intent, conspiracy, or conspiracy

1) Facts of recognition

The court below held that (i) around September 25, 2009: (ii) around September 200, Defendant 12 loaned 6 billion won to Defendant 1 on condition that the sum of 5 billion won per month interest, 4 months due, 20 billion won interest after four months, and 1.2 billion won with interest after 7.2 billion won in lump sum; (iii) Defendant 1 offered 60 billion won in total by issuing 10 billion won in each of the above 200 million units; (iv) around September 23, 2009, Non-Indicted 8, 3 billion won in blank; (v) the number of units issued 10 billion won in each of the above 200 billion units; and (v) the 1 billion won in each of the above 100 billion units in each of the 10 billion units in blank; and (v) the 1.6 billion won in each of the above 200 billion units in each of the 100 billion units in each of the 100 billion units in each trust.

2) Defendant 12’s assertion

A) Around September 2009, the capital increase with new shares was not the capital increase but the capital increase was lent KRW 6 billion with the acquisition price.

B) There was no permission to use the above Defendant’s name at the time of lending the said money, and Defendant 1’s securities account number was opened through Nonindicted 147 on October 10, 2009, following the use of the list of rights issued for new shares and the notification of the account number for the shares issued for new shares.

C) The above Defendant did not have to receive new stocks equivalent to 6 billion won at the time of 6 billion won lending. Defendant 2 recovered the check of the number of shares, etc. offered as security, and received new stocks for the merger under Defendant’s name as security by means of substitute security.

D) Accordingly, Defendant 12 did not have offered or offered a public offering for the participation of Defendant 1 in the name of the tea.

3) Determination

위 인정사실 및 앞서 본 증거들을 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고인 1은 이 법정에서, “본 피고인이 피고인 12에게 처음에 증자투자유치를 이야기했고, 공소외 148 증권에서 2009. 9. 25. 이전에 공소외 5 주식회사 인수자금 대출 불가판정을 받아 피고인 12에게 ‘증자투자 자금을 인수자금으로 사용해도 되겠느냐. 담보 등 조건은 똑같이 해 주겠다. 인수자금을 사용할 수 있게 해 달라’고 했는데 피고인 12가 그렇게 해 주겠다고 하여 2009. 9. 23. 공소외 147이 돈을 가지고 왔다. 그런데 본 피고인측이 다른 곳에 자금을 알아보는 과정이어서 돈을 안 받았고 어차피 돈은 사용해야 될 것이기 때문에 본 피고인이 피고인 2에게 담보로 당좌수표를 선발행을 하라고 지시하였고, 2009. 9. 25. 60억 원을 대출해 주는 곳이 결정이 안 되어 피고인 12로부터 60억 원을 받았다. 2009. 9. 25. 인수계약금을 지급하는 날이었는데 계약금은 다른 자금으로 지급하였고 잔금일이 2009. 9. 30.인데 60억 원을 가지고 있다가 9. 27., 9. 28.경 제일2상호저축은행에서 대출을 해 주기로 했기 때문에 받아 놓은 60억 원은 증자자금으로 사용했다. 60억 원 받은 돈은 증자에 사용한다고 피고인 12에게 이야기했다”라고 60억 원의 대출경위를 상세히 진술하면서 60억 원을 인수대금이 아닌 증자대금으로 빌린 것이라고 진술하였고, 피고인 2의 법정진술도 이에 부합하는 점, ② 피고인 12는 2010. 2. 1. 검찰 최초 조사 당시 “2009. 9. 28. 60억 원 대여 당시에도 피고인 1이 나중에 공소외 8 주식회사와 합병할 공소외 5 주식회사의 유상증자에 돈을 있는 만큼 투자를 해달라고 했는데, 내가 투자를 하지 않고 전액을 피고인 1에게 대여한 것이다. 피고인 1이 공소외 8 주식회사와 공소외 5 주식회사가 합병하기까지 4개월 정도 기다려야 한다고 하여 나는 투자를 안하고 대여하여 이자를 받겠다고 했다. 피고인 1은 나에게서 자금을 빌려서 차명으로 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자에 참여하기 위하여 60억 원을 빌려간 것이다”, “대여기간은 4개월로 하였다”, “ 공소외 8 주식회사과 공소외 5 주식회사가 합병을 하게 되면, 60억 원에 상당하는 합병신주를 담보로 제공하기로 하였는데 아직까지 담보를 제공받지 못한 상태이다”라고 진술(2125~2126쪽)하고, 위 피고인에 대한 피의자 신문 당시에도 ‘ 피고인 1이 피의자에게 자금을 빌려가면서 차명으로 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자에 참여한다는 설명을 하던가요’라는 질문에 ‘내가 공소외 2 주식회사 유상증자 때 30억 원을 빌려준 적이 있었기 때문에 피고인 1이 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자에 필요한 자금을 빌려달라고 할 때는 내가 피고인 1에게 “ 공소외 2 주식회사 유상증자와 같은 방식으로 사용할거냐”라고 물었더니 그렇다고 하였다. 실제로 자금을 빌려간 이틀 후에 피고인 1이 나에게 전화하여 나에게 빌린 자금으로 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자에 차명으로 들어가야 되니 내 명의를 빌려달라고 하였다. 그래서 내가 “내 명의가 들어가면 복잡해지지 않느냐”라고 했더니 피고인 1이 빌려준 자금에 대한 담보도 되니 나에게 이득이 된다고 하면서 명의를 빌려달라고 하여 내 명의까지 빌려주게 되었다’라고 진술하고(5253~5254쪽), 피고인 1과의 대질조사 당시에도 “ 공소외 2 주식회사 유상증자 때 나에게 빌려간 자금을 차명으로 들어갔던 사실이 있었기 때문에 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자에 필요한 자금 60억 원을 피고인 1에게 빌려줄 때 같은 방식으로 증자에 차명으로 들어간다는 사실은 알고 있었다. 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자시에는 피고인 1이 나의 명의도 빌려달라고 하여 내 명의를 차명으로 사용하도록 빌려주었다”라고 진술하여(5751쪽), 수사과정에서 일관되게 60억 원의 대여금이 차명 유상증자에 사용된다는 사실을 알고 있었고 피고인 1에게 이를 위한 차명을 제공하였다고 반복하여 진술한 점, ③ 피고인 12는 위와 같은 수사기관에서의 진술에 대하여 시점을 혼동하였다거나 피고인 1의 부탁에 의하여 위와 같이 진술한 것이라고 주장하고 있으나, 위 수사기관 진술의 일관성 및 명확성에 비추어 이를 혼동에 의한 진술로 보기 어렵고, 피고인 1이 피고인 12에게 그러한 내용의 진술을 부탁할만한 동기가 있는 것으로 보이지도 않는 점, ④ 피고인 1은 피고인 12가 유상증자에 피고인 12의 명의를 사용하는 것을 허락하였고, 대여 당시부터 합병신주 담보제공이 예정되어 있었으며, 합병신주를 매각하여 원금과 이자를 변제하기로 하였다고 일관되게 진술하고 있는 점, ⑤ 피고인 1은 제7회 피의자신문 당시 “ 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자와 관련하여 돈을 빌려준 피고인 12, 13, 6, 5, 4, 저축은행 등은 자신들이 빌려준 돈이 차명 유상증자에 참여해 사용될 것이라는 사실, 공소외 5 주식회사와 공소외 8 주식회사가 합병할 것이라는 사실, 이와 같은 업무처리가 보호예수 조항을 회피하기 위한 것이라는 사실을 알고 돈을 빌려준 것이다. 공소외 5 주식회사와 공소외 8 주식회사가 합병할 것이라는 사실, 그리고 차명으로 참여를 하여 보호예수를 피하고 합병 후 발생된 신주를 담보로 제공할 것이라는 구체적인 사정을 설명해 주지 않으면 돈을 빌려주지 않는다”라고 진술(4639쪽)하였고, 제12회 피의자신문 당시에도 “ 피고인 12, 4, 6, 5 네 명에게 차입금으로 차명으로 유상증자에 참여하여 보호예수를 피할 수 있다는 설명을 했다. 합병이 진행되는 전체적인 흐름을 설명하면서 설명했다. 구체적으로 누구 명의로 주금을 납입할 것이라는 것까지는 설명을 하지 않았지만 공소외 13 주식회사나 내 이름으로 들어가지 않고 차명으로 들어간다는 점에 대해서는 설명을 했다. 그리고 이를 통해 보호예수를 피한 합병신주를 담보로 제공한다는 점에 대해서도 설명했다. 사실, 그 네 사람들도 당연히 그런 내용을 알고 돈을 빌려주는 것이다”라고 반복하여 진술(2226쪽)하였고, 이 법정에서도 ‘ 피고인 12에게 보호예수에 걸리지 않는 합병신주를 담보로 제공하겠다고 하였다’라고 진술한 점 등을 종합해볼 때, 피고인 12는 피고인 1이 대여금을 차명 유상증자에 사용하고, 이를 통해 보호예수를 피한 합병신주를 담보로 제공한다는 사실을 인식였다고 할 것이므로, 위 피고인의 부정거래행위의 범의를 인정할 수 있고, 위 피고인이 위와 같이 피고인 1 등의 범행을 인식하면서도 피고인 1에게 60억 원을 대여하고 피고인 12의 명의를 제공하여 위 범행을 가능하게 함으로써 피고인 12와 피고인 1 등 사이에 암묵적인 공모관계가 성립하였다고 할 것이므로, 피고인 12의 공모·가담 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

4) The unjust enrichment by Defendant 12

With respect to the funds provided by Defendant 12, 2,897,043,240 won [the 2,980,584 value assessed as 8,897,043,240 won (based on the closing price 2,985 won on January 14, 2010, which is the day prior to the listing of new shares for the merger of Nonindicted Co. 8 Co. 12)] with respect to the above funds provided by Defendant 12, it can be acknowledged that there was a benefit of 2,897,043,240 won [the 6,00,000 won for capital increase for new shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 5 Co. 12]. Defendant 12 obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount as co-offenders of Defendant 1, etc.

E. Whether Defendant 5’s criminal intent and crime were committed

1) Defendant 5’s assertion

Defendant 5 lent his name to Defendant 1 on September 2009, and did not know that his name was used to acquire 500 million won in the name of the former stock company as of September 2009 at the time of lending around the end of September 2009. Defendant 5 was not aware of the fact that KRW 500 million was used for the participation in the name of the new name of the Nonindicted stock company 5. Thus, Defendant 1’s fraudulent unfair trading did not contain any public offering and private participation in the fraudulent unfair trading.

2) Determination

앞서 본 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고인 1은 제7회 피의자신문 당시 “ 피고인 5에게 공소외 8 주식회사가 공소외 5 주식회사를 합병할 예정이고 공소외 5 주식회사를 인수할 때 차명으로 주식을 인수하는데 사용할 것이라는 설명을 모두 하고 명의를 빌렸다”라고 진술하고, “ 피고인 5는 공소외 5 주식회사 합병과 관련하여 보호예수를 피할 목적으로 차명계좌가 필요하여 피의자가 명의를 빌린다는 사실을 알고 있었을 것이다. 내가 명확하게 보호예수를 피하기 위한 목적으로 명의를 빌려달라고 말하지 않았지만 2009. 9. 28. 실시된 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자에도 피고인 5는 증자자금 5억 원을 공소외 13 주식회사에 빌려주어 차명으로 참여하게 하였고 자신도 5억 원을 직접 유상증자에 참여하여 투자를 했기 때문에 잘 알고 있을 것이라고 생각한다”라고 진술(4627쪽)하였고, 이 법정에서는 2009. 9.초순경 피고인 5에게 공소외 8 주식회사와 관련하여 명의를 빌릴 당시에는 명의를 빌려 어디에 사용할 것인지에 관하여는 구체적으로 이야기한 바가 없으나, 2009. 9.말 피고인 5에게 유상증자 자금으로 5억 원을 빌리면서 구주 인수에 피고인 5의 명의로 사용되었다고 말해 주었고, 그 거래관계에 관여했던 사람이라면 이름을 빌려서 인수한다는 것은 보호예수 규정을 피하기 위한 것이라고 당연히 알고 있을 것으로 생각한다고 진술하였는바, 위와 같은 피고인 1의 진술에 비추어 볼 때 피고인 5는 적어도 피고인 1에게 5억 원을 대여할 당시에는 피고인 1이 자신이 빌려준 차명으로 공소외 5 주식회사 구주를 인수하였다는 사실을 알고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, ② 피고인 5는 피고인 1로부터 공소외 8 주식회사와 공소외 5 주식회사의 합병과 관련하여 10억 원을 투자할 것을 권유받고 피고인 1에게 5억 원을 대여함과 동시에 외숙모인 공소외 48 명의로 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자에 5억 원을 투자한 점, 피고인 1은 ‘ 피고인 5로부터 5억 원을 차입할 때도 피고인 5에게 공소외 5 주식회사를 인수할 예정이고 차입금 5억 원은 증자대금으로 사용할 것이라는 내용을 설명해 주었다’고 진술(5754쪽 제11회 피의자신문조서)한 점에 비추어 볼 때, 피고인 5는 대여금 5억 원이 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자금으로 사용된다는 사실을 알고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 피고인 1은 제7회 피의자신문 당시 “ 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자와 관련하여 돈을 빌려준 피고인 12, 13, 6, 5, 4, 저축은행 등은 자신들이 빌려준 돈이 차명 유상증자에 참여해 사용될 것이라는 사실, 공소외 5 주식회사와 공소외 8 주식회사가 합병할 것이라는 사실, 이와 같은 업무처리가 보호예수 조항을 회피하기 위한 것이라는 사실을 알고 돈을 빌려준 것이다. 공소외 5 주식회사와 공소외 8 주식회사가 합병할 것이라는 사실, 그리고 차명으로 참여를 하여 보호예수를 피하고 합병 후 발생된 신주를 담보로 제공할 것이라는 구체적인 사정을 설명해 주지 않으면 돈을 빌려주지 않는다”라고 진술(4639쪽)하였고, 제12회 피의자신문 당시에도 “ 피고인 12, 4, 6, 5 네 명에게 차입금으로 차명으로 유상증자에 참여하여 보호예수를 피할 수 있다는 설명을 했다. 합병이 진행되는 전체적인 흐름을 설명하면서 설명했다. 구체적으로 누구 명의로 주금을 납입할 것이라는 것까지는 설명을 하지 않았지만 공소외 13 주식회사나 내 이름으로 들어가지 않고 차명으로 들어간다는 점에 대해서는 설명을 했다. 그리고 이를 통해 보호예수를 피한 합병신주를 담보로 제공한다는 점에 대해서도 설명했다. 사실, 그 네 사람들도 당연히 그런 내용을 알고 돈을 빌려주는 것이다”라고 반복하여 진술한 점, ④ 피고인 1은 이 법정에서는 피고인 5에게 보호예수 회피를 위하여 차명으로 유상증자에 참여한다는 사정을 구체적으로 설명하지는 않았다는 취지로 진술하였으나, 한편 ‘ 피고인 5에게 대여금 5억 원에 대한 담보로 2010. 1. 15. 합병신주가 나오면 보호예수가 걸리지 않는 신주를 담보로 주겠다고 하였다. 누구 명의라고 이야기하지 않았고, 그것에 해당하는 유상증자 신주 부분을 담보로 주겠다고 하였다’라고 진술한 점 등을 종합해 볼 때, 피고인 5는 피고인 1에게 5억 원을 대여할 당시 위 자금이 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자에 쓰일 것이라는 점, 피고인 1이 위 5억 원을 공소외 13 주식회사 또는 피고인 1의 명의로 납입하지 아니하고 차명으로 납입하여 보호예수를 회피할 것이라는 점을 당연히 인식하였다고 봄이 상당하므로, 위 피고인의 부정거래행위의 범의를 인정할 수 있고, 위 피고인이 위와 같이 피고인 1 등의 범행을 인식하면서도 피고인 1에게 자금을 제공하여 위 범행을 가능하게 함으로써 피고인 5와 피고인 1 등 사이에 암묵적인 공모관계가 성립하였다고 할 것이므로, 피고인 5의 공모·가담 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

3) The unjust enrichment by Defendant 5

As seen earlier, with respect to the funds provided by Defendant 5, 241,423,255 won [the base date for closing price 2,985 won on January 14, 2010, which is the day prior to the listing of new shares for the merger of Nonindicted 8 Co., Ltd.) - Defendant 5’s interest in 241,423,255 won [the base date for closing price 2,985 won on January 14, 2010]- Defendant 5, as co-offenders, obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount as co-offenders of Defendant 1, etc.

F. Whether Defendant 6’s criminal intent and crime were committed

1) Facts of recognition

The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows. ① Defendant 6, around September 2009, intended to promote the merger between Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 5. Prior to the merger, Nonindicted Co. 5’s investment in Nonindicted Co. 5’s capital increase is recommended, and Nonindicted Co. 16’s funds are KRW 80 million, KRW 100 million, KRW 100 million, and KRW 100 million, KRW 60 million, KRW 500,000,000,000, and KRW 60,000,000, KRW 500,000,000,000; ② The borrower was Nonindicted Co. 16; Nonindicted Co. 14; Defendant 5726; Defendant 5726; and Nonindicted Co. 550,000,000 won and KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,00 won.

2) Defendant 6’s assertion

Defendant 6 was Defendant 1, the borrower of the loan amounting to KRW 400 million, and Defendant 1 was unaware of the fact that Defendant 1 was Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that the account holder of the money paid in the name of Nonindicted 50, 51 was Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 was unaware of the fact that he was taking over Nonindicted 5 Company through name borrowing, and Defendant 1 was unaware of the fact that he was unable to fully aware of the fact that he had avoided the provision on the receipt of deposits through name borrowing.

2) Determination

앞서 본 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 앞서 본 금전소비대차 계약에 관한 부속약정서는 피고인 2가 만든 초안을 피고인 6이 수정한 후 서명날인한 서류인바, 위 부속약정서의 기재에 비추어 볼 때 피고인 6은 4억 원이 공소외 5 주식회사의 증자에 사용된다는 점 및 피고인 1 또는 공소외 13 주식회사가 아닌 공소외 50과 공소외 51이라는 명의로 증자에 들어간다는 점을 알고 있었던 점, ② 피고인 6은 검찰에서 실질적인 계약당사자는 연대보증인인 피고인 1이고, 공소외 14 주식회사는 피고인 1이 지정한 지정인일 뿐이라고 생각했다고 진술(5691쪽)하고, 피고인 1이 공소외 8 주식회사의 대표이사라는 사실 및 피고인 1이 공소외 5 주식회사 유상증자를 실시한 후 공소외 8 주식회사와 합병하는 것을 추진하는 것을 알고 있었다고 진술(5687~5688쪽)하였고, 피고인 1도 검찰에서 “내가 피고인 6에게 설명한 내용은 ‘내가 공소외 5 주식회사를 인수할 것이고, 공소외 5 주식회사 증자를 하는데 합병가액의 절반 정도로 증자를 할 예정이고 합병이 끝나고 나면 회사가 좋아지니까 주가도 괜찮을 것이다. 그러니까 증자에 들어와라’라는 내용이다”라고 진술(5754쪽)하고, 이 법정에서도 피고인 6에게 공소외 5 주식회사를 인수할 것이라는 말을 했다고 진술하였는바, 위와 같은 각 진술을 종합해볼때 피고인 6은 4억 원을 차입하여 유상증자에 참여하는 주체가 공소외 5 주식회사의 인수주체로서 최대주주 또는 특별관계인에 해당하는 피고인 1 또는 공소외 13 주식회사라는 사실을 알았던 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 피고인 6은 증권사에서 근무한 경력이 17년인 자이고, 피고인 1도 이 법정에서 ‘ 피고인 6이 비상장 회사와 상장회사가 합병할 경우에 비상장 회사의 최대주주나 특별관계인이 보유하고 있던 비상장 회사의 주식에 대해서 배정된 합병신주는 보호예수에 걸린다는 사실까지는 알고 있다’라고 진술하였으며, 피고인 6 자신도 수사기관에서 ‘비상장회사와 상장회사가 합병을 할 경우에 비상장회사의 최대주주나 특별관계인이 보유하고 있던 비상장회사의 주식에 대하여 배정된 합병신주는 보호예수에 걸린다는 사실은 알고 있다’라고 진술하고(5697쪽), 이 법정에서도 ‘이 업을 하고 있는 사람으로서의 상식이고, 그것은 본 피고인이 아는 부분이다’라고 진술한 점, ④ 피고인 1은 수사기관에서 피고인 6에게 차명 유상증자를 통하여 보호예수를 회피하고 합병신주를 담보로 제공한다는 사정을 설명하였다고 반복적으로 진술하였다가(제7회, 제12회 피의자신문조서), 이 법정에서는 피고인 6에게 보호예수를 회피하기 위해서 차명으로 들어간다고 설명하지는 않았다고 진술하였는바, 피고인 1과 피고인 6이 대여금 4억 원으로 취득할 합병신주가 최대주주 등의 보유주식으로서 원칙적으로 보호예수에 해당함에도 불구하고 차명인수를 통하여 매각제한규정을 회피한다고 구체적으로 논의하지는 않았던 것으로 보이나, 한편 피고인 6은 투자 및 대여 당시 투자금에 대하여 ‘보호예수에 걸리지 않느냐’고 피고인 1에게 물었고, 피고인 1은 이에 대하여 ‘우회등록에 해당하지 않기 때문에 보호예수에 해당하지 않는다’라고 설명한 점, 4억원에 대한 위 금전소비대차계약에 관한 부속약정서에 비보호예수주식을 담보로 제공한다는 취지가 기재되었고, 6억 원에 대한 투자계약서(5704쪽)에도 ‘을( 공소외 16, 공소외 49 주식회사, 피고인 6)이 교부받는 합병신주가 보호예수에 해당하지 않아 상장일부터 매도에 대한 제한이 없다‘라는 취지가 기재된 점, 피고인 1은 이 법정에서, ‘ 피고인 6에게 공소외 8 주식회사를 합병하는데 합병하기에 앞서 증자를 하니까 증자에 참여하라고 제안하면서 보호예수를 피할 수 있다고 자세히 설명하지 않았지만 보호예수에 해당하지 않는 주식을 담보로 제공하고, 피고인 6이 증자 들어오는 것도 당연히 보호예수에 안 걸린다고 하였다’라고 진술한 점 등에 비추어, 피고인 6은 적어도 담보로 제공될 합병신주가 보호예수에 해당하지 않고 즉시 매각이 가능하다는 것은 확인하고 피고인 1에게 4억 원을 대여한 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합해 볼 때, 피고인 6은 위 대여 당시 피고인 1이 취득하는 합병신주가 원칙적으로 보호예수에 해당한다는 점, 피고인 1이 차명으로 유상증자금을 납입하고, 이를 통하여 보호예수에 해당하지 않아 즉시 매각가능한 합병신주를 취득한다는 점을 모두 인식하였다고 할 것이므로, 위 피고인의 부정거래행위의 범의를 인정할 수 있고, 위 피고인은 위와 같이 보호예수를 회피하는 행위의 위법성을 인식하고 있었다고 할 것이며, 위 피고인이 위와 같이 피고인 1 등의 범행을 인식하면서도 피고인 1에게 자금을 제공하여 위 범행을 가능하게 함으로써 피고인 6과 피고인 1 등 사이에 암묵적인 공모관계가 성립하였다고 할 것이므로, 피고인 6의 공모·가담 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

3) The unjust enrichment by Defendant 6

As seen earlier, with respect to the funds provided by Defendant 6, 193,134,425 won [the base date for closing price 2,985 won on January 14, 2010, which is the day prior to the listing of new shares for the merger of Nonindicted Co. 8 Co. 8), - The fact that there was a benefit of 193,134,425 won [the 198,705 won (the base date for closing price 2,985 won which is the day prior to the listing of new shares for the merger of Nonindicted Co. 8 Co. 8 Co. 6]; Defendant 6 obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount as co-offenders, such as Defendant 1.

12. Part concerning reporting on stocks, etc. held in bulk and reporting on the status of ownership (Article 12).

A. Defendant 1’s assertion

Since the subject of acquisition of each of the above facts constituting the crime is a company and cannot be seen as Defendant 1. Thus, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have a duty to report the status of holding stocks and ownership.

B. Determination

1) Facts constituting a crime D. F. Paragraph (f)

As seen in the above part of the judgment on the issues 3.C. 2, as seen in the above, since the defendant 1 is the defendant 1 to calculate the shares acquired under the name of the borrower in relation to the issue of capital increase with respect to the shares increase and the merger between the non-indicted 8 and the non-indicted 9, and the merger between the non-indicted 5 and the non-indicted 1, it is recognized that the defendant

2) Criminal facts B. D. As to paragraph (3)

As seen in paragraphs (8) and (9) of the aforementioned part of the judgment on the issues, since Defendant 1’s calculation body of shares acquired from Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 4’s acquisition of forfeited shares by issuing new shares to a third party is Defendant 1, Defendant 1 is deemed to be Defendant 1, Defendant 1’s duty to report the ownership situation

3) As to the facts constituting a crime

In full view of the facts acknowledged in Section 1.B.1 of the acquittal part, and the fact that Defendant 1 also acquired in the investigative agency on December 22, 2009 in the name of Nonindicted 27, 30, 28, and 29 as the subject of calculation of bonds with warrants, which was acquired on December 22, 2009, recognized as the Defendant himself, the subject of calculation of acquisition of shares in the said Nonindicted 25 Stock Company is Defendant 1, and thus, the above Defendant is obligated to report the status of possession in bulk.

1. Defendant 1

(a) The scope of recommendations given to the sentencing criteria for the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust;

Defendant 1’s embezzlement and breach of trust constitutes type 5 among the basic areas because the amount of profit exceeds 30 billion won and there are no special aggravated factors and mitigation factors. The scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines for embezzlement and breach of trust is from 5 years to 8 years.

(b) Determination of sentence;

Defendant 1 committed the instant fraud by participating in the instant investment by taking part in ordinary investors in the process of gambling transactions, after purchasing the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 17, around 2003, and acquiring more than twice his own capital by additionally obtaining a loan as security, by purchasing the stocks.

In addition, from around 2008, Defendant 1 continuously acquired the company, including Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 5, Nonindicted Co. 25, Nonindicted Co. 25, and Nonindicted Co. 24, based on borrowings, etc. without almost investing his own capital through Nonindicted Co. 13, which he operated. In the above process, Defendant 1, the parent company, and Nonindicted Co. 8, bear enormous liability, such as receiving loans as security for the acquired company’s stocks. This led to a series of illegal acts, such as market price manipulation to maintain the share security ratio, embezzlement for the funds of Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, and Nonindicted Co. 5, which are subject to the acquisition of funds, and acquisition and merger of new stocks, and sale of new stocks.

Defendant 1’s total amount of profit from the crime of embezzlement and misappropriation, which illegally leaked funds from the victim Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, and Nonindicted Co. 5 on the pretext of short-term loans, exceeds KRW 100 billion (the victim Nonindicted Co. 2’s embezzlement of KRW 77,366,780,822, KRW 300 million, KRW 9.666 million for the victim Nonindicted Co. 4, KRW 9.666 million, KRW 7.60 million for the victim Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., and KRW 17,303,447,153 embezzlement for market price manipulation and unfair trading, etc., the victim Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 2, and KRW 21,000,00 (the sum of the amount of profit from the crime of breach of trust following the issuance of promissory notes, and KRW 17,303,000,00 won for the victim Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. 3000.).

It is ultimately attributable to the defendant's unreasonable acquisition and business expansion of the company that continued to release the funds held by the defendant after taking over the victim company in a successive manner, such as price manipulation and unfair trading. Thus, the defendant's crime cannot be assessed as a case where it has been inevitably done in order to resolve the management crisis of related companies due to temporary financing or price decline in the normal course of operating the company in a normal manner. In addition, the above crime by the defendant is serious damage to the victim company and its shareholders by using the company's assets as private property, and it is necessary to severely punish them by disturbing the order of the KOSDAQ and causing considerable damage to many good companies and ordinary investors.

Meanwhile, in the case of embezzlement and breach of trust due to the outflow of funds of the victim non-indicted 2 corporation, non-indicted 4 corporation, and non-indicted 5 corporation, the amount of embezzlement has increased in the course of withdrawing the embezzlement from the bonds company as temporary loans in order to conduct the accounting audit at the end of each quarter, or repaying the embezzlement of the other victim company with the funds of some victim company, etc.

In comprehensive consideration of all the sentencing factors, such as the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined within the scope of the above recommended punishment.

2. Defendant 2

(a) The scope of recommendations given to the sentencing criteria for the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust;

Defendant 2’s embezzlement and breach of trust constitutes a case of passive participation in the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust exceeding 30 billion won and practically pressure, and thus falls under type 5 among mitigation areas. The scope of recommendation according to the sentencing guidelines for embezzlement and breach of trust is 4 to 7 years.

(b) Determination of sentence;

The above Defendant, as a person in charge of the finance of Nonindicted Co. 13, Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 2, etc. and Defendant 1’s Facecomer, has contributed to Defendant 1’s most important contributions to the instant crimes by providing assistance to Defendant 1’s decision-making with respect to the overall management of the company, and by dealing with all practical affairs in relation to each of the embezzlement and breach of trust, manipulation of market prices, and unfair trade practices. It is required that Defendant 2 be subject to strict punishment corresponding thereto.

On the other hand, Defendant 2, as an executive officer of the above company, was in charge of accounting, check, issuance of bills, and delivery of collateral in each of the crimes of this case, and was not in a position to independently manage the company and make decisions on each of the crimes of this case. The overall cooperation was made in the investigation process, such as not directly obtaining profits from each of the crimes of this case, and submission of considerable amount of accounting data to the investigation agency, etc., and as seen above, the actual amount of damage caused by the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust of this case does not reach the total amount of profit of the crime of this case, etc., which is favorable to determining punishment against the defendant.

In this context, considering the fact that the above defendant is an initial offender with no criminal power or other various sentencing conditions expressed in the trial process, determining the sentence against the defendant within the scope of the recommended sentence is too excessive to the defendant. Thus, the sentence is determined as ordered by the order beyond the lowest limit of the recommended sentence.

3. Defendant 3

(a) The scope of recommendations given to the sentencing criteria for the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust;

Since Defendant 3’s embezzlement and breach of trust constitutes a case of passive participation in the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust, the amount of profit is at least five billion won, but less than thirty billion won, and is practically pressured, it constitutes type 4 in the mitigation area. The scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines for embezzlement and breach of trust is two years or more from six months to five years.

(b) Determination of sentence;

In light of the fact that the sum of the amount of profit resulting from the above Defendant’s embezzlement and breach of trust reaches KRW 10 billion, the above Defendant, as a financial director of Nonindicted Co. 4, was responsible for properly executing the above company’s funds, he is required to punish Defendant 3 with severe punishment corresponding thereto.

On the other hand, Defendant 3, as an executive officer of the above company, was in charge of major practical affairs, such as fund execution and accounting, according to the orders of Defendant 1, and was not in a position to independently operate the company and make decisions on each of the crimes of this case, and the considerable part of the damage amount caused by the above crimes against Nonindicted Co. 4 was recovered, and there was no direct acquisition of profit from each of the crimes of this case, and the fact that Defendant 3 was an initial offender who has no criminal power, etc. is favorable for determining the punishment of the defendant.

In comprehensive consideration of all the sentencing factors, such as the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined within the scope of the above recommended punishment.

4. Defendant 5

The above defendant 1 was aware that the defendant 1 would be able to success in capital increase and merger with the non-indicted 5 corporation by avoiding the protection deposits through the borrowed-name capital increase increase, thereby enabling the above unfair trading by providing funds. Such an act of impairing the order of the capital market and causing damage to ordinary investors is required to be properly punished.

On the other hand, Defendant 5 is merely involved in the instant crime for the purpose of lending funds and acquiring interest, not contributing to the establishment of the overall crime plan by Defendant 1 or acquiring the difference in the value of the new stocks through the avoidance of protection by himself, the scope of solicitation by the above Defendant is limited to KRW 500 million loaned by the above Defendant, and the fact that there is no special criminal power other than the fine sentenced once due to drinking driving, etc., shall be considered as favorable circumstances in determining the punishment against the above Defendant.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the elements of sentencing, such as the above circumstances and the degree of participation of the above defendant, the degree of profit gained from the crime, age, character and conduct, environment, etc.

5. Defendant 6

The above defendant 1 was aware that the defendant 1 would be able to success in capital increase and merger with the non-indicted 5 corporation by avoiding the protection deposits through the borrowed-name capital increase increase, thereby enabling the above unfair trading by providing funds. Such an act of impairing the order of the capital market and causing damage to ordinary investors is required to be properly punished.

On the other hand, Defendant 6 only participated in the instant crime for the purpose of lending funds and acquiring fees, etc., and did not contribute to the establishment of the overall criminal planning by Defendant 1 or obtain the difference in the value of the new stocks through the withdrawal of custody by himself, the scope of solicitation by the above Defendant is limited to KRW 400 million provided by the above Defendant, which is limited to KRW 160 million provided by the above Defendant, which is not one of his own funds, by arranging and lending Nonindicted 16's funds, and which is the first offender who has no previous convictions, etc.,

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the elements of sentencing, such as the above circumstances and the degree of participation of the above defendant, the degree of profit gained from the crime, age, character and conduct, environment, etc.

6. Defendant 7

The above defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months on May 8, 2009 due to fraud, etc. and was under the suspended execution period, and despite the fact that the act of price manipulation of stocks is a serious criminal that undermines the normal function of the stock market and disturbs the order of the capital market and disturbs the order of the capital market, thereby causing serious damage to ordinary investors and the national economy, it is necessary to strictly punish the above defendant.

However, the above defendant was not a passive part in the conclusion of a contract between the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 10 on the part of the defendant 1's order immediately after he was appointed as the representative director of the non-indicted 5 corporation. The above defendant's participation in the decision-making process or did not directly ordered the price manipulation, and the profit accrued from the price manipulation which the above defendant participated cannot be calculated, and the above defendant did not have a direct acquisition of such profit, etc. are favorable circumstances in determining the punishment against the above defendant.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the elements of sentencing, such as the above circumstances and the degree of participation by the above defendants, age, character and conduct, environment, etc.

7. Defendant 8

The above defendant committed the crime of this case again despite the suspension period of one year after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 9, 2008 due to the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act in the course of the crime of market price manipulation in around 2002. In light of the fact that the act of market manipulation of stocks undermines the normal function of the stock market and disturbs the order of the capital market, thereby causing serious damage to ordinary investors and the national economy, it is necessary to strictly punish the above defendant.

However, the above Defendant, as a public relations director of Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 2, was involved in the pertinent market price manipulation at the demand of Defendant 1, and the previous criminal record was about seven years prior to the time of the instant crime, and the profit accrued from the pertinent Defendant’s share price manipulation cannot be calculated. The above Defendant did not directly acquire the unfair profit accrued from the instant market price manipulation. The above Defendant’s share price manipulation did not directly acquire the unfair profit accrued from the instant market price manipulation, which is favorable for determining the punishment against the Defendant

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the elements of sentencing, such as the above circumstances and the degree of participation by the above defendants, age, character and conduct, environment, etc.

8. Defendant 9

In light of the fact that the act of price manipulation of stocks interferes with the normal function of the stock market and disturbs the order of the capital market, it is necessary to severely punish the above defendant in light of the fact that the above defendant is a serious criminal that causes serious damage to the general investors

However, the above defendant received KRW 70 million from the defendant 8 and traded the shares of the non-indicted 2 corporation equivalent to that amount, and the overall market price manipulation by the defendant 1 does not have a significant influence on the conclusion of the trading order by the defendant 9 in relation to the overall market price manipulation of the defendant 1, active market price manipulation orders, such as high-priced purchase, are not found, and the profits accrued from the market price manipulation in which the above defendant participated cannot be calculated, and there is no previous criminal record, etc. are favorable circumstances in determining punishment against the above defendant.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the elements of sentencing, such as the above circumstances and degree of participation by the above defendant, degree of profit gained from the crime, age, character and conduct, environment, etc.

9. Defendant 10

In light of the fact that the act of price manipulation of stocks interferes with the normal function of the stock market and disturbs the order of the capital market, it is necessary to severely punish the above defendant in light of the fact that the above defendant is a serious criminal that causes serious damage to the general investors

However, in the overall market price manipulation by Defendant 1, Defendant 10 did not have a significant influence on the conclusion of the orders, the period during which Defendant 10 participated in the crime, and the profit accrued from the market price manipulation that the above Defendant was not calculated, and the fact that Defendant 1 did not have any special criminal records, other than that of a fine imposed twice due to a drunk driving, etc., are favorable circumstances in determining punishment against the above Defendant.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the elements of sentencing, such as the above circumstances and degree of participation by the above defendant, degree of profit gained from the crime, age, character and conduct, environment, etc.

10. Defendant 11

The above Defendant repeatedly participated in each fraudulent unfair trading by raising funds from Defendant 13 several times. In the acquisition and merger of Nonindicted Co. 8, Nonindicted Co. 9 and Nonindicted Co. 5, as vice president of Nonindicted Co. 8, the overall process of acquisition and merger, led to an important contribution to the crime of the fraudulent unfair trading. The above unfair trading is an act detrimental to the order of the capital market, thereby causing damage to ordinary investors. In light of the fact that the unfair trading is an act detrimental to the order of the capital market, and that the unfair profit accrued from the crime in which the above Defendant participated is large, a serious punishment against the above Defendant is required.

However, the above defendant, as the vice president of Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 8, was involved in each of the crimes of this case under the direction of Defendant 1, and was not in a position to independently operate the company and make decisions on each of the crimes of this case, and was not directly acquired the profit accrued from each of the unfair trading, and was not directly acquired the profit accrued from each of the unfair trading, and the fact that there was no criminal power other than sentenced to a fine once due to the drunk driving, etc., are favorable circumstances in determining the punishment against the above defendant.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the elements of sentencing, such as the above circumstances and the degree of participation by the above defendants, age, character and conduct, environment, etc.

11. Defendant 12

The above defendant 1 was aware that the defendant 1 was trying to success in capital increase and merger with the non-indicted 5 corporation by avoiding protection deposits through the borrowed-name capital increase increase, thereby enabling unfair trading by providing large amount of funds and his name. Such an act of impairing the order of the capital market and causing damage to ordinary investors is required to be properly punished. In addition, the above defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had the record of being sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million on September 5, 2001 and a fine of KRW 70 million on July 27, 2007 due to the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act.

On the other hand, Defendant 12 is only involved in the instant crime for the purpose of lending funds and acquiring interest, and it does not contribute to the establishment of the overall crime plan by Defendant 1 or obtain by himself the difference in the value of the new stocks through the avoidance of protection, and the extent of solicitation by the said Defendant is limited to KRW 6 billion provided by the said Defendant, etc., which is favorable for the determination of punishment against the said Defendant.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing, such as the above circumstances and the degree of participation of the above accused, the degree of benefits obtained or intended to obtain by committing the crime, age, character and conduct, environment, etc.

12. Defendant 13

The above Defendant recognized Defendant 1’s purpose and illegality in committing the crime of fraud and provided large amounts of funds and borrowed name repeatedly, thereby enabling unfair trading. Such an offense is an act that undermines the order of the capital market and causes damage to ordinary investors, and requires appropriate punishment.

On the other hand, Defendant 13 was involved in the instant crime for the purpose of lending funds and acquiring interest, and contributed to Defendant 1’s establishment of the overall criminal plan or did not directly acquire the unfair profit accrued from each unfair trading, the extent of solicitation by the above Defendant related to the acquisition and merger of Nonindicted Co. 9 and Nonindicted Co. 5 is limited to the funds provided by the above Defendant, and the primary offender without any criminal record is considered as favorable circumstances in determining punishment against the above Defendant.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing, such as the above circumstances and the degree of participation of the above accused, the degree of benefits obtained or intended to obtain by committing the crime, age, character and conduct, environment, etc.

1. Parts of each embezzlement related to the takeover of Nonindicted Co. 24 (No. 1, 95, 107-109, and No. 2, 14-20 of the crime sight table in the annexed Form No. 3, and No. 14-20)

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 and 2 conspired to use the funds of the victim non-indicted 2 corporation and non-indicted 4 corporation for a purpose unrelated to the above victim company as stated in the criminal facts of the crime in the judgment. On November 10, 2009, the funds of the victim non-indicted 2 corporation were paid to the non-indicted 24 corporation as a loan to the non-indicted 24 corporation and used to repay the claims for provisional collection against the representative director non-indicted 26, etc. The defendant 1 and 2 arbitrarily embezzled them using 3.2 billion won of the funds of the victim non-indicted 2 corporation under occupational custody as stated in the attached list 1 95,107-109, and embezzled them by using 3.2 billion won of the funds of the victim non-indicted 4 corporation as stated in the attached list 2 14-20,000 won in the attached list of crimes.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

As seen earlier, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① Around October 2009, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 26, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 2, the Nonindicted Co. 24, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 2, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 2, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 2, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 2, the Nonindicted Co. 26 agreed to jointly manage Nonindicted Co. 24 and merge with Nonindicted Co. 24 and jointly manage

② Defendant 1 participated in the name of Nonindicted Co. 27, 28, 29, and 30,000 won borrowed from Defendant 12, and acquired 50,000 shares of Nonindicted Co. 24,00,000 won.

③ Meanwhile, Defendant 1 loaned KRW 2.2 billion to Nonindicted Co. 26 on November 10, 2009, to Nonindicted Co. 24 prior to the merger. Nonindicted Co. 24 paid KRW 2.2 billion to the representative Nonindicted Co. 26 in advance of the merger, and Nonindicted Co. 26 paid KRW 2.2 billion to the above capital. Nonindicted Co. 24 paid KRW 2.2 billion to Nonindicted Co. 26 in advance of the above capital. Nonindicted Co. 24 repaid KRW 2.2 billion to Nonindicted Co. 26 on November 11, 2009.

④ On November 17, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 2 acquired Nonindicted Co. 25, a listed company. On November 18, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 25 concluded a contract with the shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 24 to acquire approximately 57% of the shares and the right of management of Nonindicted Co. 24.

⑤ In the above acceptance, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 26 agreed to exchange the shares of Nonindicted Company 24 held by the shareholders of Nonindicted Company 25, including Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 26, with BW issued by Nonindicted Company 25, and Nonindicted Company 25 agreed to exchange the shares of Nonindicted Company 25, which were held by the said shareholders, with BW and received funds from the said shareholders.

④ According to the above acceptance and swap agreement, on December 22, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 25 issued BW equivalent to KRW 10.985 billion. Nonindicted Co. 26, 31, 32, 33, and 34, Nonindicted Co. 24, the former shareholders of Nonindicted Co. 24, took over KRW 4.365 billion of the funds of Nonindicted Co. 4, as indicated in [Attachment 2] No. 14-18, as in [Attachment 2], BW 4.365 billion of the funds of Nonindicted Co. 4, as stated in [Attachment 4.365 billion won], and the Defendant took over KRW 107-109 of the attached list of crimes, and KRW 1.65 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 4, 299-200, as indicated in [Attachment 2] No. 19-2000,000 won in the name of the Defendant.

④ On December 24, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 25 acquired the shares of Nonindicted Co. 24 owned by the former shareholders, including Nonindicted Co. 26, with the price for the said BW issuance, and Defendant 1 acquired KRW 500,000,00 of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 24, which were owned by the said Nonindicted Co. 27, etc. in the name of the said Nonindicted Co. 27, etc

④ On December 24, 2009, Defendant 1 repaid the principal amount of KRW 1.62,00,000 and interest of KRW 1.625 million to Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 2 as part of the acquisition price of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 24, which was remitted from Nonindicted Co. 25 to the above Nonindicted Co. 27’s account. As part of the acquisition price of the shares transferred to Nonindicted Co. 26, Defendant 1 repaid the principal amount of KRW 4.365 million to Nonindicted Co. 4.

2) Determination

The following facts revealed by the above facts. ① The loan 2.2 billion won from November 10, 2008 to Nonindicted Co. 24 was expected to be immediately repaid from the loan to Nonindicted Co. 26, Nonindicted Co. 26, Nonindicted Co. 26, Nonindicted Co. 26, and Nonindicted Co. 24 through the process of repayment of loans. ② Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 28, 29 against the loan of December 22, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 26, 31, 32, 33, and 34, from the loan of Nonindicted Co. 24 to December 22, 2009, it is difficult to view that the loan of Nonindicted Co. 25, Nonindicted Co. 25, Nonindicted Co. 25, and Nonindicted Co. 24, in the name of the above shareholders from the loan of Nonindicted Co. 24 to the above loan of December 25, 2009.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1, 2, and 3 should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in the judgment against the Defendants related

2. On February 2, 2009, the part concerning the violation of the Capital Markets Act related to the allocation of capital increase to a third party to Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. for capital increase (Article 5)

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1, 2, 8, 9, and Nonindicted 10 obtained KRW 94,338,79, and KRW 59)’s unfair profit as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below. Defendant 1, 2, 11, 12, and 13 acquired KRW 2,613,590, 185, and KRW 3,57,928,984 in total by collusion with Defendant 1, and 2 acquired KRW 3,57,928,984 in total due to the act of illegally acquiring new shares by using a principal guarantee agreement and borrowed name as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment.

B. Determination

1) The part that Defendant 8 and 9 acquired the unjust profit of KRW 944,338,79 in collusion with Defendant 1, 2, and Nonindicted 10

A) Whether Defendant 8 and 9 participated in the previous crime on January 13, 2009 by Defendant 1, 2, and Nonindicted 10-2

A person who has participated in the crime as a co-principal in the course of an inclusive crime shall be held liable only for the crime after the participation, even though he was aware of the previous crime committed at the time of his participation in the crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do1591, May 12, 2005; 97Do163, Jun. 27, 1997, etc.).

Based on the above judgment and evidence, as stated in paragraph (5) of the crime in the judgment, ① entered into the first internal purchase agreement with Non-Indicted 10 on November 25, 2008, and entered into the second internal purchase agreement on March 3, 2009, and conducted market price manipulation and unfair trading on the shares of Non-Indicted 2. ② The price manipulation in each internal purchase agreement with Non-Indicted 10 was 94,338,79 won (first: 70,602,204, 2436,59 won) in total due to the market price manipulation in each internal purchase agreement with the above Non-Indicted 10,300,60,736,595 won, ③ Defendant 8 and 9 conspired with the above non-Indicted 10 on January 14, 2009, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the above non-indicted 10,000 won was 9,000 won prior to the above crime.

B) The unjust profit of Defendant 8 and 9

Therefore, Defendant 8 and 9 shall be liable only for the profit from market price manipulation since January 14, 2009, which was the time when the above crime was committed. As seen earlier, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10 who started around November 25, 2008 and each of the market price gains under the first-in-house purchase agreement, which began around March 3, 2009, cannot be deemed as the unfair profit acquired by Defendant 8 and 9. Since the unjust profit from transactions after January 14, 2009, which was recognized as an accomplice relation, is the unfair profit acquired by Defendant 8 and 9, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the unjust profit from transactions after November 14, 2009, which occurred after November 14, 2009, the amount of the unjust profit from the above Defendants 94,338,799, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was no other profit from Defendant 94,394,794, etc. from the above trading contract with Nonindicted 10.

2) The part on the unfair trading committed by Defendant 11, 13, or 12 in collusion with Defendant 1 and 2

A) Facts of recognition

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor is as follows: ① Defendant 1 raised a loan of KRW 1 billion from Defendant 13 in the unfair trading practices of Defendants 1 and 2; ③ Defendant 13 loaned a loan of KRW 1 billion from Defendant 13 in the name of the third party on February 2, 2009, and requested Defendant 12 to pay KRW 3 billion under the agreement to guarantee principal; and on February 3, 2009, Defendant 12 billion in the public notice of the subscription for allocation of new shares and the result of the payment on February 3, 2009 and submission of the report on the result of the occurrence of the new shares, including the fact that all of the shares of KRW 12.9 billion were recorded as if all of the shares were normal paid by ordinary investors, and ② Defendant 11 raised a loan of KRW 1 billion from Defendant 13 in the name of the third party, and Defendant 13 loaned the above amount of KRW 3 billion in the name of the new shares to KRW 3 billion in the future as collateral.

B) Whether Defendant 11, 13, and 12 conspired and contain an unfair trading on account of false description on important matters around March 3, 2009

In light of the above facts, it appears that Defendant 11 and 13 perceived that Defendant 13 loaned KRW 1 billion to Defendant 13 was aware that Defendant 1 would participate in the capital increase with the next name. Defendant 12 knew that Defendant 3 billion won was used as the capital increase with the capital increase with the capital increase with the capital increase with the capital increase, and Defendant 1 could have known that Defendant 1 would pay the capital increase with the capital increase with the name other than his own name.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 11, 13, and 12 took part in the act of reporting the status of stocks held on March 3, 2009, including stocks under the name of Nonindicted Co. 8, when Defendant 1 and 2 made a false statement or representation as if Defendant 1 was not holding at all the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 2, and sought money or other property benefits by using a false statement or representation as to material facts, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1, 13, and 12 took part in the act of reporting the status of stocks held on March 3, 2009, including the above stocks held by Defendant 1, Defendant 13, and 12, as well as the total amount of money paid for new stocks issued by Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 12, as well as the total amount of money paid for new stocks purchased from Defendant 13, and Defendant 1, as well as the total amount of money paid for new stocks issued by new stocks acquired from Defendant 12, as well as the total amount of money paid for new stocks issued.

In addition, even if Defendant 1 participated in the capital increase with the name of the borrower, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1 and 2 made a false statement in the report on the status of the shares held by Defendant 1 and 2 after one month. As seen earlier, even if Defendant 11, 12, and 13 knew or could have known that Defendant 1 would have made a false statement in the details of the borrowed shares held by Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2, the mere fact that Defendant 1 lent funds to Defendant 1 is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 was a public offering and a false statement about Defendant 1 and 2’s acts of false reporting on March 3, 2009, which was made by the above Defendants 11, 13, and 12 after the capital increase, and there is no other evidence to support the fact that Defendant 1

C) Whether Defendant 11, 13, and 12 committed a crime of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the use of an unlawful trick around February 3, 2009

Defendant 11, 13, and 12 in collusion with Defendant 1 and 2 on February 2, 2009, used unlawful tricks by creating successful appearance of capital increase with respect to the allocation of capital increase to non-indicted 2, a third party for the allocation of capital increase to a third party, as seen above, the act of using such unlawful tricks is deemed to have been completed by publicly announcing the payment of capital increase to a third party on February 2, 2009 and the result of the offering of capital increase to a third party on February 3, 2009 and submitting a report on the result of the issuance of capital increase to a third party on February 3, 2009 (this part of the facts charged against Defendant 11, 13, and 12 on March 3, 2009 is not recognized. Accordingly, according to Article 178 (1) 1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act applicable to this part of the facts charged, Defendant 1 and 2 were not subject to the enforcement of the Act on March 13, 2001, 2005.

3) The part that Defendant 1 and 2 acquired the unjust profit of KRW 3,557,928,984 in total

A. Benefits acquired by illegally acquiring new shares using a principal guarantee agreement and borrowed name with respect to capital increase;

If multiple persons jointly commit an act of unfair trade, such as manipulation of market prices, the profits accrued therefrom do not mean the profits acquired by all accomplices who have participated in the crime, but it does not mean the profits acquired by each criminal who has participated in the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4645, Dec. 14, 2007, etc.). However, the profits accrued to others who are not accomplices can not be included in the profits accrued from the violation without any reasonable ground.

In light of the above evidence, Defendant 1’s interest in KRW 1,268,351,562 (the amount of KRW 5,268,348,522 - the amount of KRW 3,99,96,960), Defendant 12’s interest in the part in which the principal was promised to guarantee and the part in which the principal was participated in the capital increase, 1,345,238,623 (the price of KRW 4,345,221,343 - the amount of KRW 2,99,982,720)’s interest in the unfair trading of KRW 4 billion from his own account. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 12’s interest in the above amount of KRW 1,345,221,343 (the price of KRW 12 sold by Defendant 19,99,982,720) cannot be included in Defendant 1’s interest in KRW 235,2381,2625.

B) Total

Therefore, the profits acquired by Defendant 1 and 2 from market price manipulation and unfair trading under Paragraph 5 of the crime committed by Defendant 1 and 2 are 2,212,690,361 in total (the profits acquired by the market price manipulation + the above KRW 1,268,351,562 in total), and there is no evidence to acknowledge the excess profits.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case against Defendant 1, 2, 8, and 9, the violation of the Capital Markets Act related to the allocation of capital increase to the third party to the non-indicted 2 corporation on February 2, 2009 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in a case where the court found Defendant 11, 13, and 12 guilty of the violation of the Capital Markets Act as stated in the above facts charged, it is not judged not guilty in the order, and the fact that the violation of the Capital Markets Act related to the allocation of capital increase to the non-indicted 2 corporation to the non-indicted 2 corporation on February 2, 2009 among the facts charged in this case against the non-indicted 1

3. On May 20, 2009, the false description and omission of material facts in the part concerning the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act relating to capital increase increase with respect to the issuance of new stocks by Nonindicted Co. 4 (Article 7)

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

No one shall commit an act of seeking money or any interest in property, by using a document containing an omission of a description or representation of any material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled, or any other description or representation, in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of stocks.

Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 to conclude a written agreement on the exercise of appraisal rights with Nonindicted 10, an agreement on guarantee of investment returns, and an investment agreement, and provided Nonindicted 10 with a promissory note issued by Nonindicted Company 2 as security, as stated in the facts of the crime set forth in the judgment. Defendant 1 and 2 notarized a monetary loan agreement.

On May 21, 2009, Nonindicted 10, who entered into the above agreement with Defendant 1, subscribed for each share of 5.4 million won in the name of Nonindicted 7’s name, and paid KRW 3,866,40,000 in the name of Nonindicted 7’s name.

As above, Nonindicted 10’s participation in capital increase with consideration was made on the condition of guaranteeing the principal and interest of Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 2, the parent company, and thus cannot be deemed as a normal capital increase with consideration. Nonindicted Company 2’s decision or fact on the provision of security or guarantee of debt of KRW 7.54 billion, which is more than 10/100 of equity capital, is 61 May 2009) and its contents should be reported to the Financial Services Commission and the Exchange until May 21, 2009, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 and 2 made a corrective report (report) on May 14, 2009 and the securities occurrence result of Nonindicted Co. 4 on May 22, 2009 (voluntary disclosure) were publicly announced as if Nonindicted Co. 7’s shares were normally acquired through capital increase in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4 through capital increase in the name of Nonindicted Co. 10, 200, even though Defendant 1 was a de facto monetary loan transaction from Nonindicted Co. 7’s name and funds borrowed from Nonindicted Co. 10, and Nonindicted Co. 4 did not normally participate in the capital increase in the name of Nonindicted Co. 7, 2009. Defendant 1 and 2 did not report on the change in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2’s principal and capital increase in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4, 750,000,000 won, and on August 14, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 1 and 750,000,000).

Ultimately, in collusion with Nonindicted 10, Defendant 1 and 2 obtained the benefit of acquiring the factory permission and preventing the de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de

B. Determination

1) Legal principles

Article 18-4 (4) 2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act, along with Article 188-4 (1) 1 of the same Act, prohibits an act of inducing misunderstanding of other persons and obtaining pecuniary benefits by means of false labelling of important matters or using documents with omission of necessary facts. The contents falsely indicated or omitted shall not only relate to important matters that may affect the judgment of investment of ordinary people, but also constitute a crime of violation of the above Article (4) of the former Securities and Exchange Act, where a defendant's intentional act about a series of objective elements of a crime of causing misunderstanding of other persons by causing misunderstanding of other persons by making a false representation of such important matters or using documents with omission of necessary facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3455, Sept. 2, 2003). Further, even if a criminal charge instituted in a criminal trial is proven by the prosecutor, and there is no doubt that the facts charged are true enough to give rise to a reasonable doubt, there is no evidence for conviction between the defendant and the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 20206Do264, etc.).

Meanwhile, Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act prohibits “an act of seeking money or other benefits on property by using a document containing a false description or representation of a material fact or an omission of a description or representation of a material fact necessary to prevent others from being misled,” and “an act of seeking money or other benefits on property by inducing others to mislead them by making false representation of a material fact or using a document containing a false description or representation of a material fact.” Although there is a difference between the phrase of Article 188-4(4)2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act that prohibits “an act of inducing others to obtain money or other benefits on property, by inducing others to mislead any other person,” it is not only an important matter that could affect the judgment of the general public, but also a series of objective elements of a crime of violation of the said Article is established by the prosecutor.

2) Determination

A) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor reveals that, when Defendant 1 and 2 filed a corrective report (report) on May 14, 2009 and the securities occurrence result (voluntary disclosure) of Nonindicted Co. 4 on May 22, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 7 (Nonindicted Co. 7) acquired the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 through the third party allocation; ② the above Defendants did not make a decision or report on the provision of security or debt guarantee of KRW 7.54 billion, which should be reported by May 21, 2009; ② Non-Indicted Co. 2’s non-Indicted Co. 4, 2000, the summary of Non-Indicted Co. 4, 2009’s annual report on Nonindicted Co. 2’s semi-Indicted Co. 1, 2009, to X 1,500,700,000,000 won (the title of Non-Indicted Co. 4, 200,6.309).

B) However, the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence: ① (i) the agreement on investment entered into between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 10 on the exercise of appraisal rights, and the agreement on guarantee of investment returns are paid in KRW 3,86,40,00 on May 20, 209 to Nonindicted Company 7 operated by Nonindicted Company 10; (ii) the stocks of Nonindicted Company 4 are acquired on the basis of the allocation of shares to a third party conducted by Nonindicted Company 4; and (iii) Nonindicted Corporation 7 is obliged to hold the said shares until October 31, 201, including the period of one-year deposit; and (iv) Nonindicted Corporation 7, for one month from November 1, 201, can be said to be the amount calculated by adding 12% per annum to the investment principal of Nonindicted Company 2; and (v) Nonindicted Company 2, as the result of Nonindicted Company 4’s purchase of shares and its disclosure of investment profits in the name of Nonindicted Company 7’s joint and several capital increase shares, the said Nonindicted Company’s right to participate in the said sale of shares.

C) In addition, the submission of a half-yearly report by Nonindicted Co. 2 on August 14, 2009 to Nonindicted Co. 2 was made on or around May 20, 209 by Nonindicted Co. 4’s participation in capital increase with new stocks of Nonindicted Co. 7 on or around July 2, 2009, and was made as a performance of the obligation to submit a half-yearly report after the registration of factory of Nonindicted Co. 4 became final and conclusive. ② There is no evidence suggesting that the omission of the contents of the security and the guarantee of obligation in the above report affects the acquisition of delivery factory permission by Nonindicted Co. 4. ③ Since there is no evidence suggesting that the Defendants were unable to make an entry of the above material fact in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2’s offering of security and the guarantee of obligation in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2, 700,000 won or more, and it is difficult to recognize that there was an omission of the above description and the guarantee of obligation by Nonindicted Co. 2 in the name of the Defendants Co.

D) Also, in light of the following: (a) Nonindicted 7’s participation in capital increase with consideration of Nonindicted 4 Company cannot be deemed as false; (b) Nonindicted 7’s participation in capital increase does not constitute “a simple investment purpose” under Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; (c) Nonindicted 147(1) of the same Act, Article 154(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Financial Supervisory Service, etc. stipulate that the purpose of holding a report on large-scale holding status of stocks should be divided into the purpose of management participation and the purpose of simple investment; and (d) Nonindicted 10 did not demand subdivided into the purpose and entry; and (e) there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, inasmuch as there is no proof of a crime, the facts charged in this part must be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but inasmuch as it is found guilty of a violation of Article 7 of the Capital Markets Act, which is a single comprehensive crime, the judgment

4. On July 13, 2009, the part of the violation of the Capital Market Act and the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act related to the exercise of borrowed name equivalent to KRW 2.2 billion (Article 10 of the Decree)

A. Summary of the facts charged

No person shall commit an act of seeking money or any interest on property by making a false description or representation of a material fact in connection with the sale and purchase or any other transaction of stocks, or use any unfair means, scheme, or trick in connection with the trading or any other transaction of stocks.

Defendant 1 took over the preemptive rights equivalent to 15.3 billion won (2,971,324, 18.99%) of the face value of the right separated from the bonds issued by Nonindicted Co. 39, Nonindicted Co. 40, and Nonindicted Co. 41 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 14, Nonindicted Co. 42, and Nonindicted Co. 23 Co. 62) with the funds of Nonindicted Co. 2, and held them again in the name of Nonindicted Co. 14, Nonindicted Co. 42, and Nonindicted Co. 23 Co. 14 on June 12, 2009.

Defendant 1, around July 2009, at the time of the shortage of operating funds for Nonindicted Co. 8, 2009, borrowed funds from the bond company and exercised preemptive rights under the name of borrowed money from the bond company to secure operating funds as funds for exercising preemptive rights, and at the same time to avoid reporting on the holding of stocks held by Nonindicted Co. 14 in accordance with

Defendant 1 loaned 2.2 billion won to Defendant 13 through Defendant 11, Defendant 1 offered that Defendant 13 be provided as security for borrowed 2.2 billion won with operating funds by exercising preemptive rights, and Defendant 13 consented to the payment of new stocks as security for borrowed 2.2 billion won under the name of himself and Nonindicted 15, on condition that Defendant 13 would exercise the above preemptive rights and receive the same as security for borrowed 2.2 billion won, and Defendant 1 prepared a false “contract for acquisition of security rights for preemptive rights” with the content that Nonindicted 14 Company sold a set to Nonindicted 15.

On July 13, 2009, Defendant 13 paid 2.2 billion won in the name of himself and Nonindicted 15 to Nonindicted Company 8 with the fund for exercising preemptive rights, and was allocated 440,440 shares as the fund for exercising preemptive rights.

In fact, Defendant 1 reported the stock holding situation in the name of Nonindicted Co. 14 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 14 on July 20, 2009, and publicly announced that Nonindicted Co. 8’s shares held by Nonindicted Co. 14 were reduced from 18.9% to 16.71%, as seen above, around July 2009, Defendant 1 made a false indication.

around August 11, 2009, Defendant 1 notified Defendant 13 of the sale of the above 440,440 shares to Defendant 13 through Defendant 11, and Defendant 13 sold the entire quantity in the market.

As a result, Defendant 1, 11, and 13 committed an act in collusion to make a false statement or representation of a material fact in connection with the sale and purchase of shares and other transactions, thereby seeking money or other economic benefits, and using an unlawful trick by making the appearance that the preemptive right seems to be ordinarily exercised by a small investor.

B. Determination

1) Article 178(1)2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act prohibits “an act of seeking money or any interest in property by using a document containing a false description or representation of a material fact or an omission of a description or representation of a material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled,” and Article 178(1)2 of the said Act prohibits “an act of seeking money or any interest in property by using a document containing a false description or representation of a material fact or an omission of a description or representation of a material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled.” In addition, the content of a false or omitted description or omission must be related to a material fact that may affect ordinary people’s judgment on investment. Moreover, the Defendant’s intention of a series of objective constituent elements in order to obtain financial benefits by using a document containing a false description

2) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor reveals that: (a) Defendant 1 acquired the preemptive right (2,971,324, 18.99%) equivalent to KRW 15.3 billion against Nonindicted Co. 8 with the funds of Nonindicted Co. 14; (b) Defendant 1 and 11 concluded a loan agreement with Defendant 13 to secure operating funds of Nonindicted Co. 8 by exercising part of the above preemptive right; (c) Defendant 1 and 2.2 billion won from Defendant 13 to Defendant 13; (d) Defendant 1 agreed to offer the new stocks to be issued as security for the above loan; (e) Nonindicted Co. 14 Co. 13 and Nonindicted Co. 14 Co. 14 to Defendant 13 in the process of selling the new stocks to Nonindicted Co. 13, 2009; and (e) Nonindicted Co. 14 Co. 3’s order to sell the new stocks to Nonindicted Co. 140,4400 million in its name; and (e) Defendant 13, Defendant 201484 billion won in its name.

3) However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, i.e., (i) the contents disclosed according to Defendant 1’s above report on the holding of shares in Nonindicted 8 Co., Ltd., owned by Nonindicted 14 Co., Ltd., are only the contents that the shares in Nonindicted 18.99% to 16.71% and 2.28%, and (ii) the largest shareholder of Nonindicted 8 Co., Ltd, published at the time, is Nonindicted 13 Co., Ltd., holding 14 and 13.67% of shares with 18.9% of shares, and the foregoing facts and evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone do not constitute a change in the largest shareholder or major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 8 due to the decrease in the shares in Nonindicted Co. 14 Co., Ltd., it is insufficient to recognize that the above contents of the disclosure were an important matter

Furthermore, the following circumstances revealed through the evidence revealed: ① (a) Defendant 1 offered new stocks by means of acquiring them directly by Defendant 13, thereby saving interest on the loan; and (b) allowed Defendant 13 to exercise the preemptive right for the purpose of repeatedly disclosing the sale of the new stocks only once to avoid exercising the preemptive right and repeatedly disclosing the sale of the new stocks; (c) Defendant 1’s disclosure that the shares of Nonindicted 14 were reduced is merely a public announcement of the sale of the preemptive right owned by Nonindicted 14 to Defendant 13 in formality for the purpose of offering the above security; (d) it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 intended to mislead ordinary investors or acquire pecuniary benefits by actively publicly announcing the decrease in shares of Nonindicted 14; and (e) in light of the purpose of borrowing funds, new stocks sales, and settlement process, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 exercised the preemptive right in the name of Nonindicted 14 corporation, even if it appears that Defendant 1 sold the new stocks to Nonindicted 14 corporation, thereby making it difficult to view that it had any significant impact on Nonindicted 14 corporation’s property interest after selling the new stocks.

4) In addition, in order to raise funds for the exercise of preemptive rights by paying out KRW 2.2 billion, Defendant 1’s borrowing KRW 2.2 billion from Defendant 13 in order to directly secure Defendant 13, and selling the preemptive rights owned by Nonindicted Company 14 to Defendant 13 and allowing Defendant 13 to exercise them. It does not appear to have had any intention to deceive ordinary investors or gain profits from such act by actively forming a false appearance. ② It is difficult to view that the exercise of preemptive rights in the name of Nonindicted Company 14 and the exercise of preemptive rights in the name of Defendant 13 and Nonindicted Company 15 have any special meaning with regard to the third party. ③ It is difficult to view that Defendant 13’s exercise of preemptive rights in the name of Defendant 13 and Nonindicted Company 15 are merely 8.2.28% of shares in the name of Nonindicted Company 8, and there is no other evidence that the Defendants’ exercise of preemptive rights in the name of the said Defendants’ exercise of such rights without having any particular effect on the investment judgment by the said Defendants 13 and Nonindicted Company 14.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case against Defendant 1, 11, and 13, the charge of violation of the Capital Markets Act regarding the exercise of borrowed name equivalent to KRW 2.2 billion on July 13, 2009, among the facts charged in this case against Defendant 1, 11, and 13, constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of

5. On October 26, 2009, the part of the violation of the Capital Markets Act in the course of the merger between Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 9 (Article 11)

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10 conspired with Nonindicted 10 to engage in the same market price manipulation as stated in the facts constituting a crime as stated in paragraph (11) of the same Article and to reduce the exercise size of appraisal rights from approximately KRW 1,181,187,37,622 (the purchase cost of shares 9,040,901,457) to KRW 4,925,697,622 (the purchase cost of shares 9,040,901,457) - The purchase cost of shares - KRW 4,115,203,835 KRW 63), and Defendant 1,2, and 13 conspired with Nonindicted 10 to make an unfair trading as described in paragraph (11) of the same Article and thereby to make a listed sale on November 7, 2009, Nonindicted 86,84,497,497,497,964,97,96969.

B. Determination

1) The part that Defendant 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10 acquired unjust profits in collusion with Nonindicted 10 in order to obtain unjust profits of KRW 4,925,697,622

A) Legal principles

The term "profit accrued from a violation" under the proviso of Article 207-2 (1) and (2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act refers to the profit accrued from the violation in question, i.e., the gross income accrued from the violation, which is the difference between the profit accrued from the violation and the gross income accrued from the transaction and the total expenses incurred from the transaction. Therefore, the profit accrued from the actual transaction refers to the net trading profit remaining after deducting the purchase commission, sales commission, and transaction expenses, etc. for the transaction from the total sales amount related to the actual transaction, in addition to the total purchase amount. The calculation of the profit refers to both the profit accrued from the specific transaction after the commencement of the market price manipulation and the appraised profit of the stock subject to the market price manipulation which were held at the time of the completion of the market price manipulation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do444, Mar. 24, 2005). The former legal principle related to the former Securities and Exchange Act applies to the interpretation of Article 443 (1) proviso and (2) of the Capital Markets Act.

B) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the illegal profits from the pertinent market price manipulation should also be calculated based on the Defendants’ net trading profits through the market price manipulation, and it cannot be calculated based on the profits from the decrease in the exercise of appraisal rights, which are indirectly accrued due to the Defendants’ market price manipulation. There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was the above profit margin due to the Defendants’ market price manipulation.

In addition, even if the above indirect profit should be included in the defendants' unfair profit, it is unreasonable to calculate the amount of profit from the violation under the assumption that the actual exercise of the right to purchase was not determined, since the above indirect profit should be included in the defendants' unfair profit; ① in the event of exercising the right to purchase the shares, the amount equivalent to the market price of the shares should be deducted from loss; ② in the case of exercising the right to purchase the shares, it is difficult to view that the defendants have gains all the amount equivalent to the amount not exercising the right to purchase; ② even if the defendant 1 received from the Korea Securities Depository a notice of opposing opinion of the board of directors' resolution, it is difficult to determine the amount of profit from the violation under the assumption that the funds of the non-indicted 8 corporation were not paid to the shareholders by giving up the right to purchase the shares; ③ in light of the fact that the non-indicted 8 corporation, who is the person liable to pay payment due to the exercise of the right to purchase the shares, there is no evidence to acknowledge the difference between the amount and the actual exercise price of the appraisal right.

2) The part that Defendant 13 acquired the unfair profit of KRW 1,323,498,540 in collusion with Defendant 1, 2, or 11

A) The scope of Defendant 13’s public offering

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier: (a) the unfair trading through Defendant 13 and the remaining unfair trading by Defendant 1 et al. cannot be deemed as indivisible; (b) Defendant 13 did not have participated in the establishment of a overall crime plan, such as the avoidance of protection deposits through false statement on the shares in the borrowed name acquisition and protection; (c) it is difficult to deem Defendant 13 to have known that Defendant 1 used the borrowed name and publicly announced the portion of the secured revenues; (d) Defendant 13 was aware only of the funds it lent to Defendant 13; and (e) Defendant 13 was also aware of the fact that the funds it lent to Defendant 1 were acquired in the name of the borrowed name; and (e) whether the funds it lent to Defendant 1 occupy the share ratio of the total shares (5230 pages) and that there was no evidence that Defendant 13 took part in the crime as seen earlier.

B) The unjust profit of Defendant 13

Defendant 13 is liable only for fraudulent unfair trading through his own funds and the name of his accomplice. As such, as seen in the above part 10.3 A. d., the profits acquired by Defendant 13 shall be limited to KRW 837,274,540, which is the profits derived from the above crime part, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above defendant acquired the unjust profits in excess of the above part.

3) The part that Defendant 1 and 2 acquired the unjust profit of KRW 6,249,196,162 in total

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence, namely, ① the Defendants agreed to increase their equity capital by combining unlisted companies to prevent the risk of designating the items of management pursuant to cumulative losses of Nonindicted Co. 8; ② the Defendants acquired Nonindicted Co. 9 on July 29, 2009, and used the borrowed name in the process of acquisition for the purpose of avoiding the amount of protection for acquiring funds; on August 26, 2009, the Defendants’ act of acquiring stocks acquired by Nonindicted Co. 8 Co. 6 on the basis of the following facts: (a) the number of shares acquired by Nonindicted Co. 9 was stated in the judgment of the court below; (b) the number of shares acquired by Nonindicted Co. 6 after the merger on Oct. 26, 2009, and the number of shares acquired by Nonindicted Co. 8 Co. 1 was also stated in the list of shares acquired by Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 1 and the number of shares protected by Nonindicted Co. 8’s shares acquired by Nonindicted Co. 1 through the aforementioned merger.

Therefore, the profits acquired by Defendant 1 and 2 shall be calculated by comprehensively taking account of all the trades constituting a single comprehensive crime. As seen earlier, as to the profits accrued from unfair trading through false entries in the name acquisition and protection interests of Nonindicted Co. 9, the Defendants, as seen earlier, KRW 1,323,498,540, and as to the market price manipulation of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 8, it is difficult to ascertain whether the profits accrued or losses incurred therefrom, and the amount cannot be calculated. Accordingly, the sum of these profits cannot be calculated in entirety due to the violation of this part of the said Defendants’ Capital Markets Act, and there is no evidence to prove that the said Defendants obtained the profits of KRW 6,249,196,162 as stated in the facts charged.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, the above facts charged against Defendant 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, and 13 fall under a case where there is no proof of criminal facts and thus should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that Defendant 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, and 13 was guilty

6. Part on the fraudulent illegal transactions in the course of the merger between Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 5 Company on December 29, 2009 (Article 12 of the Public Prosecution Act)

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1, through Defendant 7 on September 27, 2009, intended to acquire Nonindicted Co. 5 and to merge with Nonindicted Co. 8 after offering new shares for capital increase. If Nonindicted Co. 5’s third party’s share for capital increase, Defendant 1 would participate in the new shares for capital increase and to merge with Nonindicted Co. 5’s third party’s share for capital increase and offer new shares for the security of a merger that avoided the provision on the restriction on sale by receiving a merger with Nonindicted Co. 8’s name. Defendant 4 consented to the payment of interest at the rate of 5% per month on September 27, 2009, on condition that Defendant 2 would receive interest at the rate of 5% per month (number 3 omitted), (number 4), (number 850 million won on September 28, 2009) (number 4 omitted), and then lent the name of Nonindicted Co. 52 and 53’s name after being offered as security.

Defendant 2 used the above one billion won to pay 500,000,000 won (40,000 won) in Nonindicted 53’s name and 500,000,000 won (40,000 shares) in Nonindicted 52’s name, and was allocated a total of 80,000 shares.

In addition, Defendant 1, 11, 2, 7, 13, 12, 4, 5, and 6 acquired the unjust enrichment of KRW 8,281, 883, 155 by using unlawful means, schemes, or tricks in relation to the sale and other transactions of financial investment instruments by making false entry of the number of shares acquired and the number of shares to be protected by Nonindicted Co. 5, a non-indicted 13, a non-indicted 13, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, and by using a false entry of the number of shares acquired and the number of shares to be protected by Nonindicted Co. 5, a non-indicted 13, as indicated in paragraph (12) of the crime in the judgment.

B. Determination

1) The part concerning fraudulent fraudulent transactions caused by the borrowing of funds through Defendant 4 and 7 and the participation in the borrowed name offering of new stocks

A) Facts of recognition

Based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, ① a contract for the acquisition of new shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 (Evidence No. 5537 pages) was concluded between Defendant 4 and Nonindicted Co. 5 on September 28, 2009; ② the above contract for the acquisition of new shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 (Evidence No. 5537 pages); ② “Defendant 4 shall subscribe to new shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 5. The above contract for the acquisition of new shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 shall guarantee the final profit. The amount of 20% of the total amount of investment shall be fixed, and Nonindicted Co. 5 shall be paid in installments to Defendant 4 on 28th of each month. The period of investment shall be 10% from the date of the payment of the share price. The fixed profit from five months shall be 10%. When the merger with Nonindicted Co. 8 is delayed for five months or more, 50% of the total amount of investment should be added to the total amount of investment, and the fact that Nonindicted Co. 5 and joint guarantor provided KRW 2504, Defendant Co.

B) Defendant 4’s assertion

Defendant 4 was solicited from Defendant 7 to make an investment in capital increase with new shares issued by Nonindicted 5 and invested in KRW 1 billion, and there was no fact of lending KRW 1 billion as shown in the facts charged.

C) Determination

(1) Based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the following can be acknowledged: (a) Defendant 1 stated that the investigative agency borrowed KRW 1 billion; and (b) Defendant 7 also stated that Defendant 4 lent KRW 1 billion by means of loan rather than investment; (c) Defendant 2 stated the details of shares issued by Nonindicted Incorporated Company 5 (No. 8/4765 of the evidence record) to the investigative agency as “the president (or Defendant 4) 10 (loan)”; and (c) Defendant 1 paid KRW 50,000,000,000 to Defendant 4 based on the new shares acquisition agreement concluded between Nonindicted Incorporated Company 5 and Defendant 4 for a certain period.

(2) On the other hand, unlike the loan of new shares from Defendant 5 and 6, the following facts were revealed by the above evidence, namely, ① the loan of the above new shares from Defendant 1, the new shares acquisition contract was prepared with the effect of Defendant 4 to acquire 80,000 shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 5; ② Defendant 7 recommended Defendant 4 to participate in the loan of the new shares first at this court; Defendant 4 guaranteed 20 billion won of investment instead of investing KRW 1 billion; Defendant 8 and Defendant 4 stated that the above loan of the new shares was executed by Nonindicted Co. 4 at the time of the above disposal of the new shares; Defendant 1 stated that the above loan of the new shares was executed by Nonindicted Co. 5 and Nonindicted Co. 5, as stated in the agreement, and Defendant 1 stated that the above loan of the new shares was executed by Nonindicted Co. 4 at the time of the above disposal of the new shares; Defendant 70 billion won of investment principal and the above fixed amount of interest; and Defendant 1 stated that the above agreement was made by the board of directors.

(3) Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, the part that Defendant 1, 2, and 11 borrowed KRW 1 billion from Defendant 4 through Defendant 7 and paid 1 billion in the name of the borrower, and that Defendant 7 and 4 made fraudulent fraudulent transactions by stating that the amount of the protected balance was false, and the part that Defendant 7 and 4 conspiredd to and conspired with it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

2) The part that Defendant 1, 11, 2, 7, 13, 12, 4, 5 and 6 conspired to acquire the unjust profit of KRW 8,281, 883,15

A) Whether Defendant 7 and 4 conspired and conspired with Defendant 1, 2, and 11 to commit the remaining crimes

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed as follows: ① Defendant 7 was proposed to serve as representative director of Nonindicted Co. 5 on September 28, 2009 after being registered as representative director on September 29, 2009; Defendant 7 began to serve as representative director on or after October 3, 2009; and Defendant 1 did not recognize that Defendant 7 and 4 did not otherwise have any other evidence to acknowledge the remainder of Defendant 1 as to the remainder of the subscription money and the remainder of the subscription money for new shares issued on September 28, 2009; ② Defendant 7 and 4 did not appear to have participated in the establishment of a criminal plan to commit the following crimes: (a) Defendant 1 did not recognize the remainder of the subscription money for new shares issued on or after September 28, 2009; and (b) Defendant 1 did not recognize that Defendant 7 and 4 did not have any other evidence to acknowledge the remainder of the subscription money for new shares issued.

B) The unjust profit of Defendant 1, 2, and 11

As seen earlier, Defendant 1, etc. acquitted Defendant 5 of the part on the part that he borrowed KRW 1 billion from Defendant 4 and paid the capital increase for new shares with the name of Nonindicted Co. 5 and made false entry of the amount of the protected balance on the part that he made fraudulent illegal transactions. From 8,281,883,155, which is the sum of the profits charged against the above Defendants, KRW 482,840,540, which is the profits accrued in relation to the amount of KRW 1 billion provided by Defendant 4 [the amount of KRW 496,764, the appraised value of KRW 1,482,840,540 (based on KRW 2,985, Jan. 14, 2010, which is the day prior to the listing of new shares for Nonindicted Co. 8’s merger)], there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above Defendants acquired the above amount of profits exceeding KRW 1,482,840,540, supra.

C) The scope of each public offering and unfair profit of Defendant 13, 12, 5, and 6

1) The scope of each defendant's invitation

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that each of the above Defendants was aware that the Defendants used the following name and publicly announced the remainder of the acquisition fund and the fund for capital increase with capital increase with consideration, and that the remaining unfair trading by Defendant 1, etc. cannot be deemed as indivisible; ② Defendant 13, 12, 5, and 6 did not specifically participate in the establishment of the overall criminal act, such as the acquisition of borrowed name Co., Ltd. by Defendant 5, Defendant 1, etc.; ② Defendant 1 did not appear to have used the borrowed name and publicly announced the borrowed name to use the borrowed name and the fund for capital increase with consideration, other than the funds that the Defendants lent to each of the above Defendants, as recognized earlier; and there is no evidence to support that Defendants 13, 12, 5, and 6 did not directly constitute a conspiracy for the entire criminal act, solely on the grounds that the Defendants participated in some of the criminal acts as seen earlier.

2) Unfair interests of each defendant

The above defendants are liable only for the fraudulent unfair trading through their own funds and the name of the co-offender. As seen in paragraph (11) of the aforementioned part of the judgment on the issues, the profits acquired by defendants 13, 12, 5, and 6 shall be limited to the profits (Defendant 13: 1,689,942,37 won, Defendant 12: 2,897,043, 240 won, Defendant 5:241, 423, 255 won, Defendant 6: 193,134,425 won, and 425 won), and there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the above defendants acquired the unfair trading exceeding the above amount.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case against Defendant 4 and the facts charged against Defendant 7 on December 29, 2009, the violation of the Capital Markets Act due to the fraudulent transaction in the process of the merger between Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 5 on December 29, 2009 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. On December 29, 2009, as to Defendant 1, 11, 2, 13, 12, 12, 5, and 6 on December 29, 2009, the facts of violation of the Capital Markets Act due to the fraudulent transaction in the process of the merger between Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 5 on December 29, 2009 should not be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Han-hee (Presiding Judge)

(1) Of approximately 14.4 billion won of the total acquisition price, around KRW 100 million was paid as part of the equity capital, and KRW 4 billion was paid as part of the loan received from the Es Savings Bank. By December 2, 2008, Nonindicted Co. 65, the transferor, paid the intermediate payment and the balance 12 billion won to Nonindicted Co. 65, the transferor, but at least KRW 6 billion was unpaid as of December 2009.

2) Of approximately KRW 59.1 billion of the total acquisition price, KRW 6.6 billion of equity capital, KRW 21 billion of the remaining KRW 52.5 billion from Nonindicted Incorporated Company 66 (Nonindicted Company 67), KRW 6 billion from Nonindicted Incorporated Company 5.4 (Defendant 12), KRW 3 billion from Defendant 4, and KRW 6.6 billion from Nonindicted Incorporated Savings Bank. KRW 16.5 billion was raised by issuing bonds with warrants (BW) in an amount equivalent to KRW 11 billion to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 4.1 billion, KRW 5 billion to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 39, and KRW 6.8 with warrant (BW) in an amount equivalent to KRW 5.5 billion to Nonindicted Incorporated Company 39, and KRW 5 billion to Nonindicted Incorporated 68.

Note 3) Of approximately KRW 2.6 billion of the total acquisition price, KRW 1.25 million funds for Nonindicted Co. 8 and the remainder KRW 1.355 million loans from the Loan Company △△△△△△△△ (Defendant 13).

4) Of approximately 8.1 billion won of total acquisition price, 5 billion won was borrowed from the Savings Bank. 1.9 billion won was the funds of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2, and 1.5 billion won was the funds of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 4.

Note 5) Of approximately KRW 6 billion in total acquisition amount, KRW 5 billion in principal’s capital and KRW 1 billion in total borrowed from Nonindicted Incorporated Company 69

Note 6) The amount of KRW 5 billion out of approximately KRW 6 billion of the total acquisition amount of KRW 6 billion borrowed from Nonindicted Co. 69.

Note 7) The amount of KRW 500 million out of the total subscription price of KRW 8.62 million, the amount of KRW 5 billion borrowed from the new saving bank, and the remaining KRW 3.122 million, the amount of KRW 3.1220,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

Note 8) Nos. 3, 55, and 68 are omitted. Total 108 times

9) It is the fact that a blank check issued on April 6, 2009 was recovered and kept, and was re-issued in 3 billion won per unit.

Note 10) On February 2, 2009, the number of shares issued in blank has been recovered and re-issued again.

Note 11) The facts charged are as follows: (a) in the process that the Defendants borrowed KRW 1 billion from Defendant 4 to pay the capital increase under the name of Nonindicted 53 and Nonindicted 52; and (b) requested Defendant 4 to grant a loan of KRW 1 billion, the Defendants offered Nonindicted 2 Co. 2’s political shares and the promissory notes of Nonindicted Co. 8’s company as security; (c) however, it is deemed that there is no risk of actual disadvantage to the Defendants’ exercise of their defense rights, and

Note 12) It is that a blank check issued on April 6, 2009 was recovered and stored and re-issued in 3 billion won per unit.

Note 13) The fact that the list of shares issued on February 2, 2009 was recovered and stored and re-issued while it was re-issued.

Note 14) The content of the proposal is that “The person who is a de facto major shareholder and a joint and several sureties who is a management right holder (referring to Defendant 1 in accordance with the proposal content) shall provide one’s own guarantee and security in advance and purchase treasury stocks using the stock purchase fund.” The content of the proposal is that “The investor shall guarantee an adequate amount of profit to investors, take over the sales volume of small-sum investors in the country or at the same time and outside time with Blocks, thereby delaying the decline of the price, and shall prepare an investment return guarantee agreement, surplus investment return guarantee agreement, etc. for the purpose of

Note 15) The content of the “Agreement on Guarantee of Return of Investment” is as follows: “The investment period shall be until February 25, 2009 (three months); the joint guarantor shall purchase shares by paying the purchase price; the joint guarantor shall guarantee the investor the recovery of the principal amount of KRW 2 billion in return for investment equivalent to at least 10% of the total amount invested; and the joint guarantor shall guarantee the amount of KRW 200 million in return for investment equivalent to at least 10% of the total amount invested; “If the company’s stock price has fallen below the security condition, the joint guarantor shall immediately deposit the shortage in cash or stocks; “The joint guarantor shall not participate in the management as an investor for simple investment purpose; and upon the request of the joint guarantor, the exercise of the general meeting of shareholders may be delegated to the joint guarantor.”

Note 16) The content of the “Agreement on Disposal of Return on Surplus Investment” is that “All gains exceeding 115% of the guaranteed profits shall be refunded to a joint guarantor after deducting various expenses, etc.

Note 17) The content of the “notarial deed of monetary loan for consumption” is that “Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 are liable to Nonindicted Co. 10 to the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 61, the creditor, for a debt of KRW 3.3 billion.”

Note 18) The shares allocated under the names of Nonindicted 80, Nonindicted 79, and Nonindicted 74 are changed to the name of Nonindicted 81 (the head of Nonindicted 8 Company), Defendant 3 (the director of Nonindicted 4 Company), and Nonindicted 82 (the director of Nonindicted 8 Company) on February 12, 209, the date of listing shares issued with capital increase.

Note 19) The content of the “Agreement on Guarantee of Investment Profits” is as follows: “The investment period shall be up to June 3, 2009 (three months) and the joint guarantor shall purchase shares by paying the purchase price, guarantee the recovery of the principal amount of KRW 3 billion to investors in selling shares within a fixed time in the market, and guarantee the amount of KRW 300 million investment profits equivalent to at least 10% of the total investment amount,” “joint guarantor shall submit in advance the cash equivalent to at least 3.3% of the investment amount,” “if the company’s stock price falls below the security condition, the joint guarantor shall deposit the shortage in cash or stocks immediately; “Investment shall not participate in the management as an investor for simple investment purpose; and at the request of the joint guarantor, the exercise of the general meeting of shareholders may be delegated to the joint guarantor.”

Note 20) The content of the “Agreement on Disposal of Return on Surplus Investment” is that “All gains exceeding 115% of the guaranteed profits shall be refunded to a joint guarantor after deducting various expenses, etc.

Note 21) The content of the “notarial deed of monetary loan for consumption” is that “Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 are liable to borrow KRW 4.95 million to Nonindicted Co. 10,000 to Nonindicted Co. 10, a creditor Nonindicted Co. 61.”

Note 22) 656,480 shares purchased and sold in accordance with the agreement on the guarantee of investment returns dated November 25, 2008

Note 23) (The price of KRW 2,664,265,714 - the purchased price of KRW 1,963,63,510) + (the price of KRW 3,243,730,820 - the purchased price of KRW 2,99,94,225 won on November 25, 2008 pursuant to the Guarantee of Investment Return Agreement) + (the price of KRW 3,243,730,820 on March 3, 2009) Sale price of KRW 2,99,94,225) reflects taxes and public charges, such as fees.

Note 24) 5,268,348,522 - Loan 3,99,996,960 won

Note 25) The content of the proposal is that “The person who is a de facto major shareholder and a joint and several sureties who is a management right holder (referring to Defendant 1 in accordance with the proposal content) shall provide one’s own guarantee and security in advance and purchase treasury stocks using the stock purchase fund.” The content of the proposal is that “The investor shall guarantee an adequate amount of profit to investors, take over the sales volume of small-sum investors inside or outside the country, take over the sales volume of small-sum investors with Blocks during and outside the hours, thereby delaying the decline of the price, and shall prepare an investment return guarantee agreement, surplus investment

Note 26) The content of the “Agreement on Guarantee of Investment Profits” is that “The investment period shall be up to July 3, 2009 (one month) and the joint guarantor shall purchase shares by paying the purchase price to investors, guarantee the recovery of the principal amount of KRW 600 million to investors in selling shares within a fixed time, and guarantee the amount of KRW 20 million investment returns equivalent to at least 3.34% of the total investment amount,” “joint guarantor shall submit in advance the cash equivalent to at least 3.3% of the investment amount,” “if the company’s stock price falls below the conditions of security, the joint guarantor shall deposit the shortage in cash or stocks immediately; “Investment shall not participate in the management as an investor for simple investment purpose; and at the request of the joint guarantor, the exercise of the general meeting of shareholders may be delegated to the joint guarantor.”

Note 27) The content of the “Agreement on Disposal of Return on Surplus Investment” is that “All gains exceeding 115% of the guaranteed profits shall be refunded to a joint guarantor after deducting various expenses, etc.

Note 28) The content of the “notarial deed of monetary loan for consumption” is that “Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 are liable to borrow KRW 931 million to Nonindicted Co. 10, the creditor Nonindicted Co. 61, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 61, the creditor.”

Note 29) The exerciseer of the right is Nonindicted Co. 7, the person performing the duty to perform the duty is Nonindicted Co. 2 (Representative Director) and the issuing company is Nonindicted Co. 4 (Representative Director, Nonindicted Co. 84, and Nonindicted Co. 75). “The exerciseer’s right to underwrite new shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 and sell new shares of Nonindicted Co. 2 to Nonindicted Co. 7 who has the exerciseer’s right to recover the principal and interest of the investment, and Nonindicted Co. 7 grants the right to recover the principal and interest of the investment to Nonindicted Co. 2 who has exercised the right to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty to perform the duty, Nonindicted Co. 7 pays 85% of the excess interest to Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd., and Nonindicted Co. 7 continues to hold new shares until Oct. 31, 2011. The exercise period of the appraisal right is for the period from Nov. 1, 2011 to pay the purchase price [the total amount paid 3,8600,000 won per annum];

(30) The contents of the “Agreement on Guarantee of Investment Profits” are as follows: “The investment period shall be until November 21, 201 (2 years and six months); the joint guarantor shall guarantee to investors the recovery of the principal amount of 386,64 million won in the event that the investors pay the acquisition price of stocks and sell stocks in the market at the fixed time after receiving new stocks; as well as to guarantee investment returns equivalent to at least 30 million won of the total amount of investment; and the joint guarantor shall deposit the shortage of security in cash or stocks immediately if the company’s stock price has lowered below the conditions of security; “Investment shall not participate in management as an investor for simple investment purpose; and upon the request of a joint guarantor, the exercise of the voting rights at the general meeting of shareholders may be delegated to the joint guarantor.”

Note 31) The term of protection deposit can be put to place option at 112% on the expiration date when the proceeds from sale of the total quantity of shares that an investor acquired, and the proceeds from sale of the shares of the total quantity that the investor acquired, are less than 112% on the principal amount. In the event that the total proceeds from sale exceed 112% of the principal amount, the guarantor may exercise the call option at an amount exceeding 15% on the expiration date, and the content that the guarantor and cash settlement are made with respect to surplus earnings.

Note 32) The debtor is Nonindicted Co. 2, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 84, and creditors are Nonindicted Co. 61. The creditor on May 20, 2009 lent KRW 7.54 billion to the debtor on May 20, 2009, and the due date on November 21, 201.

Note 33) 491,32,885 Won - Purchase Price 453,532,630 won

34) Even if the subject of household accounting is Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 6 also constitutes a specially related person, since Nonindicted Co. 2 exercises de facto influence over important matters of management, such as appointment and dismissal of executive officers, through Defendant 1, the representative director, etc.

Note 35) 225,809,133 - Purchase Price 200,000,000

36) According to Article 28(1)3 of the KOSDAQ Market Listing Regulations, a business loss prior to the reduction of corporate tax costs (limited to the case of at least one billion won) exceeding 50/100 of its equity capital in the second business year of the previous three business years, and a business loss prior to the reduction of corporate tax costs for the recent business year is designated as a management issue.

37) According to Article 23(1)1 of the KOSDAQ Market Listing Regulations, where a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ market merges with a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ market, the largest shareholder, etc. shall continue to hold stocks for two years (one year in the case of a merger under Article 19-4 (2)) from the date of the merger: Provided, That where one year (six months in the case of a merger under Article 19-4 (2)) has passed from the date of the merger, the portion equivalent to 5/100 of the stocks initially owned may be sold up to every one month.”

Note 38) Amount obtained by deducting the principal and interest obligation against Defendant 13 from the proceeds of sale

Note 39) The content of the proposal is that “The person who is a de facto major shareholder and a joint and several sureties who is a management right holder (referring to Defendant 1 in accordance with the proposal content) shall provide one’s own guarantee and security in advance and purchase treasury stocks using the stock purchase fund.” The content of the proposal is that “The investor shall guarantee an adequate amount of profit to investors, take over the sales volume of small-sum investors in the country or in concurrent and outside a hours, thereby delaying the decline of the price, and shall prepare an investment return guarantee agreement, surplus investment return guarantee agreement, etc. for the purpose of stabilizing the market.”

Note 40) The content of the “Agreement on Guarantee of Return of Investment” is as follows: “The investment period shall be until January 6, 2010 (three months); the joint guarantor shall purchase the shares by paying the purchase price; guarantee the recovery of the principal amount of KRW 3 billion to investors in selling the shares within the specified time; and guarantee the amount of KRW 300 million in investment profits equivalent to at least 10% of the total investment amount; and the joint guarantor shall submit in advance the cash equivalent to at least 3.3% of the investment amount; “If the company’s stock price has fallen below the security condition, the joint guarantor shall deposit the shortage in cash or stocks immediately; “The joint guarantor shall not participate in the management as an investor for simple investment purpose; and upon the request of the joint guarantor, the exercise of the general meeting of shareholders may be delegated to the joint guarantor.”

Note 41) The content of the “Agreement on Disposal of Return on Surplus Investment” is that “All gains exceeding 115% of the guaranteed profits shall be refunded to a joint guarantor after deducting various expenses, etc.

Note 42) The content of the “notarial deed of monetary loan for consumption” is that “Defendant 1, Nonindicted 8, Defendant 7, and Nonindicted 5 are liable for a debt of KRW 4.95 million to Nonindicted 10 million to the representative director of Nonindicted 61, the creditor, Nonindicted 61, the creditor.”

Note 43) 98,699's value of 3,45,498,540 won calculated on November 6, 2009 based on the closing price of 3,460 won - KRW 2,132,000's acquisition price of non-indicted 9 Co., Ltd. 1,312,00's shares of non-indicted 9 Co., Ltd.

Note 44) Defendant 13’s funds and borrowed account (the amount assessed on the 631,799 share of the merged shares that was allocated to Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 46, and Nonindicted 47) - KRW 2,186,024,540 (based on the closing price of KRW 3,460, Nov. 6, 2009, the day before the listing of new shares for the merger of Nonindicted 8 Stock Companies) - KRW 1,348,750,00 for the old share acquisition price of Nonindicted 9 Stock Company

Note 45) The amount of unfair profit accrued from market price manipulation + the appraised profit accrued from the listing of new stocks through the merger + KRW 1,323,498,540

46) According to Article 23(1)1 of the KOSDAQ Market Listing Regulations, where a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ market merges with a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ market, the largest shareholder, etc. shall continue to hold the stocks for two years (one year in the case of a merger under Article 19-4 (2)) from the date of the merger: Provided, That where one year (six months in the case of a merger under Article 19-4 (2)) has passed from the date of the merger (six months in the case of a merger under Article 19-4 (2)), the portion equivalent to 5/100 of the stocks

Note 47) Amount obtained by deducting the principal and interest obligation of the debt borrowed from the bond company from the proceeds of sale. Defendant 1 explained that at the time of borrowing the funds, the value of the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 8 Co., Ltd. to be merged to the bond company was at least 1.8 times the value of the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 5 Co., Ltd. at the time of the merger. Defendant 1 determined that even if interest expenses are deducted from the total of 80% profits, it would be at least 60% profits, and the amount converted into the amount reaches KRW 8.97 million (loan 14.95 million x 60%).

Note 48) 5 billion won was the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 5 and the deposits 2.7 billion won held by Nonindicted Co. 5 to be taken over by Nonindicted Co. 13 as collateral, and borrowed KRW 5 billion from Nonindicted Co. 13 as collateral, and the funds used for the remaining KRW 3.1 billion of the acquisition fund and all the merger expenses were to be financed by lending KRW 1.9 billion to Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 2 and KRW 1.5 billion of the funds for Nonindicted Co. 4 to Nonindicted Co. 13 through Puera, such as Nonindicted Co. 14.

Note 49) It is that a blank check issued on April 6, 2009 was recovered and kept, and was re-issued in the number of units per 3 billion won.

50) Of the above 4 billion won, the funds paid for capital increase with capital increase with capital KRW 3.5 billion and the remaining KRW 500 million were used for advance interest payment, etc.

Note 51) Defendant 8 prepares for the teas of Nonindicted 96, Nonindicted 97, Nonindicted 90, and Nonindicted 98

Note 52) On September 28, 2009, a loan of KRW 3.5 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4 as collateral was granted, and on October 7, 2009, a loan of KRW 3.5 billion in the funds of Nonindicted Co. 2 Co. 4 was granted, and on October 7, 2009, deposited the funds of KRW 3.5 billion in the deposit passbook in the name of Nonindicted Co. 72 Co. 4,

Note 53) 7,94,639's value 23,863,97,415's value of 7,994,639's value of 23,863,97,415's value of closing price on January 14, 2010, which is prior to the date of listing - KRW 16,067,476's acquisition price of non-indicted 5 Co. 5's shares

Note 54) 8,897,043,240 won (based on the closing price 2,985 won on January 14, 2010, prior to the listing of new shares through a merger with Nonindicted Co. 8)- Amounting to KRW 6,980,00,000 for capital increase for new shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 5 - Amounting to KRW 6,980,000 for capital increase for new shares issued by Defendant 12

Note 55) 5,189,942,377 won (based on the closing price 2,985 won on January 14, 2010, prior to the listing of new shares through a merger with Nonindicted Co. 8) - Amounting to KRW 3,500,000,000 for capital increase for new shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 5

Note 56) 593,134,425 won (based on the closing price 2,985 won on January 14, 2010, prior to the listing of new shares through a merger with Nonindicted Co. 8) - The amount of KRW 400,000,000 paid for capital increase for new shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 5

Note 57) 741,423,255 won (based on the closing price 2,985 won on January 14, 2010, prior to the listing of new shares through a merger with Nonindicted Co. 8), which was allocated with Defendant 5’s capital 5 500,000,000 won for the payment of capital increase for new shares issued by Nonindicted Co. 5

Note 58) The date of occurrence of the obligation to report is February 3, 2009, which is prior to the enforcement of the Capital Market and Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, so the report of change under Article 188(6) of the former Securities and Exchange Act must be made by the 10th

Note 59) (The price of KRW 2,664,265,714 - the purchased price of KRW 1,963,63,510) + (the price of KRW 3,243,730,820 - the purchased price of KRW 2,99,94,225 won on November 25, 2008 pursuant to the Guarantee of Investment Return Agreement) + (the price of KRW 3,243,730,820 on March 3, 2009) Sale price of KRW 2,99,94,225) reflects taxes and public charges, such as fees.

Note 60) (Amount sold 5,268,348,522 - Loan 3,99,96,960) + (The price sold by Defendant 12) price of KRW 4,345,221,343 - The cost of participating in capital increase for new shares - The price for selling KRW 2,99,99,982,720,720, such as fees, reflects tax and public charges.

Note 61) At the time of June 2009, the equity capital of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 2 was 74,232,466,606 won (1/10,7,423,246,660 won)

Note 62) Nonindicted 23 Company’s representative borrowing of name from Nonindicted 43

Note 63) Defendant 8’s purchase of shares in the name of Nonindicted Company 6 + KRW 99,443,715 + KRW 2,997,390,190 + Defendant 10’s purchase of shares in the name of Nonindicted Company 6 + KRW 118,369,930

Note 64) 998,699's value of 3,45,498,540 won calculated based on the closing price of November 6, 2009 - 2,132,000's acquisition price of non-indicted 9 corporation 1,312,00's shares of non-indicted 9 corporation

Note 65) Unfair gain 4,925,697,622 caused by the reduction in the exercise amount of appraisal right ＋ 1,323,498,540

Note 66) On February 2, 2009, the number of shares issued in blank has been recovered and re-issued again.

Note 67) 8,491,403's value of 25,346,837,955's value on the basis of KRW 2,985's closing price on January 14, 2010, which was the day before the listing date - KRW 17,067's acquisition price of Nonindicted Co. 5's shares 1,367,476's shares 17,064,954,800