Do 2019 Do 7901 A. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

B. Violation of the Securities Transaction Act

C. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

D. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust)

E. Violation of the Capital Market and the Act on Financial Investment Business

F. Violation of the Mutual Savings Bank Act

(g) Forgery of valuable securities;

(h) Exercising forged securities;

(i) Forgery of private documents;

(j) Exercising forged private documents;

1.(a)(b)(d)(f)(h)(i).

A

2. (c) d. e. B

Defendant A and Prosecutor (Objection against Defendant A)

Law firm Barun (limited liability) (for Defendant A),

Attorney Park Woo-young, Attorney Park Woo-young

legal entity (with limited liability) Sejong (for defendant A),

Attorney Lee Ho-hee, Choi Ho-hee, Hah-hee

Attorney Park Jong-il, Park Jong-chul, Park Jae-chul, Park Jae-young (for defendant B),

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Do735, 730-1 (Separation) decided June 3, 2019 (Joint Judgment)

September 9, 2019

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, for the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the crime around March 17, 201 among the violation (Embezzlement) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes related to C (hereinafter "Specific Economic Crimes Act") among the facts charged against Defendant A, for the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, and the violation (Embezzlement) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes related to Defendant A related to the corporation D related to the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Punishment, Etc. (

14. In light of the reasoning of the original judgment, the lower court’s judgment did not err by exceeding the limit of free evaluation of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders of public offering, by violating the logical and empirical rules. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders of public offering.

2. On the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the court below convicted Defendant A of the facts charged against Defendant A (except for the part not guilty on the grounds). Examining the grounds for the judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of the facts acknowledged in the final judgment and the establishment of a violation of the Act on the Capital Market and Financial Investment Business, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations for the judgment of the court below.

In addition, considering the age, character and conduct, and environment of Defendant A, the motive, means, and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., various circumstances constituting the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the following circumstances, it cannot be said that the lower court sentenced Defendant A to imprisonment with labor for 12 years and six months for the reasons of appeal, even if considering the circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-hwan

Justices Park Sang-ok

Lee In-bok and Lee In-chul

Justices Noh Jeong-hee