All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal part among the violations of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies), Defendant’s violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies is based on continuous window dressing accounting practices based on a single criminal intent, and all of them should be treated as a single crime. However, the lower court’s judgment which rendered an acquittal for part of this case as a substantive concurrent crime is erroneous in misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is too

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not instruct the representative director, etc. of Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “E”) to conduct a window dressing accounting, and there was no intention to commit a crime by deceiving the damaged company to acquire money.

B) The amount acquired by the Defendant from the damaged company is not all the amount paid by the victimized company to the Defendant, but the amount calculated by deducting the management premium and the adequate amount of stocks from the price paid by the victimized company. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that applied Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes to the Defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to this part of the facts charged 1) Around early 2008, the Defendant presented false information about KRW 1.1224 million in excess of the closing balance of the inventory assets to the E accounting officer from the E office in charge of accounting, thereby hindering the auditor’s normal external audit by unlawful means, such as suggesting false information to the auditor. 2) The lower court determined on this part of the facts charged, the Prosecutor indicted for the said facts charged under Article 20(4) of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies as applicable mutatis mutandis, and charged for the external audit of the corporation.