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

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

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

Name of crime recognized: Occupational Breach of Trust)

- Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act

(e) Violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies;

(f) Fraud;

- occupational breach of trust

(h) Occupational embezzlement;

A. Violation of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

(j) Violation of the Labor Standards Act

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant and Prosecutor

Law Firm (LLC) B

Attorney C, D, E, and F

Law Firm G

Attorney H, I, J, K, L, M, N

Law Firm Lee & Lee

P, Q.

Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1283 Decided June 14, 2012

Seoul High Court Decision 2012No1837 Decided December 14, 2012

June 13, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. Where a defendant appealed on the remaining grounds of appeal except subparagraph 11 of the grounds of appeal only on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the appellate court’s judgment shall not be deemed the grounds of appeal, such as misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. Even if the defendant appealed on the grounds of other grounds of appeal on the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing, if the defendant withdraws the grounds of appeal other than unfair sentencing prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall not be deemed as the grounds of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do3244, Sept. 9, 2005; 2012Do571, May 24, 2012). In addition, the part rejected on the grounds of the grounds of appeal on the grounds of lack of grounds of final appeal may no longer be asserted as the defendant, and since the remanded court may not render a judgment inconsistent with this part, the defendant cannot be deemed as the grounds of appeal, and it shall not be deemed as a new 20085.205.254.

According to the records, the defendant, who was the chairperson of the R Group, was indicted on several charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "Special Economic Crimes Act"), including (Misappropriation) violations of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "Special Economic Crimes Act"), with the content that he/she committed an act of occupational breach of trust by in collusion with management of its affiliated companies, etc., and by allowing us, an affiliated company within the group to provide unreasonable financial support to T, which is a non-performing affiliated company. The court below found the defendant guilty of the remaining charges of violation of the above Special Economic Crimes Act (including breach of trust), and found the defendant guilty of the remaining charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (excluding the violation of trust), on the grounds that there were no errors in the judgment of the court below concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (excluding the violation of trust), but the remaining part of the Reasons for Appeal concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment and the Aggravated Punishment Act.

Of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant reversed the entire conviction portion against the Defendant and remanded the case. After the remand, the Defendant withdrawn all the grounds for appeal excluding the grounds for appeal on the part of the above ex officio reversal and the grounds for appeal excluding the assertion of unfair sentencing among the grounds for appeal during the 9th trial of the court below after the remand. After remanding the case, the court below found the Defendant partially guilty on the part of the crime of occupational breach of trust, which is not a violation of the Special Economic Act (Misappropriation) on the grounds that the amount of damages cannot be calculated on the part related to the crime of violation of the Special Economic Act (Misappropriation) due to the purchase by unlisted company by non-indicted 5 in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remand after remanding the case. After the remand, the prosecutor found the Defendant guilty on the part of the charges of violation of the Special Economic Act (Misappropriation) due to the high-priced purchase by two vessels owned by the company in violation of the Special Economic Act (Misappropriation), including the above part of the judgment of the court below which changed the name and applicable provisions of the Act

The grounds of appeal No. 1), U.S.’s violation of the former Securities and Exchange Act and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Accounting of Financial Statements for the 2006 Fiscal Year 2006 / [the grounds of appeal No. 2 through No. 6, and No. 12], violation of each special special law relating to X and Y corporation’s offering of new shares for the company X / [the grounds of appeal No. 7 through No. 9], and violation of the special special law due to unfair funding to T / [the grounds of appeal No. 10].

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s remaining grounds of appeal, excluding both the grounds of appeal on the part of the above ex officio reversal and the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, after remanding the case, cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Moreover, the part of the Defendant’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 through 10, and 12 in the judgment of the court below, which is dissatisfied with the above part of the judgment of the court below, cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 through 10, and 12 in the judgment of the court below, constitutes the part where the final judgment of the case was rejected and the final judgment became final and conclusive, and the Defendant is no longer allowed to delay a new argument that did not dispute the above part of the judgment

Furthermore, even after examining the record, the court below's determination that the defendant guilty of all the charges against the defendant in this part of the charges that the court below argued in the Grounds for Appeal is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the Grounds for Appeal.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 11, since the part which was not claimed as the ground of appeal was not filed in the final appeal and the final appeal became final and conclusive due to the lack of an appeal, the defendant cannot make a claim as to that part as the ground of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do265, Apr. 10, 2001; 2004Do7481, Sept. 14, 2006).

The Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 11 stated in the judgment of remanding the entire guilty portion of the judgment of the court below prior to remand that the Defendant did not state the grounds for appeal on the portion not entered in the appellate brief, such as violation of the former Securities and Exchange Act due to market price manipulation, but omitted judgment. However, the Defendant’s ground of appeal is deemed to be against the judgment of remanding that is not the judgment of the court below after remanding the allegation in the grounds of appeal, but is the same as the judgment of remand that is finalized because the Defendant did not consider it as the grounds for appeal in the previous appellate court.

It is reasonable to see that it is.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

A. Of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Protection of Management Right of AA (Misappropriation) of AA, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant’s act of misappropriation in connection with the purchase of unlisted company V by unlisted company and the occurrence of gain or loss arising therefrom is 768,00,000 won, while recognizing that the amount of profit or loss is 768,00,000 won, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s violation of the Act on Special Cases (Misappropriation) was not guilty on the ground that there is insufficient proof. However, this part of the facts charged was based on occupational breach of trust.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remanding, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles

B. As a matter of interpretation of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a prosecutor may not claim the grounds for appeal that the determination of the court below's punishment is light or that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence in the court below's finding the facts premised on the punishment contrary to the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 194Do1705, Aug. 12, 1994; 2005Do1952, Sept. 15, 2005). The argument that the court below erred in the determination of the sentencing factors in determining the punishment according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court, cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

C. Meanwhile, the Prosecutor appealed to the remainder of the facts charged by stating that the scope of dissatisfaction against the lower judgment after remanding the case as “violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Violation of the Act (Misappropriation of Trust).” However, there is no indication in the grounds of appeal as to the remaining part except for the portion of purchase by unlisted companies as seen earlier in the s

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Yang Chang-soo

[Attachment-dae]

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Kim Chang-suk.