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

(Partially Accepted Crime: Occupational Breach of Trust)

B. Occupational breach of trust

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

(d) Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

(e) Violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act;

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

(g) Offering of bribe;

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Law Firm (Limited) PH

Attorney PS, PT, PL, PN

Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2014 Decided June 27, 2013

Seoul High Court Decision 2013No2178 Decided January 9, 2014

April 10, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The part rejected by the court of final appeal on the ground that the argument in the grounds of final appeal is groundless at the same time as the court of final appeal rendered a final judgment, and the defendant can no longer contest against this part, and the remanded court of final appeal cannot make a decision contrary thereto, and since the same effect applies to the part which is not brought by the court of final appeal on the grounds that a final appeal on the part is final and conclusive, the defendant cannot make any further claim as to this part as the grounds for final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do265, Apr. 10, 2001; 201Do8478, Oct. 13, 201). Furthermore, the court of final appeal is ex post facto review on the judgment of final appeal, and thus, matters not subject to the judgment in the appellate court are not subject to the scope of the judgment in the final appeal, and thus, it cannot be considered as the grounds for final appeal as to matters other than those for which the defendant alleged in the grounds of final appeal or the appellate court is subject to the ex officio (see, etc.

According to the records, if a crime of occupational breach of trust is established through an insolvent loan, the argument that the total amount of the loan should not be considered as the amount of profit in calculating the amount of profit under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, but only the portion exceeding the value of security should be considered as the amount of profit is rejected in the previous final appeal. Of the facts charged in this case, the argument that each of the loans listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 6, 7, 14, 15, and 25 of the judgment of the court of first instance has not been proved to lack of security in relation to each of the loans listed in [Attachment 1] No. 6, 7, 15, and 25 of the judgment of the court of first instance was not asserted as the grounds for appeal before remand, and the defendant's ground for appeal cannot be a legitimate

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Yong-deok.